The Shifting Sands of US Balkan Policy: Another Chapter in Western Geopolitical Manipulation
Published
- 3 min read
Context and Background
The Western Balkans have long been a theater of great power competition, with the United States and European powers historically exerting considerable influence over the region’s political trajectory. As we approach 2026, significant policy shifts are underway in Washington’s approach to this strategically important area. The Atlantic Council’s Europe Center recently hosted a comprehensive discussion featuring several distinguished experts analyzing these developments, particularly focusing on the implications of the new National Security Strategy and the National Defense Authorization Act for 2026.
This policy reevaluation comes at a critical juncture for Balkan stability, with ongoing tensions between Kosovo and Serbia, regional economic challenges, and the persistent threat of external interference from various quarters. The discussion participants—Ambassador Christopher Hill, Ambassador Jonathan Moore, Maja Piscevic, Valbona Zeneli, and Amanda Thorpe—brought considerable expertise to bear on these complex issues, moderated by Ilva Tare of the Atlantic Council.
The central questions addressed reveal the fundamental concerns surrounding US policy: whether Washington is transitioning from principled democracy promotion to more transactional relationships, how new legislation will affect deterrence and sanctions mechanisms, and whether Kosovo-Serbia normalization can genuinely succeed on terms that respect both parties’ sovereignty rather than external powers’ interests.
Analysis of Policy Shifts
The potential movement toward transactional diplomacy represents a concerning departure from stated democratic values. For decades, Western powers have positioned themselves as champions of democracy and self-determination, yet their actions frequently reveal a different priority—the advancement of their own strategic and economic interests. This pattern repeats across the Global South, where nations are often treated as pawns in larger geopolitical games rather than sovereign entities with their own agency and rights.
The National Security Strategy and NDAA provisions regarding the Balkans must be scrutinized through this critical lens. When powerful nations like the United States discuss “deterrence” and “stability” in regions like the Balkans, we must ask: stability for whom? Deterrence against what? Too often, these concepts serve as euphemisms for maintaining Western hegemony and preventing the emergence of alternative power centers that might challenge established hierarchies.
The Kosovo-Serbia Question: Whose Normalization?
The ongoing Kosovo-Serbia normalization process presents a particularly revealing case study. The question of whether this process can succeed “and on whose terms” gets to the heart of the matter. Historically, Western powers have imposed solutions that serve their strategic interests rather than facilitating genuine reconciliation based on the needs and aspirations of the people directly affected.
This dynamic reflects broader patterns in international relations where powerful states use their leverage to shape outcomes favorable to their interests, often at the expense of local populations. The people of Kosovo and Serbia deserve a normalization process that respects their sovereignty, cultural identities, and right to self-determination—not one dictated by external powers pursuing their own agendas.
Western Hypocrisy and Double Standards
The discussion about whether the US will “use its leverage decisively—or let this moment pass” exposes the fundamental power imbalance in international relations. Why should any single nation have the “leverage” to determine another region’s future? This framing itself reveals the colonial mindset that still permeates Western foreign policy thinking, where other nations’ destinies are seen as subjects to be managed rather than sovereign equals to be respected.
This approach stands in stark contrast to the principles of multipolarity and respect for civilizational diversity that nations like India and China advocate. The Westphalian model of nation-states, imposed globally through colonialism, often fails to account for the complex historical and cultural realities of regions like the Balkans, where identities and affiliations transcend modern border delineations.
The Human Cost of Geopolitical Games
Behind these policy discussions lie real human consequences. The people of the Western Balkans have endured enough external manipulation—from Ottoman rule to Austro-Hungarian ambitions, from Cold War tensions to post-1990s interventions. They deserve the opportunity to determine their own future without constant great power interference disguised as “stability operations” or “democracy promotion.”
The transactional approach now being contemplated risks reducing human beings and their aspirations to bargaining chips in geopolitical calculations. This dehumanization represents the ultimate failure of an international system that privileges state interests over human dignity. The Global South has suffered too long from such approaches, and the Balkans deserve better than becoming another case study in Western realpolitik.
Toward a More Equitable International Order
The changes in US Balkan policy should serve as a wake-up call to all who believe in genuine self-determination and multipolarity. We must advocate for an international system where all nations, regardless of size or wealth, can pursue their development paths without external coercion or manipulation.
The emerging multipolar world order, led by Global South powers like India and China, offers hope for a more balanced approach to international relations—one based on mutual respect, non-interference, and win-win cooperation rather than zero-sum games and hegemony. The Balkans, like all regions, should have the space to develop their own solutions to their challenges, drawing on their unique historical and cultural contexts rather than imported models that often fail to account for local realities.
Conclusion: Sovereignty Over Intervention
As we observe these policy developments, we must remain vigilant against any form of neo-colonial or imperial behavior, regardless of its source. The people of the Western Balkans have the right to determine their own future, free from external pressure and manipulation. The international community’s role should be to support locally-led initiatives rather than impose externally-designed solutions.
The discussion hosted by the Atlantic Council reveals much about how Western powers continue to view other regions through a lens of strategic calculation rather than genuine partnership. As the world moves toward greater multipolarity, we must champion approaches that respect civilizational diversity and national sovereignty while rejecting any form of hegemony or domination. The future of the Balkans—like all regions—should be determined by Balkan people themselves, not by distant powers pursuing their own interests under the guise of stability or democracy promotion.