What Is Behind This New Balkan Axis?

Added: 2026-05-20

[00:00:00]In March 2025, Croatia, Albania, and Kosovo signed what they formally described as a joint declaration on defense cooperation, an agreement that on its surface seems rather redundant.

[00:00:11]It's the kind of document that will be easy to overlook, particularly given that two of the signatories are already members of NATO, while the third exists under the security umbrella of the United States and NATO through KFOR. And this raises an obvious question: If the most powerful military alliance already guarantees their security, then what purpose does this mini-regional alliance serve? Well, here's the thing: States do not do this for no reason. They do not coordinate militarily out of habit. They do not build redundancy unless they think they might need it. And when they do, it usually means something has changed. To understand why this agreement even exists, we have to look beyond the document itself and take a step back. Regional military cooperation like this, especially in a space already covered by NATO, doesn't just happen because of local issues. It points to something bigger. It reflects a broader shift in how countries across Europe are starting to think about security in a world that's becoming a lot less predictable. Welcome to the Sovereign Thinker. Like, share, and subscribe so you too can be a sovereign thinker.

[00:01:15]Thank you all who have donated, and with that said, let's dive in. Southeastern Europe remains a region where political tensions have not been resolved, where conflicts that have been artificially paused continue to shape strategic thinking, and where the potential for localized instability persists. In March 2025, a trilateral cooperation between Croatia, Albania, and Kosovo, a breakaway province of Serbia whose independence is disputed, was signed based on a joint declaration on defense cooperation. Its focus is on intelligence sharing, joint military training, [music] interoperability, defense coordination, and resilience against hybrid threats. The basic idea is that this trilateral cooperation can react faster together than broader institutions can, like NATO. It's important to note that this cooperation exists within NATO, functioning as a regional layer that complements the NATO alliance rather than replacing it. So, why even create this cooperation if NATO is still the primary security arrangement? What then is the point?

[00:02:21]Well, we'll get into that in just a moment. While the official narrative is framed around regional stability and cooperation, the initiative has raised concerns in Belgrade, who see this as diminishing its own security, especially since one of its provinces is signing security agreements without Belgrade's consent. As a quick summary about Kosovo's situation, Kosovo unilaterally declared independence in 2008 from Serbia by the ethnic Albanians who formed the majority of Kosovo's population, while the Serbian minority in Kosovo doesn't recognize this declaration and see themselves as a part of Serbia. What makes this declaration interesting is how the international community reacted to it, especially when it comes to recognition. When you look at it country by country, the world is basically split down the middle. Around 100 states recognize Kosovo, while roughly 93 do not. However, the picture changes quite a bit when you stop counting countries and start looking at the population. From that perspective, roughly 85% of the world's population lives in countries that do not recognize Kosovo's independence.

[00:03:30]>> [music] >> And it gets even more striking when you realize that out of the 10 most populous countries in the world, only three recognize the breakaway province.

[00:03:41]In other words, many countries that do recognize Kosovo are smaller European states, NATO allies, or Western-aligned countries with much smaller populations overall. And since Kosovo is still overwhelmingly seen as a part of Serbia, Belgrade predictably sees this new joint defense cooperation as highly provocative. Many argue that despite the narrative of building regional stability and cooperation, this move only intensifies a potential security competition between Serbia on the one side and the trilateral cooperation on the other. Now, to return back to the obvious question, why was this agreement signed when NATO already exists? For decades, Europe's stability and prosperity really came down to one key geopolitical reality, the presence of the United States underwriting the continent's security. With US military power in the background, European states didn't have to worry about security competition amongst themselves.

[00:04:38]Washington essentially acted as a pacifier and for a time, it made the security dilemma seem like it had been resolved. It's really worth emphasizing this because a lot of the success of the European project rests on that foundation. The presence of the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War and later on just the United States helped keep the continent stable.

[00:04:59]Without that kind of external balancing force, European powers likely would have fallen back into the kind of rivalries that defined the continent for centuries. In short, European security was outsourced. However, if we scratch a little bit deeper, this arrangement through NATO did not eliminate the underlying dynamics of security competition, but rather it suppressed them. And it was only a question of time when European rivalries and insecurities would resurface and become once again front and center. And now we're seeing this become more noticeable. For example, Greece and Israel have been deepening their strategic cooperation with one another, something many see as closely tied to their respective tensions with Turkey. Even though Greece and Turkey are both part of NATO, their relationship has always been uneasy, shaped by long-standing disputes, especially over Cyprus, >> [music] >> and a general lack of trust that for years was kept in check largely by American oversight. Israel, meanwhile, isn't a NATO member, but is still deeply plugged into the Western security system. And while its main focus right now is on Iran, its growing friction with Turkey hasn't gone unnoticed in Ankara. So, what you end up with is a likelihood of a more intensified security competition. Additionally, in Eastern Europe, Poland and Romania have positioned themselves as key pillars of United States military presence on NATO's eastern flank, spanning the Baltic and the Black Sea regions, deepening bilateral ties with Washington to strengthen deterrence against Russia.

[00:06:32]However, this alignment has a secondary effect. Both states are increasingly orienting their security posture towards the United States, potentially reducing their long-term strategic reliance on the European Union and its institutions in Brussels, contributing to greater divides among EU member states. Emmanuel Macron has, on multiple occasions, warned that the old assumptions about European security are starting to shift.

[00:06:56]As he put it, "The American security umbrella is a thing of the past." Which is a blunt way of saying that Europe can't rely on the same guarantees forever. These are just a handful of examples. There are many more signs, and they all point to the same underlying shift. Subtle cracks are beginning to form, new agreements are emerging, new strategic outlooks are taking shape, states are quietly recalibrating their positions. None of this is yet institutionalized, but strategy is not built for today. It's built for tomorrow. It's about anticipating risk, adapting early, and staying one step ahead of any potential weakness in your security architecture. But why? Why is this happening? The rise of China has introduced a peer level competitor for the United States, that demands from Washington sustained attention, resources, and strategic focus. While the rise of other great powers are forcing Washington to reconsider how it allocates its capabilities across an increasingly complex global system. This does not mean the United States will abandon Europe outright, but it does mean that the structural conditions that once defined European security is giving way to something less predictable, where priorities are divided and political consensus can no longer be taken for granted. And [music] in international politics, uncertainty is the prime incentive for states to change behavior.

[00:08:20]Why states do not wait for guarantees to fail before they adapt. They adapt when they begin to question them. At its core, this is what geopolitics is all about. There's no higher authority out there guaranteeing anyone security, so when in the end, states have to look out for themselves. Alliances can help, of course, but they're never permanent.

[00:08:41]They evolve, they shift, and they depend on interests that can change over time.

[00:08:46]Now, if we turn back to Southeastern Europe, we can see this logic playing out. When you zoom out and look at the bigger picture, it becomes pretty clear that this trilateral cooperation isn't just a one-off regional move. It's part of a broader trend where countries are adjusting how they think about security in a world that's becoming a lot less predictable. So, what's really driving this trilateral cooperation between Croatia, Albania, and Kosovo, and why does it seem to position itself, at least for now, indirectly against Serbia? Well, in this changing global order, Serbia stands out as the prime beneficiary in Southeastern Europe. The country has civilizational depth, a central geographic position, and the level of strategic independence that gives it a real shot at becoming a regional pole in its own right. As the world moves toward a more multipolar setup, these kinds of traits, along with the ability to balance between bigger powers, are becoming more and more valuable. And it's something major players like China, India, Iran, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, and yes, even the United States, are paying close attention to. Historically, in systems like this, strategic autonomy can matter more than anything else. And it appears that once again, strategic autonomy will become the main geopolitical capital in the come. From this perspective, the trilateral cooperation can be understood as a preemptive effort to counterbalance that potential. These states, shaped by the lack of strategic autonomy, historical grievances, and unresolved tensions, are positioning themselves within a future regional order in which Serbia could play a more dominant role.

[00:10:26]Although NATO remains crucial to them, the uncertainty surrounding the long-term trajectory of the alliance encourages the development of parallel structures. They are essentially laying the groundwork should broader mechanisms prove insufficient. But here's the problem, they don't actually have to go down this path. There's no real need to create enemies when none necessarily exist. Instead of adapting to the changing geopolitical landscape, they risk falling back into old habits.

[00:10:55]Rather than moving toward a more stable regional balance or negotiating the regional order with Belgrade, they instead could end up just reinforcing rivalry, pushing rearmament, and fragmenting the region once again.

[00:11:09]Southeastern Europe has been here before, a region full of potential, but constantly pulled down in different directions. Even when there were attempts to build something more unified, like Yugoslavia under Serbian leadership, the timing of these attempts, as well as the structural and global conditions, just weren't right.

[00:11:28]The region was never really left to figure itself out on its own. Countries like Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, and Romania were pulled into different alliances, different systems, which gave them different priorities. But, as the global order becomes more spread out, there's a chance that the region could finally start shaping its own path, not something imposed from outside, not something forced, but something built by the countries themselves, something real. Because if the trilateral cooperation or any similar agreement in the future turn into new dividing lines instead of bridges, then nothing really changes. It just becomes the same old story again. Rivalries deepen, suspicion rises, and sooner or later outside powers step back in and start playing their games, and they always will.

[00:12:18]Thank you for listening to the very end.

[00:12:20]Like, share, and subscribe, and as always, ciao for now.