Darko Jerković, Novi list

Trump’s Peace Committee does not change the existing logic of the international order. It merely says it out loud. Sanctions, tariffs, threats, bilateral deals. The blending of state power and private interests. Security is offered—but in exchange for concessions of sovereignty.

“We are living through a moment of crisis in which European leaders justify their own strategic failures by questioning the mental health of the American president rather than confronting the same longstanding American strategy they themselves have consistently supported,” says Dr. Sanja Vujačić, a geopolitical analyst based in Paris, adding:

“The White House and the Pentagon have just reaffirmed strategic continuity: Trump’s America remains on Brzezinski’s geopolitical course, according to which Eurasia is the key to global power. The only difference lies in the way the United States expresses its will to power. To the rigid military and economic blocs and cumbersome international institutions developed by his predecessors, Trump adds transactional diplomacy, pressure, and rapid gains in order to prevent the emergence of any power or alliance capable of dominating this entire space and its resources. Ironically, that power could have been Europe in alliance with Russia, capable of competing with both China and the United States on equal terms. But in that case, the leading role would not belong to the British, the French, and the Germans…”

Not an Alternative

D.J.: What lies behind Trump’s Peace Committee? Does it signal the end of the United Nations?

S.V.: It is a new instrument of Trump’s “private diplomacy,” lacking any institutional foundation. It is not embedded within stable, formal institutions capable of implementing, supervising, and sustaining it over time independently of individuals. Its purpose is to counter the BRICS network of states more effectively than rigid Western bloc structures can. It is more agile because it allows simultaneous engagement with all actors in international relations, without any intention of permanently aligning with a single center of power.

Trump’s Peace Committee may deliver quick victories, but not lasting influence, which requires institutional support. Russia and China understand this. The next U.S. administration could easily return Trump’s agreements to conventional diplomatic frameworks, just as the Biden administration did. That is why neither Xi Jinping nor Vladimir Putin—both of whom have secured long-term political continuity—can fully rely on Trump’s agreements, particularly when they primarily serve as demonstrations of his personal dominance, as is the case with the Peace Committee.

Seen in this light, Trump’s Peace Committee is not an alternative to the United Nations. Rather, it represents a temporary bypassing of international institutions to enable the United States to confront BRICS countries individually with greater ease. The moves of his private diplomacy toward Venezuela, China, Russia, and Iran in early 2026 confirm this. Since BRICS is not a rigid military alliance but a flexible network, it has thus far eluded NATO’s traditional bloc-based framework. This is precisely why Trump is rapidly supplementing existing instruments with new tools aimed at preserving American global dominance—upon which the dominance of Western European powers within Europe also depends.

D.J.: Has peace become a private affair of the powerful?

S.V.: Trump’s Peace Committee is not yet another institution. It is simply a more candid version of the existing international order. It is an agile instrument of his “private diplomacy”—a kind of private law of the powerful. It no longer hides behind informal centers of influence such as Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission, or Davos. As the strongest power, the United States has the decisive voice. Trump is not dismantling the international order—he is stripping it bare. He removes the mask of Western hypocrisy: rules exist—but only for others.

International law without power has “no teeth.” It has no courts of its own, no police, no prisons, and no means of enforcing sanctions. It binds the weak. It constrains the powerful only if they choose to be constrained. The United States demonstrates this openly. Only Israel deals with Washington as an equal. The remaining allies remain silent. From the bombing of Serbia and the invasion of Iraq, through extraordinary renditions and Guantánamo, to targeted drone killings in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, as well as the kidnapping of the Venezuelan president, the message is unmistakable: formal rules bind only those willing to be bound by them.

Croatia experienced this firsthand. It accepted the jurisdiction of the ICTY. The tribunal operated. Indictments were issued. Judgments were enforced. Meanwhile, the powerful remained beyond the reach of those same rules.

Trump’s Peace Committee does not alter this logic. It merely articulates it openly. Sanctions, tariffs, threats, bilateral deals. The merging of state power and private interests. Security is offered—but in exchange for concessions of sovereignty. Ceasefires and “humanitarian” concessions come with an implicit claim to oil, rare earth minerals, influence, and political compliance. Peace is possible. But it always comes with collateral costs.

From Gaza to Kosovo

D.J.: Is Trump’s Peace Committee creating a new global hierarchy in which peace is purchased while sovereignty is surrendered?

S.V.: Trump chose Davos—the symbol of informal centers of global power where private elites and political leaders gather—to inaugurate the Peace Committee. There, despite the multimillion-dollar admission fees paid by corporations, he monopolized the attention of participants in order to promote the peace concept developed by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in the Gaza Strip. Admission to the Committee comes at a price: one billion dollars per country. Those who pay participate; those who do not remain spectators.

The Peace Committee is not a horizontal platform but a strictly hierarchical pyramid. At its apex stands Trump as its lifetime chairman, below him Kushner as the chief architect of its “peace solutions,” followed by states ranked according to their financial contributions, obedience, and usefulness. Democracy is no longer even simulated—the right to vote is purchased. The entire structure resembles a planetary monarchical court, founded on an authority derived from control over the Holy Land, with Jerusalem at its center, giving Trump and Kushner the ambition to shape the world’s “moral” and political order.

The model is clearly visible in the New Gaza plan. Palestinians formally remain the owners of the territory, but the actual decisions concerning governance, security, and development are made by external actors. Sovereignty becomes decorative, legitimacy minimal, while Gaza remains under permanent international—or more precisely, American-Israeli—supervision. Within this architecture, Tony Blair appears not as an elected representative but as a peace manager without democratic mandate or accountability. In this way, the Peace Committee institutionalizes peace as administration rather than political agreement: territories are not liberated—they are managed.

Whether because they think like the wise Erasmus, who argued that “even an unfavorable peace is better than a just war,” or because they are admirers of the hugely popular American television saga Dynasty, numerous countries have already joined the Committee. Others are still considering it.

D.J.: What has Kosovo gained by joining the Peace Committee?

S.V.: For Kosovo, joining Trump’s Peace Committee is not about faith in international law. It is a cold calculation of power. Since Russian and Chinese vetoes prevent its admission to the United Nations, Pristina seeks legitimacy outside formal international institutions—directly in Washington. The Committee offers what the UN cannot: political visibility, security guarantees, and recognition of statehood without requiring international consensus.

The message directed at Serbia is unmistakable. Decisions are no longer expected to be made in Brussels or New York. Entry under the American security umbrella is now sought at Mar-a-Lago, the residence of the Trump dynasty. On the one hand, the powerful U.S. military base Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo guarantees the region’s security status quo. On the other, through membership in the Committee, Kosovo purchases influence. It then hopes to convert that influence into recognition as a sovereign state, broader access to the international community, and an additional layer of American “life insurance.” In a world where law does not bind the powerful, this small and contested state has chosen its patron. The United Nations remains the symbol of an unfinished legal process. The Peace Committee becomes the political reality.

An Invitation to Croatia

D.J.: Why is Trump offering Croatia membership in the Peace Committee?

S.V.: Croatia is already paying for a triple “life insurance policy” through its membership in the European Union, NATO, and the Three Seas Initiative. These memberships provide, at least on paper, formal protection, collective defense, and regional influence. Croatia recognizes the jurisdiction of ad hoc international tribunals. It purchases American and European military equipment. It avoids provoking anyone except the Russians. It strongly supports Ukraine—exactly as expected.

Now, as a reward, Trump is offering Croatia a fourth—and the most expensive—insurance policy. Theoretically, this would give Croatia a seat at the table where the powerful shape peace. In practice, however, it would most likely mean paying for protection against the more influential members of the first three elite clubs to which it already belongs. For example, protection from Trump’s favored European leaders—Giorgia Meloni and Viktor Orbán—who periodically provoke tensions through revisionist and irredentist statements concerning Croatian territory.

As American territorial ambitions expand, similar ambitions among Trump’s European followers could also grow. Croatia therefore faces a fundamental question: how, and for how long, will it be able to afford such extensive protection for its small state? Croatia can continue to believe that Foreign Minister Mate Granić’s famous formula—”half for you, half for me, half for Bagi”—was the correct calculation. Or it can acknowledge that it was mistaken. It can finally define its own specific national interests and the real threats facing them. It can formulate an independent foreign policy designed to defend those interests against genuine external dangers. Only then will the correct calculation become clear.

D.J.: How is Trump’s Peace Committee testing the positions of European leaders?

S.V.: Among European leaders, only Giorgia Meloni accurately identified the essence of Trump’s Peace Committee. She called for a revision of its statute because the Italian Constitution permits participation in international organizations only under conditions of equality, whereas the current framework grants Trump excessively broad executive powers. It was a clear, outspoken, and statesmanlike intervention.

Meloni’s rejection was preceded by Emmanuel Macron’s own response, delivered in his characteristic “Jupiterian” style—diplomatically polished, arguing that the Committee falls outside the UN framework and could undermine the existing international order. For the French president, form often takes precedence over substance.

As a result, social media did not celebrate the Italian prime minister’s arguments but instead focused on Macron’s image in Davos—defined above all by his stylish aviator sunglasses (the Henry Jullien Pacific model, worth approximately €659). Because he countered Trump’s egocentrism with one of his own, social media portrayed him as a Hollywood hero from Top Gun, The Terminator, or even Miami Vice.

The problem is that hardly anyone believes Hollywood anymore. Nor do they place much faith in the “Coalition of the Willing,” led by France and the United Kingdom—the United States’ most loyal allies, frustrated mainly because they do not occupy the position in Trump’s hierarchy that they believe they deserve. Consequently, they strive to prove themselves on every front.

Macron has even publicly boasted that the French intelligence services have assumed two-thirds of the role previously played by the United States in Ukraine, thereby openly acknowledging France’s deep involvement in a war fought in the interests of a country that is neither a member of NATO nor of the European Union.

Europe’s Future

D.J.: What should we expect next, particularly from Europe—or the European Union—in its current or future form?

S.V.: For eighty years, American policy has shaped European policy—above all under the influence of the U.S. Democratic Party. Today, however, Europe no longer has the luxury of time. It cannot afford to spend several more decades revising the vassal mentality of its political elites. It needs shock therapy, a sharp strategic turn—even if it is as brutal as Trump’s approach. Europe’s revival will not come from simply increasing defense spending, but from fundamentally reorganizing its defense system.

The figures speak relentlessly about the strategic failures of Europe’s leaders. In 2024, the European Union spent €343 billion on defense, NATO together with the United States spent €1.43 trillion, while Russia spent €142 billion (sources: the Council of the European Union and SIPRI). Yet despite EU citizens spending approximately 2.4 times more on defense than Russian citizens—and NATO members together with the United States spending roughly ten times more—the outcome of Europe’s, NATO’s, and America’s confrontation with Russia is well known: Ukraine has lost more than 20 percent of its territory, Europe’s global influence has declined, and the continent has fallen further behind in both economic and technological development.

Europe Strengthened America’s Defense

D.J.: How does Trump’s pressure on Greenland affect European security?

S.V.: Greenland is not part of the European Union. It withdrew from the Community in 1985 following a referendum, so EU law does not apply there, even though its inhabitants hold Danish—and therefore EU—citizenship. An attack on Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark, would therefore constitute an attack on Denmark and on NATO.

This explains why the Coalition of the Willing rapidly deployed there even before the Davos meeting—as though European security, rather than American security, were truly at stake—as soon as Trump began making noise about purchasing the island. But the “noise” was merely another expression of Trump’s policy of maximum pressure, or coercive diplomacy, carrying the message: “Give in today, or tomorrow will be worse.”

As so often, the American president achieved his principal objective with remarkable speed. He strengthened America’s defense at no cost by securing European protection of American territory against potential Russian missile attacks, whose shortest trajectory passes over the North Pole and Greenland. At the same time, he gained the opportunity to devote himself fully to building his cherished “Golden Dome”—a strategic shield designed to protect the United States and preserve the global balance of power, modeled on the Iron Dome defense system that protects the State of Israel.