The fragility of U.S. Alliances under Trump. What does this mean for Kosovo in an era of Transactional Diplomacy?

The recent Oval Office meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was more than just a diplomatic dispute caught on camera; it reflected the changing dynamics of U.S. foreign policy under Trump’s isolationist and transactional stance. The tense exchange, which featured accusations of ingratitude and questions over leverage, serves as a stark reminder to Kosovo, which relies on U.S. support for security and sovereignty protection. As Trump continues to prioritise his 'America First' agenda on the negotiation table, Kosovo faces an uncomfortable reality — the era of guaranteed U.S. commitment to its allies is no longer certain.

The Trump-Zelensky meeting: Transactional Diplomacy in action

The meeting between Trump and Zelensky began with the usual diplomatic pleasantries but quickly escalated into a heated confrontation. Trump and Vice President, J.D. Vance, accused Zelensky of being ungrateful for U.S. support and of overplaying his hand in negotiations. Vance, a long-time skeptic of U.S. aid to Ukraine, dismissed Zelensky’s appeals for continued assistance, framing the conflict as a burden on American taxpayers. Trump bluntly accused Zelensky of “gambling with World War III” and continuously reminded him that Ukraine lacked leverage.

Such an exchange underscores the core tenets of Trump’s foreign policy — one that prioritises transactional relationships, looks at foreign entanglements sceptically, and that publicly pressures allies in order to conform to U.S. interests. For Kosovo however, this approach is deeply concerning, given that nation’s long reliance on U.S. diplomatic and military support. The question of whether Kosovo could face a similar dynamic arises — a dynamic where Kosovo’s dependence on the U.S. is weaponised as leverage, and its appeals for support are met with demands for concessions arises.

Kosovo’s dependence on the U.S - a double-edged sword?

Since Kosovo declared independence in 2008, the United States has been its main source of security and legitimacy. The U.S. was instrumental in NATO's intervention in 1999 against the aggression of the Milosevic regime and was one of the first to recognise Kosovo's independence. Today, alongside the European Union, the U.S. continues to play a crucial role in Kosovo, providing millions in funding  and facilitating dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia in order to ensure regional stability.

The Trump administration however, is increasingly showing that this heavy dependence on the U.S. may be a double-edged sword. While American support has been instrumental in Kosovo’s survival, it also leaves the country vulnerable to shifts in U.S. foreign policy. Trump’s transactional approach —exemplified by his demand that NATO allies increase defence spending and his willingness to engage with authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin—suggests that U.S. support is no longer unconditional. For Kosovo, this raises the spectre of a future where its security is contingent on its ability to meet American demands, whether political, economic, or strategic.

The Trump administration’s growing frustration with Zelensky is particularly instructive for Kosovo. Zelensky’s appeals for continued U.S. support were met with accusations of ingratitude and a stark reminder of Ukraine’s limited leverage. This dynamic highlights the precarious position of smaller nations that depend on U.S. patronage. In a world where American foreign policy is increasingly driven by domestic concerns and a desire for tangible returns, allies like Kosovo risk being seen as liabilities rather than partners.

For Kosovo, this means that its relationship with the U.S. could become more transactional and less predictable. If Trump or a like-minded isolationist were to return to power, Kosovo might face pressure to make concessions in its dialogue with Serbia, reduce its reliance on U.S. military aid, or even align more closely with American geopolitical interests in the region. Such demands could undermine Kosovo’s sovereignty and complicate its efforts to build a stable, independent state.

The Broader Geopolitical Context: A Shifting World Order

The Trump-Zelensky meeting also reflects broader trends in global politics. The rise of multipolarity, the resurgence of authoritarian powers like Russia and China, and the erosion of the liberal international order have created a more volatile and unpredictable world. In this context, smaller nations like Kosovo are increasingly vulnerable to the whims of great powers.

Russia, which has historically supported Serbia’s claims over Kosovo, could exploit any vacuum left by diminished U.S. engagement to strengthen its influence in the Balkans. Similarly, China’s growing economic presence in the region could further complicate Kosovo’s efforts to maintain its independence. Without a steadfast U.S. commitment, Kosovo risks becoming a pawn in a larger geopolitical game.

The Trump-Zelensky meeting serves as a cautionary tale for Kosovo. As the U.S. grapples with its role in a changing world order, Kosovo must prepare for a future where American support is no longer guaranteed. To mitigate the risks posed by potential U.S. disengagement, Kosovo should consider diversifying its alliances, strengthening its ties with the European Union, and investing in its own defence capabilities.

At the same time, Kosovo must recognize that its dependence on the U.S. is both a strength and a vulnerability. While American support has been instrumental in securing Kosovo’s independence, it cannot be the sole foundation of its security. By building a more resilient and self-reliant state, Kosovo can better navigate the uncertainties of a world where traditional alliances are no longer sacrosanct.

In the end, the Trump-Zelensky meeting is not just a story about Ukraine—it is a reflection of the broader challenges facing small nations in an era of transactional diplomacy. For Kosovo, the lesson is clear: the future of its security and sovereignty will depend not only on the actions of the United States but also on its ability to adapt to a world where the rules of the game are constantly changing.