The doctrine of “America First” shifts the focus away from global engagement toward narrowly defined U.S. interests, within which the Western Balkans are scarcely mentioned.
The doctrine of “America First” shifts the focus away from global engagement toward narrowly defined U.S. interests, within which the Western Balkans are scarcely mentioned.
The President of the Atlantic Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Professor Dijana Gupta, notes that the new U.S. National Security Strategy clearly states that “America must come first.” This primarily refers to national security, the economy, the fight against drug cartels, and migration policy.
“The United States has helped many people around the world throughout its history, but that assistance was often not sufficiently appreciated. Now Donald Trump wants others to feel what it looks like when America First means taking care of itself and its own citizens,” she says.
According to Gupta, a key priority for the U.S. administration remains halting major war hotspots in Ukraine and the Middle East. Nevertheless, she emphasizes that the strategic partnership with Europe remains strong. “Too many vital interests bind the United States and Europe for this relationship to be called into question. In a multipolar world full of challenges, the security dimension remains of paramount importance,” Gupta underlines.
The Western Balkans in the U.S. Strategy
Military analyst Hamza Visca stresses that the Western Balkans occupy only a marginal place in the new U.S. strategy.
“In essence, we are not significantly covered by this strategy—neither Bosnia and Herzegovina nor the region as a whole. We are most often mentioned in the context of relations between Kosovo and Serbia. Everything else is focused on the Western Hemisphere and the economic interests of the United States,” Visca explains. However, he highlights one important message in the document: “The United States may no longer be ready to intervene in the way it once did, but it is prepared to stabilize situations and act where an environment can be created for serious American investments. If conditions are created for the entry of American capital into Bosnia and Herzegovina, that also implies a readiness to protect the space where the interests of partner countries align with those of the United States.”
From this, Visca argues, Bosnia and Herzegovina can draw a clear conclusion: the deeper its relations with the United States and the more open its economy, the stronger the protective umbrella will be.
“We hope that the Southern Gas Interconnection will be one such example. But we also need to think about other areas, such as the defense industry. Such cooperation would enable the development of capacities and attract American capital,” Visca adds.
The Balkans as a Geopolitical Focal Point and the Responsibility of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Returning to the broader context, Gupta emphasizes that the Western Balkans must remain within Euro-Atlantic structures. “The region has no future if it remains outside NATO and the European Union (EU). The Balkans are strategically too important to be forgotten. For peace, economic development, and democracy, integration is key,” she says.
With regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina, she warns that it is a politically complex country where achieving consensus is extremely difficult.
“Bosnia and Herzegovina is stuck in a political ‘vicious circle’ and can hardly achieve more substantial progress without the support of the United States and the EU. That is why our politicians must build policies based on compromise and mutual respect. Preserving peace is the most important priority,” Gupta stresses.
The importance of Western support for the Balkans is also highlighted by military and political analyst Nejad Ahatović. He believes that a change in the U.S. approach to NATO enlargement would “make the political path toward the Alliance more difficult” for Bosnia and Herzegovina and other potential candidates from the Western Balkans.
He therefore warns: “This could strengthen the influence of other powers in the Balkans, such as Turkey and Russia, because the lack of a clear membership perspective deepens internal divisions and encourages forces opposed to European integration.” Ahatović supports his argument by noting that “Turkey, through the sale of weapons—including drones—to Western Balkan countries, simultaneously strengthens its political influence in the region,” while Russia, as well as China—the main global competitor of the United States—already have their own “footholds” in the region.
“Serbia is the largest purchaser of Russian and Chinese weapons in the Western Balkans, while at the same time Belgrade is actively developing its economic ties with China,” Ahatović points out.
The Role of the United States in Bosnia and Herzegovina: “They Will Not Withdraw”
For security expert Vladimir Vučković, it is crucial that the role of the United States in Bosnia and Herzegovina remains long-term, regardless of the broader guidelines set out in the Strategy.
“The United States will not abandon its key role in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We must not forget that the Dayton Peace Agreement is one of the greatest foreign policy successes of the United States in modern history,” Vučković says.
He recalls that Washington has previously expressed dissatisfaction with insufficient defense investments within NATO, but that this does not pose a threat to the Balkans; rather, it represents an internal issue within the Alliance.
“Regardless of whether Bosnia and Herzegovina joins NATO or not—a question on which there is currently no consensus within the country—it is important that it maintains its course toward the European Union,” he emphasizes.
Vučković also points to the importance of the EUFOR Althea mission.
“The mission is capable of responding adequately to all challenges and threats that might arise. Its role remains crucial,” he adds.
Fewer Expectations, but More Opportunities
The new National Security Strategy does not devote much space to the Western Balkans, but it sends clear signals. The United States will be engaged where there are stable institutional partners and a clear economic interest.
According to analysts, for Bosnia and Herzegovina this is a message to rely less on external engagement and to work more toward internal consensus and strengthening ties with both Washington and Brussels. Because, as Hamza Visca notes, where American funds enter, the United States has no intention of losing them—but of protecting them.
Sarajevo Times