Selim Ibraimi- At the Munich Security Conference in Germany a year ago, no one thought that the decisive and strongest partners in Ukraine’s war with Russia would change so quickly. Dreams have faded and fears of another major split are growing. US officials from the Pentagon and the White House have expressed different views on the future of Ukraine and other defense issues.
Amidst all the recent confusion, fears in the EU have grown after US President Donald Trump’s phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Meanwhile, representatives of the US Treasury Department, on the other hand, have discussed the exploitation of natural resources as a way to exchange support for Ukraine or perhaps support in diplomatic talks with Russia. Official Ukraine has rejected any agreement between Russia and the US without the presence of Kyiv. Here we do not doubt that it is sliding towards the tragedy of the weak states by the great. Depending on the international situation, the tragedy or success of this voyage will depend on the position of the opposing states in the negotiation process and the balance of power on the ground.
Ukraine and other powerless states will undoubtedly face obstacles. Negotiations on Ukraine will begin this week in Saudi Arabia, and the future is unknown. In addition to the diplomatic side, information that the US is abandoning Ukraine became clearer when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced at the meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group held in Brussels on February 12 that the process to end the war will not include Ukraine’s membership in NATO, nor the return of territories lost after 2014. He stressed the need for increased European leadership in security assistance to Ukraine. Foreign observers have expressed concern that the US is signaling changes in its stance and position on Ukraine, including security guarantees that it will not join NATO; there is no return to the pre-2014 borders; no US troops in Ukraine; NATO Article 5 cannot be applied, and there can be no talk of a NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine.
From this position, we can say that American support for most military funds in the future will be limited not only to Ukraine but also to other countries that are approximately in the same situation as Ukraine. The unexpected and frightening American stance for Europeans has been commented on as a major change. The US finally gave up on Ukraine’s membership in NATO. This is indeed tragic for the future of Ukraine, but not for Washington.
Critics of US foreign policy towards Ukraine have said that if this stance had been maintained until the beginning of the war in February 2022, the war and hundreds of thousands of victims would have been avoided. Despite current developments, uncertainty about the fate of not only one state continues. President Trump said the West was to blame for promising Ukraine NATO membership. The US could have taken this position long ago, but the administration of former President Joe Biden supported the Ukrainian project with nearly 300 billion US dollars.
The US criticism did not go unnoticed in Brussels and Munich. The EU representative for foreign affairs and security policy Kaja Kallas has stated that Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity are unconditional. “Our priority now must be to strengthen Ukraine and provide strong security guarantees”. “In any negotiations, Europe must have a central role”.
The UK Ministry of Defence has also come out in support of Kyiv. “In support of European security – we are and we will be”. “We are determined to end Putin’s war”. “Peace through strength”. While the statements of European officials have continued, the rift between the EU and the US cannot be hidden and will remain for a long time. While things are moving rapidly, the issue that worries us most is the reflection of US security policies and the fate of Ukraine, which as we have emphasized in our previous articles will have an impact on the open issues in the Balkans and the direction of the region. A war that was so strongly supported by the international community is coming to an end. Now, as the US says, it is time for peace negotiations, since the US is not able to continue financing the war.
On the other hand, uncertainty continues in the Balkans and if the US withdraws from its decades-long strategic engagement with Europe, peace, stability, and open issues in the Balkans will become part of this withdrawal. Bosnia and Kosovo are being put at risk, and the same model of starting negotiations with Russia can be applied to them, even without consulting the respective countries.
Now that Ukraine’s application for NATO membership signed in 2022 is almost refused by the US, then what lessons can others learn? As the rift between the US and EU countries continues, the security and defense challenges for the EU will be permanent. It is too early to talk about a significant US military withdrawal from Europe and the Balkans, but all options are possible. The US has changed a lot and these changes are the result of long-term mismanagement over at least the last 40 years. In this context of US strategic engagement and withdrawal, the risk is high that some countries will face a bad outcome and some a good one.
The great divide in Munich between the US and the EU, and the fate of the diplomatic talks in Saudi Arabia will have long-term consequences like the decisions of the Potsdam and Yalta Conference (1945). All of this should be observed in the context of Bosnia and Kosovo with special emphasis on North Macedonia.
The article was written specifically for Portalb.mk. The publication rights belong only to Portalb.mk and the author, according to the agreement between them.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.