Democracy as a SaaS Product

For half a century, the United States positioned itself as a global provider of security and democracy—products distributed for free or for a symbolic fee in the form of allies’ loyalty. The freemium model (used by software developers who release free products with limited functionality, or full-featured versions with time restrictions) was aimed at capturing market share by creating global dependence on American stability.

In 2025, during Donald Trump’s second presidency, the United States began transitioning this model into a paid subscription, where democracy and security became products with an explicit price tag. The success of this strategy relied on three key factors:

– creating dependency through free access
– artificial scarcity of supply
– using Russia as a tool to increase demand.

Trump converted America’s moral monopoly into a commercial product—and Vladimir Putin became a key driver of this transformation.

Freemium as a Market Capture Strategy

Mechanism: Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. invested in global security through NATO, military bases, economic programs (Marshall Plan, IMF, World Bank), and diplomatic coverage. This approach resembled a classic startup-style freemium model:

– a free base product (protection from external threats, access to markets, ideological support)
– which created dependence that prepared the ground for future monetization.

European countries, Japan, South Korea, and others became “users” of this product, nearly losing the capacity for autonomous security.

Outcomes: By the 2000s, the American model of democracy had become dominant—70% of the world’s countries declared democratic principles, and NATO expanded to 30 members. Dependence on the U.S. became systemic: without American presence, European security, Asian economic stability, and even regional conflicts became unmanageable.

Conclusion: The freemium model achieved its goal—the global security market was captured, while competitors like the USSR and China failed to offer any real alternative. In fact, the alternative collapsed with the USSR. The U.S. became a monopolist, laying the groundwork for a shift toward a paid model.

Scarcity as a Pricing Tool

Trump’s Strategy: With Trump’s return to power in 2025, the U.S. began signaling its “fatigue” with the role of global guarantor. Statements about the “unfair” contributions of NATO allies, reductions or withdrawals from international organizations, and the abandonment of automatic security guarantees (notably to Ukraine) marked a paradigm shift. Trump began framing security as a limited resource—access to which depends on financial and political contributions.

Key Cases:

Ukraine: Following Russia’s open aggression against Ukraine (2022), the U.S. provided support—but with an emphasis on the “justifiability” of expenses.

U.S.: In 2025, according to The Washington Post, Trump publicly stated that Russia would not attack NATO during his presidency—implying that security guarantees depended on his personal negotiations rather than universal principles. This underscored the shift to a “security by contract” model.

NATO: Trump’s demands that allies increase defense spending to 5% of GDP transformed the alliance into a paid platform—where access to the American “security umbrella” became conditional.

Taiwan and Asia: Decreased rhetoric about defending Taiwan from China signaled that the U.S. would only provide guarantees to those who paid or offered strategic returns (e.g., market access or technologies).

Economic Logic: By creating artificial scarcity (silence on Putin’s threats, reduced presence, emphasis on “fatigue”), the U.S. maximized the perceived value of its product. Democracy and security were no longer public goods—they became exclusive services for those who could pay.

Russia as Demand Driver (and Advertising Agent)

Putin’s Role: Despite confrontational rhetoric, Vladimir Putin became the ideal “salesman” of America’s paid democracy model. His aggressive policies—Crimea’s annexation (2014), the full-scale invasion of Ukraine (2022–2025), threats to the Baltics and Poland—created global demand for American security. Every escalation, every statement from Putin reminded the world that without the U.S., stability was impossible.

Synergy with Trump:

Public Statements: Trump’s 2025 statement (The Washington Post) that Russia would not attack NATO under his presidency was no accident. It positioned Trump as a manager who alone could “negotiate” with Putin—reducing risks for solvent clients (NATO), while leaving non-payers (e.g., Ukraine) in the risk zone.

Ukraine as Example: Promoting the idea that Ukraine should negotiate with Russia was not so much support for Putin as a signal: without an American subscription, survival is not guaranteed. This increased the product’s value for other nations.

Paradoxical Cooperation: By creating chaos, Putin inadvertently advertised American security. His actions pushed Europe, Japan, and others to increase NATO contributions, buy U.S. weapons, and accept new terms of cooperation.

Marketing Effect: Russia became the “boogeyman” that highlighted the value of American democracy. Without Putin, demand for the paid model would be lower—because the world would not feel an urgent threat.

Model Outcomes and Effectiveness

Short-Term Gains:

Financial: According to SIPRI, in 2024 NATO countries (excluding the U.S.) spent $380 billion on defense, much of it going toward American weapons and technology. Trump successfully converted fear into revenue.

Geopolitical: The U.S. reclaimed its role as the sole provider of security—without the burden of free service.

Market-Based: Countries that once relied on America’s “free” democracy (Poland, the Baltics, Taiwan) began offering strategic concessions—from market access to political loyalty.

Long-Term Risks:

Loss of Trust: Abandoning universal guarantees may push countries toward alternatives (China, regional alliances).

Brand Erosion: Democracy as a paid product loses ideological appeal—potentially weakening U.S. soft power.

Dependence on Putin: If Russia de-escalates, demand for U.S. security may collapse.

Democracy as a Priced Asset

Trump didn’t invent paid democracy—he merely vocalized what had long been maturing within U.S. strategy. For decades, the U.S. had built global dependence on its security. Now it monetizes that asset. Putin—knowingly or not—became the key demand driver, creating chaos that emphasized the product’s value. The war in Ukraine, silence on Taiwan, pressure on NATO—all are elements of a single strategy: democracy is no longer a gift, but a commodity with an individual price tag.

Trump’s success lies in making the world miss the American stability it once took for granted. The question is not whether the model works, but how long the world is willing to pay for what it used to get for free.

The Vulnerability of the Subscription Model and Lessons for the World

America’s shift from the freemium model of democracy to a paid subscription—while a triumph of cynical pragmatism—reveals a critical vulnerability: the absence of guarantees. This abrupt and unbacked reversal in U.S. policy—from global guarantor to security provider on a commercial basis—undermines trust in any international agreements or alliances. Two key examples—the Budapest Memorandum and America’s current stance on Ukraine—demonstrate that reliance on external partners, even the most powerful ones, is a trap.

The Budapest Memorandum: An Empty Promise

In 1994, Ukraine gave up the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees from the U.S., UK, and Russia under the Budapest Memorandum. It was framed as a firm pledge to protect sovereignty and territorial integrity. But the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the full-scale war of 2022–2025 proved those guarantees were hollow. Despite rhetorical support, the U.S. limited its response to sanctions and partial aid—avoiding direct confrontation with Russia. The Budapest Memorandum became a symbol of the unreliability of international agreements without real enforcement.

Putin’s Advocacy: The U.S. as an Unreliable Partner

Trump’s rhetoric—and his statement that Russia wouldn’t attack NATO under his presidency—along with his silent refusal to engage actively on Ukraine, affirms a new approach: the U.S. is not only stepping back from the role of protector but acting as a broker who dictates terms to weaker players. Calls for Ukraine to “negotiate” with Russia instead of receiving firm guarantees sends a global signal: America protects only those who pay or align with its current interests. This isn’t just cynicism—it’s a demonstration that even strategic partners can be abandoned if they no longer fit the commercial logic.

Lesson for the World: Security Is Self-Responsibility

America’s shift from freemium to paid democracy exposes a harsh reality: alliances—especially with dominant powers—are traps when based on trust rather than self-reliance. The world, which once relied on the American “security umbrella,” must now rethink its strategy. Guarantees from great powers—whether via NATO or bilateral deals—are illusions that work only as long as the guarantor’s interests align.

Key Takeaway: Security is not a product to be bought or gifted. It is an asset that each nation must construct independently. This is not a call for isolationism, but for pragmatic self-sufficiency. Investment in national defense, technology, economy, and diplomacy is the only way to escape dependency. The world that accepts this reality does not rely on the goodwill of the strong—it builds its own guarantees. As Ukraine’s case shows, depending on an external protector may come at too high a cost.

A Cynical View: The world must be accepted as it is—a marketplace where promises are worthless without the power to back them. Want security? Build it yourself. Only then can you be sure you won’t be traded away for a better contract.

This analysis contains no moral judgments, as democracy is considered purely as a market product.