By Emir Hadžikadunić and Sead Turčalo
In 2018, a discreet encounter between Peter Marocco—a senior American official close to the Trump administration—and Milorad Dodik flew under the radar of BiH’s political discourse. ProPublica later revealed that then-U.S. Ambassador Maureen Cormack was deeply unsettled by the meeting. Her objections reflected both longstanding U.S. policy in the Balkans and mounting frustration over America’s changing foreign-policy priorities, where traditional alliances were being deprioritized .
Dodik—who openly challenges the Dayton Peace Agreement, nurtures separatist aspirations, and was already under U.S. sanctions—came to symbolize Washington’s shifting posture toward global flashpoints. Today, Marocco serves as the U.S. State Department’s number-two at USAID, on a mission to overhaul the very institution that has long been a cornerstone of America’s development-aid influence.
Marocco’s rapid ascent is emblematic of deeper changes in U.S. strategic thinking. In the opening weeks of the current administration, Washington reframed its threat assessment: Russia has fallen from its perch as America’s primary geopolitical adversary, while Ukraine confronts the stark possibility that the U.S. may soon press it to accept territorial losses and a reconfigured state reality .
This shift exacerbates the fragmentation of Europe—recently America’s closest strategic partner. After U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance’s address at the Munich Security Conference, Western unity, especially among liberal-democratic nations, has shown alarming fissures. Liberal elites now appear paralyzed before a resurgent right-wing tide, even as Russia and European sovereigntist movements embrace the emerging status quo.
The Deconstruction of the Liberal Order
The ideological contours of this new order echo the Eurasianist vision of Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin. Dugin argues that the U.S.-led unipolar, liberal world is collapsing, giving way to a multipolar landscape of sovereign civilizational blocs—Russia, China, the Islamic world, and Europe’s radical right.
Under this doctrine, universal human-rights norms and free-market principles are to be discarded, and liberal institutions like the EU and NATO dismantled. A Moscow–Beijing axis forms the backbone of this emergent order, bolstered by alliances with right-wing European parties and Asian powers such as Iran .
Although Trump’s administration does not explicitly adopt Dugin’s creed, its skepticism toward NATO, embrace of protectionist trade policies, and tacit support for nationalist movements in Europe inadvertently advance aspects of Eurasianism. The crucial divergence lies in their stance toward China: Dugin envisages China as a partner, whereas Trump treats Beijing as America’s foremost rival.
Bosnia and Herzegovina in the World without safe allies
For BiH, the age of secure, unconditional Western intervention is over. Traditional foreign-policy assumptions—relying on U.S. protection, European integration, and an unwavering “pro-European” identity—face new constraints. What does “being pro-European” mean when Europe itself is split between liberal democracy and nationalist sovereignty? Are today’s torchbearers Meloni, Orbán, and Fico—or the Europe of human rights and social solidarity?
Milorad Dodik’s realpolitik, banking on a transient American liberal-interventionist stance under Ambassador Murphy, may have outpaced many pro-Bosnian politicians.
What are the options?
• Should pro-Bosnian forces adapt to Trump-style realpolitik, even if it means compromising with U.S. pragmatism?
• Can we rely on the American “deep state” to reverse these trends once Trump departs?
• Is closer alignment with Europe’s liberal factions—despite their own divisions—a viable path?
• Might Germany, France, or the U.K., acting independently of U.S. priorities, mentor BiH geopolitically?
• Could we forge alternative alliances with regional powers such as Turkey?
• Is there potential in Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic clout, given its historical ties to BiH and its rapport with Trump‐era circles?
• Should we open a frank, regional dialogue with Belgrade and Zagreb to seek home-grown solutions?
• Or is it time to adopt an opportunistic “balancing on all sides” approach—or, better yet, to stake out a clear, long-term orientation?
These dilemmas admit no easy answers, and neither Europe nor pro-American Middle Eastern regimes offer off-the-shelf blueprints. At present, however, formulating the right questions is more urgent than settling on final policies. Without precise questions, we cannot grasp the complex geopolitical landscape in which Bosnia and Herzegovina must now think—and act—strategically, rising above emotional rhetoric and sentimental moralism.
Authors:
Dr. Emir Hadžikadunić is a former ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Iran and the Gulf States with a Ph.D. in international relations from the International University of Sarajevo. He has authored two books—From Dayton to Brussels and Why Iran—and numerous scholarly articles. A columnist for outlets such as Al Jazeera Balkans, Al Jazeera English, and Fair Observer, he currently lectures at SSST and serves as a guest lecturer at several foreign universities. He is a member of the Institute for Geopolitics, Economy, and Security.
Dr. Sead Turčalo is Professor and Dean at the Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Sarajevo, where he earned his doctorate in security studies. He teaches courses in Geopolitics, International and Energy Security, and Conflict Management, and coordinates interdisciplinary doctoral programs. He has published five books and numerous articles, participated in international conferences, and led projects with institutions such as OSCE and IOM. A Stanford Leadership Academy alum, he is Vice President of the Atlantic Initiative and a member of the Institute for Geopolitics, Economy, and Security.