.jpg)
Recent diplomatic maneuvers—most prominently the talks in Riyadh where the Russian delegation reportedly pushed for a rollback of NATO’s post-1997 expansion—signal a possible “New Yalta” approach to global politics. This term, reminiscent of the 1945 agreement that carved spheres of influence in postwar Europe, raises alarms for many smaller states caught in geopolitical crosswinds. Now, with the return of Donald Trump to the White House and the visible reorientation of U.S. foreign policy, the question stands: Could the Balkans, and specifically Montenegro, become collateral damage in this broader power shuffle?
A Revival of Spheres of Influence
The idea of reverting NATO back to its “1997 lines” essentially questions the security guarantees given to new members who joined after that year. This includes most of Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans—Montenegro among them. If Russia manages to persuade or pressure the United States into accepting any semblance of this position, it risks undermining the fundamental premise of NATO’s “open-door” policy and could isolate nations now reliant on the alliance for collective defense.
In this context, a potential “New Yalta” stands as more than just a rhetorical device. It reflects the possibility that Washington and Moscow might make sweeping decisions with minimal input from smaller allies. For Montenegro, a state that only joined NATO in 2017 and is still navigating its domestic political realignments, the stakes are exceptionally high. Losing the security umbrella, or even the impression of losing it, could embolden regional hegemonic ambitions.
Continuity of U.S. Efforts: Wooing Russia and Shifting Priorities
Despite sometimes stark differences between administrations, there has been a long-standing fascination in Washington with pulling Russia away from its close alliance with China. The strategic logic is clear: reducing Sino-Russian cooperation could offer the U.S. more leverage on the global stage. Under Trump, this inclination continues—though the approach is somewhat transactional and unpredictable.
However, President Trump has also made it clear that he sees American priorities lying more in the Indo-Pacific region than in Europe. As the U.S. focuses on countering China’s growing influence in Asia, the White House may be increasingly willing to strike deals or offer concessions in Europe that could draw Moscow closer—or at least keep it from deepening ties with Beijing. This places smaller European countries, including those in the Balkans, in a precarious position: they risk being overlooked in favor of grand strategies aimed at rebalancing power in Asia.
Montenegro’s Political Fragility
Simultaneously, the government in Podgorica grapples with internal vulnerabilities. Detractors argue that the current leadership lacks both the vision and political unity needed to protect national interests against larger regional powers. With pro-Serbian and pro-Russian narratives gaining traction in certain political circles, there is a real risk that any significant shift in NATO’s posture could leave Montenegro exposed to external pressures—whether they be territorial, economic, or cultural.
Moreover, as Russia and the United States flirt with the notion of re-dividing Eastern Europe into spheres of influence, local politicians must confront the possibility that Montenegro could become a bargaining chip. Without resolute leadership and widespread domestic support for Euro-Atlantic integration, the country’s sovereignty could be tested in ways not seen since its independence.
Calls for Unity and Vigilance
While the notion of a “New Yalta” remains speculative, the signals are strong enough to warrant proactive responses. Montenegrin civil society—students, activists, opposition parties, and ordinary citizens—will likely play an increasing role in safeguarding the country’s future. Protests and calls for reform can help ensure that any negotiation or policy shift involving Montenegro is met with informed resistance rather than passive acceptance.
In the broader Balkan context, a newly polarized world order and fresh external pressures demand a regional approach to collective security and democracy. Closer ties between Balkan states willing to uphold democratic principles and sovereignty could serve as a much-needed buffer. The global power balance may be shifting, but local unity and strategic diplomacy could help deter attempts to fold Montenegro into grand bargains that ignore its national interests.
Conclusion
A “New Yalta” in the making, should it materialize, places small states like Montenegro in a precarious position. In an era when great powers are re-asserting the primacy of self-interest, Montenegrin politics must respond cohesively, embracing a vision of sovereignty that rests on strong institutions, active citizen engagement, and unwavering adherence to Euro-Atlantic commitments. Anything less risks rendering the country a pawn in a broader geopolitical game—one that could undo years of progress and stability in the Western Balkans.
Washington’s evolving strategies—involving an enduring desire to loosen Russia’s ties with China and Trump’s declared prioritization of the Indo-Pacific region—only amplify this risk. Europe as a whole may not be high on the current White House agenda, making the Balkans particularly vulnerable. Unless Montenegro and its neighbors unite around core democratic values, the region could find itself on the losing end of a shifting global chessboard.