A new era for the Western Balkans: U.S. analysts signal reduced engagement, urge regional responsibility

At the Pupin Initiative forum in Belgrade, geopolitical analyst George Friedman and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Philip Reeker delivered a sobering message: the United States is scaling back its decades-long intensive involvement in the Western Balkans. Their remarks signal a strategic pivot, urging regional actors to take greater responsibility for their stability and development in a rapidly evolving global landscape.

A shift in U.S. strategy

George Friedman, founder of Geopolitical Futures, emphasized that the U.S. is not withdrawing from global affairs but is recalibrating its role, shifting the burden of addressing international challenges to regional players. “The world has changed, and it is capable of solving its own problems. We are not responsible for the entire planet,” Friedman stated. “The Germans are responsible for Germany, the Serbs for Serbia, and we for the United States.”

He cited the war in Ukraine to challenge perceptions of Russia as a dominant threat, noting, “After three years of war, Russia has failed to conquer Ukraine.” Friedman also framed the U.S. retreat as a systemic shift, not merely a policy tied to President Donald Trump. “Trump is reducing American exposure to the rest of the world,” he said, adding that this change would have occurred regardless of leadership, though perhaps “in a more polite way.” Historically, the U.S. intervened reflexively in global crises, from Asia to Africa, but Friedman argued this approach is fading.

Philip Reeker echoed this sentiment, declaring the era of robust U.S. engagement in the Balkans over. “Thirty years ago, after the Dayton Accords, the Balkans dominated American foreign policy. Today, the region overestimates its importance,” he said candidly. While acknowledging the Western Balkans’ strategic role as an energy crossroads, Reeker noted the growing influence of third powers in the region. He expressed puzzlement at pro-Russian sentiments in some Balkan circles, particularly in Serbia, stating, “I see nothing tangible that Russia has offered Serbia.”

Reeker praised Belgrade as a “modern European city, vibrant with innovation, technology, and science,” urging it to reclaim its regional leadership through peaceful means and a committed European path. However, he cautioned that the U.S. will no longer serve as a guarantor, describing its future role as “significantly limited” compared to the past three decades.

Implications for the Western Balkans

The remarks by Friedman and Reeker send a clear message to Balkan leaders: reliance on Washington is no longer viable. The region must now address its challenges – bilateral disputes, institutional development, and European integration -independently. This shift does not signal complete U.S. disengagement but rather a more detached, demanding relationship that prioritizes regional self-reliance.

For Belgrade and its neighbors, this moment presents both a challenge and an opportunity. The Western Balkans must demonstrate institutional maturity, resolve conflicts through dialogue, and prove that their European aspirations are more than rhetoric. As Reeker and Friedman underscored, the responsibility for shaping the region’s future lies squarely with its leaders.

Friedman’s Bucharest perspective

Before arriving in Belgrade, Friedman visited Bucharest, where he offered insights into Romania’s concerns about Russia’s demands in Ukraine negotiations. He noted that Russia seeks formal U.S. recognition of its control over Crimea, which it has held since 2014. Friedman suggested this could be a “low-cost concession” given the unlikelihood of military efforts to reclaim the peninsula. However, he highlighted Romania’s apprehensions:

“The Romanians see [recognition of Crimea] as a fundamental threat. If Crimea’s occupation is recognized, wide areas of airspace and critical waterways would also be acknowledged as belonging to Russia. The area in question involves parts of the Black Sea vital to Romania, including the site of a future energy project that Bucharest hopes will make it a gas provider for southeastern Europe.”

Friedman proposed that the U.S. could agree to cede Crimea with limits on Russia’s control over airspace and waterways to address Romania’s concerns. He found it curious that Romanian nationalists appeared unconcerned, despite their usual focus on national interests, while Europeanist factions viewed the issue as a significant challenge.

Caption: George Friedman [L] in Belgrade. Photo from the X account of the Pupin Initiative.