Follow us on social

2021-09-20t180945z_452511904_rc2otp9x3rxy_rtrmadp_3_kosovo-serbia-border-scaled

Beware of viewing Balkans as new front in Russian-NATO proxy war

These historically complex conflicts can only be resolved by a long-term, patient strategy led by Europeans, not the US.

Analysis | Europe

In an effort to hit back at the West for its support to Ukraine, Russian commentators are clearly eager to cast the disputes and recent flare-up on the Serbian and Kosovo border in the former Yugoslavia as a potential theater of Russian-NATO proxy conflict.

That does not, however, mean that Western policymakers should do the same. Russian abilities to affect the situation on the ground in the Balkans are in fact limited; and by the same token, a Western campaign to reduce Russian influence will also not produce solutions. The region does indeed suffer from colossal problems, and presents colossal problems for Western policy, but these issues are locally generated and must be solved — or rather managed — in accordance with local realities.

The frozen conflicts of the western Balkans have their origin in the Ottoman and Habsburg empires, and their disintegration. This legacy includes a disastrous combination of deeply intertwined nationalities and especially strong ethno-religious nationalisms. The resulting conflicts were suppressed under Communist Yugoslavia, itself a kind of empire with a kind of state religion.

With the end of the Cold War, both Communism and the U.S.-Soviet strategic balance that had helped to preserve an independent and united Yugoslavia also came to an end. The result was a series of civil wars, which were ended — or rather suspended — by NATO military interventions  in which U.S. forces played the dominant role.

In the case of Bosnia, the West created an exceptionally complicated kind of power-sharing confederation between Serbian and Croat-Muslim ethnic republics, held in place by an EU peacekeeping force backed by NATO and supervised by a “High Representative” selected by the EU. This arrangement has not permitted serious reform. Serbian Bosnian forces are now working actively to destroy it, and the Croats are making very little effort to make it work.

In Kosovo, NATO backed an Albanian rebellion against Serbian rule and eventually recognized the independence of the territory. This violated previous Western promises during and after the war to keep Kosovo an autonomous part of Serbia, and was opposed by a range of multi-ethnic states around the world (including Russia, China, and India, but also five EU members) with their own reasons to fear ethnic separatism.

Their opposition means that Kosovo has not yet been admitted to the United Nations. Kosovo is protected from Serbian revanchism by a small NATO peacekeeping force, which also serves to protect the remaining Serbian minority in northern Kosovo that is closely linked to Serbia and in practice largely autonomous. The precarious and volatile nature of Serb-Kosovo relations was, however, illustrated last September when a move by the Kosovo government against Serbian vehicle license plates triggered a dangerous crisis. After tensions boiled over last week on the border, the Kosovo government tabled their plans.

The real hope for the solution to — or at least the fading away of — the region’s ethnic conflicts, however, lay not in the arrangements put in place by the West at the end of the Balkan conflicts, but rather in the incentive that resolution of their disputes would result in their eventual admission to the European Union, with all the vast economic benefits that this entailed.

Nor was this hope an irrational one. If there is a solution to the festering wounds of the western Balkans, it lies through the EU, not NATO. The EU accession process played a large part in preventing ethnic conflict elsewhere in eastern Europe. Indeed, the common EU membership of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland contributed to the eventual Northern Ireland Peace Agreement, and Brexit risks re-igniting that conflict.

The problem in the western Balkans, however, is that the countries of the region are not moving towards qualification for membership of the European Union, and their own hopes of membership have also faded. The EU, from this point of view, is quite different from NATO. Accession to NATO today requires at least superficial commitment to democracy, minority rights, and free market capitalism; but far less than the EU’s Acquis Communautaire, with its thousands of highly detailed and specific regulations, to which aspirant members must legally accede.

Quite apart from the region’s ethnic conflicts, extremely high levels of corruption, “illiberal democracy” and cultural conservatism in Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Albania make EU membership a distant prospect, if not an impossibility. Nor is increased democracy the answer, given that hardline nationalist positions enjoy massive popular support in the countries concerned.

An additional factor in EU resistance to admitting more Balkan countries has been a widespread feeling in Western Europe that Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria were admitted to the EU prematurely and have failed to stick to the conditions of membership: in the case of Hungary and Poland, because of authoritarianism and ethnic chauvinism; in the case of Bulgaria and Romania, corruption and governmental dysfunction. Rather than solving the problems of the Balkans, further EU enlargement could contribute to further dividing and paralyzing the EU.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has further disturbed this already murky pond. Sympathy for Ukraine has led the EU to promise Kiev an accelerated path to EU membership. This has led to hopes in the countries of the western Balkans that they too might receive early membership. In practice, however, Ukraine remains very far from meeting the conditions of the acquis Communautaire in terms of domestic reform; and, as long as the war continues, domestic reform along EU lines is in any case unrealistic.

This dilemma has led President Emmanuel Macron of France to suggest that Ukraine could join a form of outer circle of the EU, with fewer qualifications and also fewer rights than full membership. It seems questionable, however, if the promise of such third-class EU membership would satisfy the peoples of the western Balkans enough to get them to abandon their fundamental ethnic claims against each other.

Russia’s ability to exploit this situation is limited. On the one hand, popular sympathy for Russia and hostility to NATO in Serbia (and to a lesser extent Montenegro) and among the Serbs of Bosnia is extremely high. Serbia has refused to join Western sanctions against Russia, and in return has received a three-year guarantee of Russian gas supplies.

On the other hand, the Serbian government has been anxious not to destroy its relations with the EU and has taken no concrete steps to help Russia. Moreover, the geopolitical (and geographical) limits on Russia’s ability to help the Serbs were vividly demonstrated when all the countries surrounding Serbia are NATO members and last month barred Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov from overflying their territories to reach Belgrade. They would obviously do the same in the case of any Russian attempt to help Serbia in a new Balkan conflict.

But this does not mean that the West has the power to solve these frozen conflicts. It would be better if the EU, and NATO’s European members recognized two things: that this region demands a long-term and patient Western strategy of management backed by military commitment; and that this is primarily the responsibility of Europe, not the United States.

In the event of a new crisis, Americans would be correct to reject new military commitments when America’s European allies have more than adequate resources to do this themselves. During the Bosnian civil war of the early 1990s, the Europeans failed utterly in this regard. If they were to do so again, the entire moral foundation of NATO would be called into question.

Artin Dersimonian contributed to the research for this article.


Kosovo special police stands as hundreds of Kosovo Serbs protest against a government ban on entry of vehicles with Serbian registration plates in Jarinje, Kosovo, September 20, 2021. The more recent flare-up involved a Kosovo government plan to impose new license plates and cross border travel documents for Serbian Kosovars. REUTERS/Laura Hasani
Analysis | Europe
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.