ИЗАЗОВИ АМЕРИЧКИХ ОДНОСА ПРЕМА БАЛКАНУ
CHALLENGES OF AMERICAN RELATIONS TO THE BALKANS

Author(s): Veljko Blagojevic
Subject(s): Security and defense, Military policy, Geopolitics
Published by: Institut za strategijska istraživanja
Keywords: The strategic appearance of the USA; the redistribution of global power; the Ukrainian war; the Middle East conflict; the security architecture of the Balkans
Summary/Abstract: It will not be mistaken if it is stated that since the United States gained its independence, its foreign policy performance has been crucially determined by the concepts of manifest destiny, exceptionalism, freedom and democracy. The entire history of American strategic performance in international politics is determined by these concepts, but also by rational geopolitical interests, which provides an example of balance and an answer to the question of why they became a great power and global hegemon. At the beginning of the crisis in the territory of the former SFRY, the United States supported the integrity of Yugoslavia, through support for the reform-minded Prime Minister Antе Marković and the effort to develop Yugoslavia as a complete democratic state. The Americans left it to the European Community to manage the crisis in Yugoslavia, and it had neither the mechanisms nor the potential to successfully implement it. The leaders of the secessionist republics managed to present the authorities in Serbia to the West as communist and authoritarian, thereby attracting the USA to their side, which during the 1990s engaged against Serbian interests in the process of the disintegration of Yugoslavia. The NATO Air Force was engaged against the Serbian forces in Bosnia in 1995, and in 1999 against the FR Yugoslavia, for the „protection of the Albanian people in Kosovo and Metohija”. America, in accordance with democratic and anti-authoritarian values, supported Bosnians and Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija and this support is still present today, and the question remains for the Serbian factor why it did not engage more with diplomatic means to better represent its interests. NATO’s Open-Door policy, which contributed to the dominance of the United States in Europe after the end of the Cold War, was essentially the cause of the start of the conflict in Ukraine. After unsuccessful (insincere) attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, Russia intervened militarily in Ukraine in 2022, which turned into a large-scale armed conflict. The West, led by the USA, united in support of Ukraine and provided it with military, economic, political and all other assistance in the conflict with Russia, which has been subject to many sanctions. Given that the parties to the conflict are adamant in their efforts to win this conflict, whatever that means, it is certain that the outcome of this war will affect the regional and global distribution of power. After the overthrow of Milošević from power in 2000, the United States focused its foreign policy priorities on more important regions, and assigned the European Union the role of stabilizing the post-conflict region of the Balkans. However, this time they did not repeat the mistake they made at the beginning of the crisis in Yugoslavia and are monitoring the key processes in which they intervene, discreetly or publicly, when the stability of the region is threatened. At the beginning of the war in Ukraine in 2022, the importance of the Balkans is increasing in the strategic calculations of the United States, in the context of “overtaking China and containing Russia”. In the context of the war in Ukraine, the Balkans is in a close background position, with Romania and Bulgaria facing the war zone, and the US/NATO trying not to allow the access and influence of Russia (but also China) in this region. In this context, viewed from the point of view of the USA, the position of Serbia, as a militarily neutral state, can represent a “platform” for the expansion of influence in the Balkans. However, unlike in the nineties, Washington still tries to approach Serbia with diplomatic means and with greater trust and ensure stability in the region. It seems that it is understood in Washington that Serbia has learned the lessons of the 1990s and that its strategic approach is predictable, regardless of the constant accusations from most of the capitals of the former republics of the SFRY, especially Zagreb and Sarajevo, as well as from the temporary authorities in Pristina. The US has only changed its means, but its goals in the Balkans have not changed since the beginning of the crisis in the SFRY area, and its performance is aligned with its key values and geopolitical interests, regardless of the fact that the geopolitical component of American action is mostly emphasized in Serbia.

• Details
• Contents