Before expecting salvation from America, Europe must first rediscover itself. It is becoming clear that America no longer wishes to be Europe's savior. Thus, Europe must learn to defend itself, said Croatian ambassador Zlatko Kramaric.

In an exclusive interview with ADN, the ambassador touches upon many issues troubling the world, especially Europe reminding the situation before the Second World War.

In a comment on the recent declaration between Albania, Kosovo and Croatia, Ambassador Kramaric said it is a clear message to everyone in the environment that these countries are very aware of the current geopolitical circumstances in the world [and in the region) and that they will be clearly determined. It's more about one symbolic but very important message, said the Ambassador in the following interview:

- What could you say Mr. Ambassador about the general picture of the world situation against the background of the intensified threats of war, echoed by Putin from time to time and the bloody war in Ukraine?

-The current global situation is marked by growing uncertainty and the threat of escalating conflicts on multiple fronts: the war in Ukraine, tensions in the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific region, and, in recent days, a renewed crisis hotspot – Kashmir, Africa, the Red Sea... Nor is the situation in the Western Balkans particularly promising. In short, all of this strongly reminds us of the chaotic state of affairs in 1939. That was the year when liberal-democratic forces (such as the UK and France) made rotten and unsustainable compromises with Hitler and Mussolini, unwilling to recognize that no concession — whether the surrender of Czechoslovakia or the annexation of Austria — could appease them, but rather only assisted in building the "German world."

Today, something similar is unfolding: America — particularly under Trump — is dangerously complacent about the slow but steady creation of a "Russian world" and its geopolitical expansion. The consequences of such reckless decisions could be catastrophic.

Back then, the invasion of Poland was the "red line" that finally triggered a (belated) awakening.

Today, one must ask: what would it take for the democratic world to finally realize the magnitude of the danger we face?

In short, we are witnessing a radical fragmentation of the international order and the weakening of the institutions that have provided stability since the end of the Second World War. It is important to understand that multipolarity does not necessarily lead to greater stability — powerful centres (the United States, Europe, China, Russia) increasingly find themselves in confrontation rather than cooperation.

Thus, the crucial question is whether the logic of deterrence and diplomatic balance will prevail, or whether we are heading into a new era of great-power conflict.

- Is Europe the most threatened part of a confrontation with Russia as Putin keeps repeating that the suppliers with weapons of Ukraine are at war with Russia? In the meantime, how do you explain the warning of some governments in Europe to their people to keep necessary supplies for three days?

- Today, Europe is facing an existential question: will it be a geopolitical actor or merely a geopolitical space? A subject or an object of history? Therefore, in the context of Russian threats and growing global polarization, it is crucial that the EU — and Europe as a whole — move from a phase of mere reaction to one of strategic initiative. This means Europe must strengthen its own defence capabilities and strategic autonomy, as it is increasingly evident that it can no longer fully rely on the United States. Consequently, the creation of a European military core is necessary, through greater integration of military capacities within the EU and in cooperation with the United Kingdom, Turkey, and others.

In other words, Europe must develop its own capacity for strategic action — militarily, technologically, and energetically. Dependence on others, even on allies, is no longer sustainable. Such an approach requires Germany and France to assume greater responsibility, while also fully involving Eastern European countries that feel a direct threat (such as Poland and the Baltic States). Naturally, this implies that all EU member states must have a clear and unified stance towards Russia — the EU must speak with one voice in its foreign policy.

It is deeply concerning that there are still voices within the EU that fail to recognize that Russia under Putin is a revisionist power, one that does not acknowledge the international order — the very order that guarantees the survival of (relatively) small states such as Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Slovenia, Romania, and Bulgaria. Therefore, it is essential that all EU members give unwavering support to Ukraine. This support is not merely an act of solidarity; it is a matter of our own security. If the EU cannot stabilize its own continent, its global ambitions will inevitably lose credibility.

- As a follow up do you think that Trump will assist Europe in case of confrontation as a strategic ally and in the frame of NATO in case of confrontation with Russia whose threats step up?

- No major assistance should be expected from Trump. As we mentioned in a previous interview for ADN, Europe is not only not a priority for Trump and his administration — they simply do not understand Europe. Nor do they show much willingness to change that stance. It should be remembered that during his first term, Donald Trump openly "threatened" the EU, spoke about a possible U.S. withdrawal from NATO, and conditioned America's contribution to the alliance with a series of demands — or rather, ultimatums — including increasing national defence spending from 2% to 5% of GDP. Furthermore, Trump places little importance on Article 5 — collective defence — and his attitude towards the war in Ukraine is, at the very least, questionable. He perceives the war not as a result of Russian aggression, but rather as an "unnecessary quarrel" between two sides that should simply negotiate. In doing so, he relativizes the aggression itself, shifting part of the responsibility for the invasion onto the victim, Ukraine, and presenting the conflict as a case of "mutual blame."

This stance is not just political negligence; it is a deliberate strategy. It stems from Trump’s core philosophy of power: in his worldview, there are no universal values, only interests; no rules-based international order, only deals between the strong. In that world, Putin is seen as "strong," while Ukraine is viewed as a problem.

- Please which is the stance of Croatia in face of what is happening in the tense world? Which are the measures taken by it in face of the situation in progress?

- As a member of the European Union and NATO, Croatia maintains a well-founded foreign policy based on the principles of international law, stability, human rights, and European integration. Croatia's approach to global crises typically follows several key guidelines:

Support for Multilateral Organizations – Croatia is consistently committed to working within international organizations such as the UN, EU, NATO, and OSCE. In times of crisis, Croatia often advocates for diplomacy and cooperation through these institutions to find sustainable and peaceful solutions.

Support for Peace and Stability – Croatia actively supports efforts to preserve peace and stability, particularly in its immediate neighbourhood and in regions historically linked to its own security and political interests (Southeastern Europe and the Balkans).

Commitment to Human Rights – In crisis situations, Croatia tends to provide assistance to refugees and vulnerable groups, often participating in humanitarian efforts, especially during refugee crises.

European Approach – As a member of the EU, Croatia actively engages in European initiatives aimed at addressing global crises, whether political disputes, economic challenges, or humanitarian emergencies.

Maintaining Neutrality in Certain Situations – In some cases, Croatia adopts a more neutral stance regarding crises outside of the EU, emphasizing dialogue and diplomacy over military intervention.

-Taking advantage of the situation do you think that Serbian President Vucic will boost efforts to carry out the old Serb scheme of creating the Serbian World? What is the importance of the military pact between Croatia, Albania and Kosovo against the current background?

- There is no doubt that Aleksandar Vucic skillfully balances and manages to sit on multiple chairs at once. Serbia, for instance, formally condemns the violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity at the United Nations, yet refuses to impose sanctions on Russia. It uses the ongoing war to further solidify a "neutral" image before its domestic audience, while simultaneously seeking greater favour from the West — leveraging opportunities in energy supplies, loans, political concessions, lithium exploitation, and military aircraft purchases.

Vucic also believes that the new U.S. administration will offer him "better days" regarding his regional policies — providing soft but continuous support for Milorad Dodik’s secessionist activities, overlooking Serbia’s persistent refusal to engage meaningfully in dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, and expecting no pressure to recognize Kosovo — a move that would carry a high political cost domestically. Moreover, Vucic anticipates that the United States will completely abandon support for the Serbian opposition, thereby tolerating his increasingly authoritarian style of governance. Vucic has no intention of giving up on the idea of the "Serbian World," and in these ambitions, he enjoys strong backing from the Serbian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Porfirije, and Milorad Dodik.

It is important to note that, for now, the concept of the "Serbian World" is envisioned primarily as a form of "soft power," since Vucic recognizes that the time is not yet ripe for any direct political integration. In short, Aleksandar Vucic currently demonstrates a high degree of pragmatism, flexibility, and political opportunism within the international and regional environment.

The European integration process is used to legitimize his government and attract foreign investment, while the actual democratization and rule of law are systematically slowed down — a reality that has recently driven students to take to the streets and squares of Serbian cities.

Vucic openly plays the card of "geopolitical realism" with EU leaders — offering stability in exchange for minimizing criticism.

The recent declaration between Albania, Kosovo and Croatia is a clear message to everyone in the environment that these countries are very aware of the current geopolitical circumstances in the world [and in the region) and that they will be clearly determined. It's more about one symbolic but very important message.

- In the meantime, how do you see the wave of anti-Vucic protests across Serbia? Could it be considered as 'Serbian Spring'?

- The recent developments in Serbia, particularly the student protests, highlight significant political dynamics and widespread dissatisfaction within society, especially among the youth. The protests, cantered on issues such as media freedom, the fight against corruption, and political authoritarianism, clearly signal a desire for radical change in the social and political environment — one where the government would act responsibly toward its citizens.

However, whether these events can be neatly labelled as a "Serbian Spring" remains uncertain.

Of course, if by "spring" we mean a desire for profound societal change, these protests indeed carry elements reminiscent of other "springs" — the Prague Spring, the Croatian Spring, the Arab Spring... However, it is worth recalling that these movements largely ended in failure, often leading to even harsher political environments, increased repression, and the further suspension of fundamental human and civil rights.

The renowned Czech politician and writer Zdenek Mlynar wrote an excellent book titled "The Frost Comes from the Kremlin", offering insights into how party apparatuses can successfully suppress any attempts at democratization.

Against this backdrop, how should we interpret the religious-political visit of Porfirije, Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church, to Kirill, Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church — both of whom were received by Vladimir Putin? During the visit, Porfirije described the student protests as a "colour revolution" allegedly orchestrated by Western intelligence services. He also pledged, despite EU sanctions, that Aleksandar Vucic would attend Victory Day celebrations on May 9 in Moscow. Furthermore, Porfirije seized the opportunity to emphasize the "shared interests" of the "Serbian" and "Russian" worlds. Unlike some analysts, we believe that Porfirije, rather than Vucic, holds the dominant influence over Serbian politics.

The "Serbian world," in our view, corresponds to the territorial boundaries of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The Church is the actor that demands from Serbian politics the "return" of territories it lost during the wars in the former Yugoslavia — parts of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, and North Macedonia. This fundamental dynamic also shaped our critical stance toward the "Open Balkan" project.

It would be extremely beneficial for Serbian students to read Mlynar’s book, as it vividly describes how mechanisms within a party system successfully prevent any real attempt at democratizing or improving society.

- How can a lasting and just peace in Ukraine be achieved if Trump decides to reduce military and financial support for Ukraine — and potentially for other countries as well?

- His promise to end the conflict in Ukraine could easily become part of a broader strategy to diminish American engagement abroad, focusing instead on seeking diplomatic solutions that primarily serve U.S. interests. In doing so, he would be following the "America First" logic by reducing U.S. costs and military presence - even if that approach risks undermining the long-term security and stability of the region.

Putin, after all, shows no signs of intending to stop after Ukraine. We must always keep in mind that the idea of the "Russian World," or the restoration of the Soviet imperial sphere, is far from foreign to Putin’s thinking.

We are more than convinced that the new American administration is repeating the mistake of behaving like naive observers in the face of extremely dangerous Russian activities. It is high time to recognize the seriousness of the Russian threat and to abandon illusions about the possibility of peaceful coexistence without a strong and determined resistance. We must also be honest and say that we find Trump’s (often unbearable) leniency towards authoritarian regimes and leaders — such as Putin and Kim Jong-un — difficult to understand. This attitude could cause major challenges in relations with allies (the UK, Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia...), because reducing international engagement may undermine stability and the trust among America's traditional partners.

While "America First" may be appealing to those who believe the U.S. should focus less on global problems and more on domestic interests, it comes at a high potential cost to the broader international order and to America’s own long-term strategic position.