Shemaine Bushnell Kyriakides
A statesman, a diplomat, and a patriot, John Koenig is the epitome of dedication to service and diplomacy. With a career spanning over three decades, he has served in pivotal roles across the globe, from his time as U.S. Ambassador to Cyprus from 2012 to 2015 to his earlier postings in Belgium, Greece, Indonesia, Italy, and the Philippines. He also held significant positions as Deputy U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO in Brussels and as Political Advisor to NATO’s Joint Forces Command in Naples, Italy. Today, as a lecturer at the University of Washington’s Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, Koenig continues to shape future leaders in international relations, imparting his extensive experience to the next generation of diplomats.
In an exclusive interview with KNEWS, Ambassador Koenig opens up about his time in Cyprus when he tried desperately to bring the two communities together and pushed for a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation and the difficulties he encountered. His commitment to Cyprus was deeply personal, fueled by a love for the island and its people.
Koenig also discusses his recent appeal to Europe, urging the continent not to trust America blindly and to forge its own path. He emphasizes the need for Europe to reduce its reliance on the U.S. and NATO, take charge of its future, and act with resolve on key issues like relations with China.
"You don't trust each other completely. OK. But for heaven's sake, don't trust us. Nobody has your back." –US Ambassador John Koenig (ret)
1. You were the U.S. Ambassador to Cyprus from 2012 to 2015. Looking back, what do you remember most about that time? And how would you say Cyprus has changed since then?
When I arrived in Cyprus in 2012, the financial crisis was in full swing, with people lining up at ATMs, anxious over their savings, as the economy was turned upside down. Despite this turmoil, there was optimism about a potential Cyprus solution and high hopes that offshore gas discoveries could transform the economy. Alongside that, there was an influx of Russian money, which was central to the functioning of the Cypriot economy at the time, and drawing significant American interest.
I haven’t been back to Cyprus since 2015, so I haven’t seen how things have changed on the ground.
My last few months in Cyprus were challenging, especially after President Anastasiades went on RIK TV to publicly denounce me. Yet, I have strong memories of the exceptional leaders I worked with over my time there— George Vassiliou, Glafcos Clerides, Yiannakis Kasoulidis, Katie Clerides, and Michalis Papapetrou. I hope that Cyprus continues to benefit from this level of leadership today.
2. While you were here, the U.S. showed support for a plan to reunite Cyprus under a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. Joe Biden even visited in 2014 to show that support. Do you think, after 50 years, there’s still a real chance for Cyprus to reunite under these conditions?
Let me start with some background on my involvement. A series of events led me to broker a joint statement between Anastasiades and Eroğlu after President Anastasiades effectively pushed out Alexander Downer. That statement was pivotal, launching the last round of Cyprus settlement talks, which lasted until 2017 and led to then-Vice President Biden’s visit, where we met with Cypriot leaders to discuss the Cyprus issue and regional concerns.
After Akinci became the Turkish Cypriot leader and Espen Barth Eide took over as UN negotiator, I remained deeply involved. This was my second tour on the island, following my role as head of the political section in the 1990s. The ambassadorship wasn’t necessarily a promotion, but I cared about Cyprus and, without boasting, likely knew more and cared more about the Cyprus issue than any previous U.S. ambassador.
Conditions between 2012 and 2015 seemed promising, and the joint statement marked real advances on key issues. But everything fell apart at Crans-Montana in 2017. Since then, I haven’t seen steps toward a settlement, and, candidly, I don’t think unification is on the horizon. Reunification is, for the foreseeable future, off the table, likely for decades.
So, what now? Cypriots on both sides can make daily life easier by easing restrictions. This requires follow-through, which often falls short. Cooperation is crucial: Greek Cypriots may not believe it, but their real partners for a better future are the Turkish Cypriots. The environmental challenges—worsening fires, water shortages, and desertification—demand an island-wide response.
I’ve been away and don’t speak for the current U.S. stance; you’d need to ask the new ambassador. But in my view, the chance for reunification under our previously supported framework is no longer realistic.
3. We're seeing more U.S. activity in Cyprus lately, especially with the situation in Gaza. Beyond peacekeeping, what else could be driving this increased presence? Could it signal a shift in U.S. policy toward Turkey?
I wouldn’t describe U.S. involvement in the region strictly as peacekeeping. Our main objectives are protecting Israel and containing Iran’s influence, which is a real threat. Much of our activity, including keeping anti-missile naval vessels in the region, centers on these goals, as shown by our moves to support Israel since October 7 last year.
As for Turkey, our relationship is constantly shifting. Under Erdogan, Turkey has pursued a more independent, multi-directional foreign policy that doesn’t neatly align with NATO or its nominal EU ambitions. This approach has been successful for Turkey, and the U.S. often finds itself reacting rather than anticipating. We no longer have strong ties with Ankara, and, frankly, I don’t see a larger U.S. strategy for the eastern Mediterranean beyond this.
4. The U.S. has been strict on financial crime and money laundering in Cyprus, even conditioning a visa waiver on increased transparency. Do you think this focus is mainly about limiting Russian influence, or is there a broader U.S. strategy for Cyprus?
The U.S. effort to combat illicit financial activity in Cyprus is part of a broader strategy, not just focused on Russia. We’ve been concerned with this issue for years, including when Tasos Papadopoulos was flagged for suspect financial activity during the Yugoslav wars. Cooperation with Cyprus is beneficial for both sides.
The current emphasis is largely driven by the goal of excluding Russian bad actors from the European banking system, which aligns with our sanctions policy and helps clean up Cyprus’ economy. The visa waiver program is a positive outcome of this cooperation, offering benefits to Cyprus.
However, this doesn’t signal a broader shift in U.S. policy. While we’ve upgraded our partnership with Cyprus, it's important to remember the scale difference between our countries. A partnership between a country of 1 million and one of 350 million is likely more valuable to Cyprus than to the U.S.
5. Last week, you wrote an appeal on your Facebook page calling on Europe to “wake up” and to distance itself from relying solely on the U.S., particularly for defense, and start building real autonomy.
First, there’s Trump. While I don’t want to reduce this discussion solely to him, his reelection as U.S. president is a significant factor. His initial decisions on national security appointments should deeply concern Europeans. His team includes a mix of hawks and former neo-cons, many of whom are staunch defenders of Trump on Fox News, his primary media influence.
One particularly troubling appointment is Pete Hegseth as the likely Secretary of Defense. With little policy experience in defense, Hegseth’s influence stems from right-wing media, where he has made extreme statements about U.S. military actions. He has also strongly advocated for pardoning American soldiers convicted of war crimes, even convincing Trump to overturn the conviction of a soldier who executed prisoners in cold blood. This should alarm Europe, but Trump’s presidency is only one part of a broader, long-standing issue: Europe’s declining global influence.
6. I found it compelling when you urged Europe to come together despite the lack of full trust among member nations, saying, "You don't trust each other completely. OK. But for heaven's sake, don't trust us. Nobody has your back." Please explain.
Since the 2008 financial crisis and the Eurozone crisis, Europe has struggled to regain its footing, with its global strength and influence significantly diminished. Much of this stems from its dependency on the U.S., especially in defense and economic matters. Industrial policy conflicts, trade disputes, and Trump’s economic approach are likely to exacerbate this. Europe must break free from this dependency and establish itself as an independent global force—not in opposition to the U.S., but no longer merely following its lead.
This plea for European autonomy was prompted by an article by Timothy Garton Ash in The Guardian, where he argued that Europe should sustain support for Ukraine even if the U.S. under Trump withdraws. Unity is necessary but insufficient—Europe lacks the resources, mechanisms, and capabilities to act independently of the U.S. in Ukraine or elsewhere.
Ukraine highlights the urgent need for Europe to build its own defense and decision-making infrastructure. Similarly, Europe’s influence in the Middle East is negligible, despite the region’s critical proximity and issues like migration, humanitarian concerns, and international law violations. Europe must strengthen its voice and take a proactive role in these matters.
A decade ago, the U.S.’s actions triggered a refugee crisis that profoundly disrupted European politics. Such a scenario could repeat itself, and Europe cannot afford to be sidelined by U.S. policies. It must take charge of its destiny, both for its own stability and for the broader global good.
7. And what of NATO and the new Trump administration, how do you think it will play out? And why did you refer to NATO as a “transaction”?
Our experience in the U.S. shows that even with a trusted, established system, key individuals can have significant discretion in upholding or disregarding laws and norms. This was evident during the Trump administration.
The Washington Treaty, signed in 1949, is the foundation of NATO. Its core, Article 5, establishes collective security, but it’s not as binding as some might think. The article leaves room for delays and individual resistance, meaning invoking it doesn’t automatically trigger a response. Trusting the people in the institution is just as important as trusting the institution itself.
Since the end of the Cold War, Europe has become more reliant on the U.S. for defense, even more so than in 1989. U.S. foreign and security policies, especially over the last two decades, encouraged Europe to focus on specialized capabilities for U.S.-led operations instead of broad defense systems. This approach helped Europe avoid major defense spending. In return, the U.S. expected military support, diplomatic alignment, and backing for its global initiatives. The 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea led to calls for stronger European defense, but substantial progress has been slow.
Looking ahead, Trump’s views could further strain U.S.-European relations. His disregard for multilateral organizations like NATO, the EU, and the UN, in favor of bilateral deals, could lead to more friction. This could spark a trade war with the EU and efforts to dismantle European regulations, particularly in areas like artificial intelligence and social media, aligning with tech figures like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel who oppose these frameworks.
