The century-old turn of American politics

The stalled war between Kosovo and Serbia and the "erasure of European civilization" are a distraction from the essence of the NSS, a new policy that marks the end of the unipolar world.

1.

I met an old American diplomat friend, a long-time Biden supporter, and he told me that President Trump is doing more for the Western Balkans than President Biden, taking as a reason the ultimatum that the US administration has given to Serbia regarding Russian ownership of the oil industry (NIS), namely an ultimatum to break away from Russian energy dependence. If Serbia were to take this step, Russia would lose one of the pillars of influence over this country, which was supposed to allow it to break away from other points of influence in the sphere of security and foreign policy.

It is a paradox, he admitted, for a supporter of President Biden (and a member of his foreign policy team for the presidency) to declare that a strategic move by the Trump administration could make more than four years of power struggle in Belgrade shift to the side of the West.

A few days later, NSS 2025, the US National Security Strategy, was published, the document of the most dramatic turn in American foreign policy this century, and indeed since the fall of the Berlin Wall. In it, my friend's paradoxical statement took on an expanded form in Serbia-Kosovo relations, because it was announced that President Trump had negotiated peace between the two countries within this year. 
Although the leaders of the two countries have not announced such a thing throughout this year and different interpretations can be made about this, let us take for a moment the paradox of a negotiated peace, which the leaders of the two affected countries do not know about. So, the statement that the American president has achieved peace between Kosovo and Serbia means further responsibility of the three countries for maintaining peace - Kosovo, Serbia and the US, as well as the responsibility of any of the two countries - Kosovo and Serbia - for actions that disrupt peace between the two countries.
The NSS thus becomes the determinant of new realities.

2.

also Arberi 6th of 2026 Did Serbia read Washington better than Kosovo?

The White House document is the most radical U.S. foreign policy shift since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and in my reading, it is due to two essential factors. The first is the correct reading of the historical moment. The NSS declares the end of the U.S. era as the sole global power, identifies a mistaken American strategic belief (“that is, by opening our markets to China, encouraging American businesses to invest in China, and giving China our manufacturing, we would facilitate China’s entry into the so-called “rules-based international order.” This did not happen. China became richer and stronger, and used its wealth and power to its considerable advantage”), defines the need for “strategic stability with Russia,” and sees a new Middle East as a point of coordination in American policies not only on security but also on nuclear energy, artificial intelligence, and the like. 

The second is—and here's another paradox—the ideological reading of the historical moment. In this entire strategic reset, the NSS sees Europe, a natural American ally, through the eyes of the MAGA ideology.  
“Continental Europe has lost a share of global GDP - from 25 percent in 1990 to 14 percent today - partly due to national and transnational regulations that undermine creativity and hard work.

But this economic decline is eclipsed by the real and bleaker prospect of the erasure of civilization.

The biggest issues facing Europe include the activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political freedom and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating conflicts, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, declining birth rates, and the loss of national identities and self-confidence.

3.

This point has caused immediate reactions from politicians and intellectuals across Europe, who have not yet forgotten the speech of Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Conference in which he openly advocated for European far-right groups. When the NSS says that “we want to support our allies in preserving Europe’s freedom and security, while restoring Europe’s civilized self-confidence and Western identity”, this is read everywhere in Europe as a recipe for a policy that will make efforts to replicate the policy of the American president, something that has already begun with Prime Minister Orban and his MEGA (Make Europe Great Again) like-minded people.
This is a double paradox of the NSS, because it establishes two essential principles of the new world order. First, the Monroe Doctrine of the 19th century is revived, with which the whole of America, from Alaska to Argentina, becomes an American sphere of interest, in which no one can interfere. The paradox is that this doctrine was part of a tacit agreement: America would not allow interference in its hemisphere in exchange for American non-interference in European wars. This time, the US demands that no one interfere in its hemisphere, while it will determine what Europe will look like. And, the second paradox is the demand that international relations be the product of actions between sovereign states, but at the same time sovereignty is also the right of European states to determine separately and jointly what their values ​​will be. The NSS, with its language similar to the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, considers European values ​​​​as part of the decadence of the continent

4.

But some of the European reactions, especially if they dwell on the issue of values ​​and definitions that may sound offensive (“the real and bleak prospect of the erasure of civilization”) may have the similarity of a magician’s spectator looking at the wrong hand, the one that attracts attention but does not do the “magic.” 

The NSS is presenting a strategic reconfiguration that begins with a comprehensive confrontation with China and continues with a natural geopolitical flow across the globe. In this vectorial reconfiguration, Europe has neither the role of initiator nor of obstacle; over the past four years, and even more so since 2014, Europe has failed to stop Russian aggression in Ukraine. If this responsibility is taken and carried out by the US, the result will be “strategic stability with Russia”, a rebalancing of political, military and economic relations that will have a direct impact on Europe. Europe – with the proposed reconfiguration of the NSS towards China, Russia and the Middle East – assumes the role of recipient of the consequences of the reconfiguration, not an active actor in determining the reconfiguration.

Moreover, this historical American turn - perhaps stripped of ideologies but with the remaining vectors - will be American foreign policy for future presidents, regardless of their party.

For Europe, the issue of JD Vance's support for European far-right parties will have to be a secondary and transitory issue. What will remain is the possibility of a tectonically altered world in which Europe's position is that of a secondary role.