Webinar: "Sunset and the emergence of superpowers in the international order"
Ibn Sina Scientific Research Institute

Dr. Kazem Zoghi Barani
American geopolitics in the Western Balkans
What I will talk about concerns American geopolitics in the Western Balkans. Of course, to the extent that we can have a valid picture of the geopolitical position of a country. In this sense, the analysis of regional policies and lower ranks will not bring any benefit. Therefore, we will limit ourselves to two segments. The first is an explanation of the American geopolitical position, and the second is the issue of the Balkans.


American foreign policy, in the last half century, had the preconditions for the use of hard force. Unilaterality after the collapse of the two blocs and the continued use of hard force, entering from one crisis to another, all this has led to the loss of other political-economic, socio-cultural, diplomatic capacities, as well as science and technology.
With all this in mind, US strategic documents, such as the National Security Strategy Paper, especially after 2015, reflect the internal changes of American society and form views on the options and requirements of this country's strategic policy, and the behavior of political officials is a confirmation said. Policies formed on this basis deny America’s military and security interference in different parts of the world, in the way it has in the past, but require other countries to accept greater responsibility for their own security. These strategic documents explicitly point to the Korean Peninsula, the European Union, countries in the west and east of Asia. They also insist on the need to reduce America’s military and security spending, and the structural demands stemming from the U.S. government’s rising debt as well as greater focus on the Far East sphere are necessary to accomplish this.
Following this, over the past six years, governments have insisted on economic nationalism, expanding America’s economic capacity, and the need for other countries to insure their own security costs.
Given the importance of the above facts, several judgments will be made below:
- The main priority for the United States will be the Pacific region and the China Sea.
- America will no longer take on the main and mostly monopolistic responsibility
defense of other regions.
- America does not look at Russia on a global level as it looked at the USSR.
Despite formal expressions of concern, especially regarding Eastern European countries, NATO members, and given Russia's possible interference, but American political leaders will be content with strengthening the amount of advanced weapons in the Baltic republics and other regions adjacent to Russia's western borders.
- Europe is by no means defenseless, just vigilant - relying on military
America's security guarantees - advances its internal priorities in ensuring the prosperity of its citizens. America has made it clear, in word and deed, that it will no longer tolerate the free use of its military power by other NATO members.
- America demands a larger and larger share from European NATO member countries
accepting responsibility for their role. So far, these countries have not shown much desire to take concrete steps in support of NATO. One gets the impression that the last entry of new members into NATO has actually gone in the opposite direction. An analysis of these contradictions shows that by seeking a more active role for other NATO members in terms of budget share and acceptance of responsibility, America will reach for its priorities in the Far East. Washington inevitably, by increasing its military spending, covered the process of reducing other factors that shape national power. The policy of unilateralism, double standards in defining human rights, peace and terrorism, ignoring the laws of free trade, economic nationalism, led to the formation of a gap among the allies and the formation of a front of resistance against such action. In addition, the reflection of internal American changes, especially the 2020 presidential election, is an indicator of additional problems, especially the pronounced social stratification and gap in this country. Continuous wars have eroded American capacities and American security is showing signs of stratification in the economic, socio-political and cultural spheres. U.S. political officials can no longer stir wars beyond their borders. American geopolitics in the Western Balkans could be interpreted in this context.
The second segment is the analysis related to the Balkans. The root of the crisis in the Balkans goes back to the domino effect on the collapse of the USSR in the two-bloc world, in the early 1990s. The absence of a superpower in this region and the resurgence of ethnic demands that have historical and cultural roots have produced a crisis in this region. In the continuation of this crisis, there were regional wars, which caused great damage to the peoples and regional countries. In the end, the way out of the crisis was the Dayton Peace Agreement.
It is clear that renewed ethnic demands, political obstruction in BiH, instability in Montenegro and Kosovo's protracted process of full independence show that the Dayton mechanism has not worked properly and that the focus of the Balkan crisis is still out of control. In doing so, the Russians are acting with the intention of jeopardizing the Kosovo plan, and they also oppose NATO expansion in the region. In the context of what has been said, American steps towards the appointment of Matthew Palmer as the US State Department's special envoy for the Balkans can be interpreted. The result of the analysis of the committee S