A month has passed since the U.S. elections, providing an opportune moment to assess the potential impact of the incoming administration on the Balkans. This region, long a crossroads of competing interests, already has a checkered history with President Trump, whose first term in office brought both significant shifts and considerable controversies. The Balkans, which emerged from the bloody conflicts of the 1990s, have since experienced a tenuous peace punctuated by halting progress toward democratic reforms and European integration. This has been particularly true for countries directly affected by the wars, such as Bosnia and Kosovo, where the legacy of conflict continues to cast a long shadow.
The Legacy of Trump’s First Term in the Balkans
President Trump’s first term marked the beginning of what some saw as a reexamination of the post-conflict order in the Balkans. The region’s relative stability since the late 1990s has been characterized as a “series of frozen conflicts”, where the absence of war has not translated into meaningful progress. For countries like Bosnia and Kosovo, this stagnation has paralleled a standstill in their aspirations for European Union membership. Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy—focused on striking deals rather than promoting systemic change—led to opportunities and challenges in the Balkans.
One of the most notable initiatives of Trump’s first term was his involvement in the Serbia-Kosovo dialogue. This effort sought to address one of the region’s most intractable disputes. Yet, it was accompanied by rumors of controversial ideas such as territorial exchanges, which, though never officially endorsed, gained significant traction in public discourse. While some progress was achieved, critics argue that these efforts prioritized optics over substance, leaving Kosovo’s stability vulnerable.
The meetings between Serbian and Kosovar leaders often yielded symbolic gestures rather than substantive agreements. For instance, Serbia’s pledge to move its embassy to Jerusalem—a key Trump foreign policy objective—ultimately went unfulfilled.
Serbia’s Rising Influence and Stabilocracy
The Trump administration’s approach coincided with a growing Serbian assertiveness in the region, bolstered by the consolidation of power under President Aleksandar Vučić. Vučić has adeptly leveraged a “hedging strategy, balancing relationships with Western powers, Russia, and China to reinforce his regime. This has enabled him to cultivate what analysts describe as a “stabilocracy”—a system where authoritarian practices are tolerated in exchange for regional stability.
A key element of this dynamic was establishing the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) office in Belgrade, led by Serbian-American John Jovanovic. This initiative, led by Jovanovic, with his impressive credentials in international business and development, aimed to rationalize U.S. development efforts in the Balkans, serving as a carrot to incentivize progress.
However, critics argue that these deal-making efforts, while likely not intended to do so, inadvertently bolstered Vučić’s standing and reinforced his position both domestically and internationally.
Biden’s Continuity in Balkan Policy
Despite initial expectations for a shift in approach, the Biden administration’s policies toward the Balkans have largely mirrored those of its predecessor. Under Ambassador Christopher Hill, the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade has been notably restrained in addressing Serbia’s democratic backsliding and increasing autocratization. Meanwhile, Kosovo, under Prime Minister Albin Kurti, has faced criticism from Western powers, even as Kurti’s government has taken significant steps to dismantle Vučić’s organized crime networks in northern Kosovo. This has ended the uneasy cohabitation between Belgrade’s influence and Pristina’s governance, though not without crises such as the Banjska incident and other border tensions. Nonetheless, Kurti’s efforts have laid the groundwork for greater autonomy in Kosovo’s Serbs politics, which now have a chance to break free from Vučić’s grip.
A Changed Landscape for Trump’s Second Term
When Trump returns to office in January, he will encounter a region markedly different from the one he engaged with during his first term. In Bosnia, a new government has emerged that appears to be co-opting ethnic nationalism, while paradoxically, Milorad Dodik’s grip on power is visibly weakening. Montenegro, meanwhile, remains a battleground for influence, with Serbian nationalists viewing Trump’s potential return as an opportunity to consolidate their already dominant position in the government.
Speculation about Trump’s second term has also centered on figures like Richard Grenell, whose close ties to the Vučić regime have raised concerns among Balkan observers. While Grenell’s potential role as a special envoy could see him reengage in the Kosovo peace process, his perceived partisanship has generated anxiety about the implications for regional stability.
The Broader Geopolitical Context
The geopolitical stakes for the Balkans are higher than ever, particularly in the context of the war in Ukraine and NATO’s evolving role. Early reports from Bosnian media suggest that Trump’s policies could include measures to curtail Serbian nationalist ambitions, such as those embodied in the “Make Serbia Great Again” Russian-supported campaign. However, initial euphoria among Serbian nationalists over Trump’s election has since waned, with many dismissing it as a product of Russian propaganda aimed at framing the U.S. election outcome as a strategic victory for Moscow.
As the region awaits clarity on the direction of U.S. policy under Trump’s potential second term, expectations remain tempered. The Biden administration’s continuity with Trump-era practices underscores the complexity of American engagement in the Balkans, where progress often hinges more on intensity than dramatic policy shifts. Whether Trump’s return will bring renewed focus or further ambiguity remains to be seen. Still, the Balkans—a region with a complex and pivotal geopolitical role—will continue to serve as a key indicator of U.S. foreign policy effectiveness in an era of rejuvenated great power competition.
The articles published in the “Opinions” column reflect the personal opinion of the author and may not coincide with the position of the Center
Ljubomir Filipović. Montenegrin political scientist
