Vladimir Putin’s Meddling in the Balkans

Russia’s ‘hybrid occupation’ of Serbia threatens to derail its peace plan with Kosovo.

By
21
People hold banners reading "Glory to Heroes" as they march during a protest against peace plan with Kosovo in Belgrade , Serbia, on March 17. (Photo by ANDREJ ISAKOVIC/AFP via Getty Images)

A new round of reconciliation talks between Serbia and Kosovo is a chance for the West to solve a longstanding dispute in the Balkans and deprive the Kremlin of one of its last remaining European partners in one fell swoop. But Moscow’s meddling in Serbia threatens the process.

On Friday, thousands of protesters—some carrying Russian flags and others reportedly donning Wagner Group paraphernalia—marched through Serbia’s capital of Belgrade to oppose European Union-brokered efforts to normalize ties with Kosovo. The protest was just one in a string of rallies held by far-right and pro-Russian groups in Serbia’s capital since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine last year. 

“This is not hybrid influence,” said Čedomir Stojković, a Belgrade-based attorney who tracks Russia’s proxies in Serbia. “It’s a hybrid occupation. Because it’s so strong that our government, basically, is not our government. They do not make decisions which are in the interests of our people.” 

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
21
By
Comments (21)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    “ Some analysts think Vučić was betting that a swift Russian victory in Ukraine would provide Serbia cover to attack its neighbors, but Moscow’s flailing war effort prompted Serbia to reconsider Western pushes for normalization with Kosovo—much to Russia’s dismay.”

    Boy, that leapt out at me.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    MatthewRobin

    Serbia must recognize Kosovo's independence, but Ukraine and Georgia should not recognize the independence of their breakaway republics.

    Nearly all of the Kremlin's criticism of US foreign policy is stupid, but this one has some legitimacy. I see no consistency regarding our policy involving unionism and secession.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kizedek

      “Breakaway Republics?” Russia sent insurgents into Ukraine as a pretext, then came into Ukraine, and annexed parts, installing puppet mayors and staging phony referendums and elections. Russia did this because Ukraine *already broke away* from Russian influence and rejected the corrupt, pro-Russian leader that Paul Manafort whitewashed and got elected. Russia did this because Ukraine was leaning toward Europe, and taking steps to reject corruption, oligarchsy and cronyism. Russia did this despite pledging with the U.S. to uphold a 1993 agreement to respect Ukraine’s autonomy and borders.

      I see Russian disinformation is alive and well. Tucker is certainly in Russia’s hip pocket.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Barry Alexander

      We're too frightened by the bogeyman of "hypocrisy." Our foreign policy in particular, is paralyzed by the fear of even seeming hypocritical, and our opponents use that to great advantage. Certainly Russia or China aren't worried about being called hypocritical. It's impossible in the real world to avoid contradictions in your actions.
      There are differences in these situations--who is the aggressor--and if somebody wants to try and derail us by calling us hypocrites, we need to ignore them.

      Collapse
    3. Bobby D

      There is a difference here. The ethnic Albanians lived in Kosovo for centuries before Serbia invaded Kosovo in 1160 and occupied it until 1389. Even during the years of Serbian rule, the ethnic Albanians remained a majority. From 1389 to 1918, the Serbia and Kosovo were separate political entities. Serbian troops occupied Kosovo during WWI, and convinced the allies to incorporate Kosovo into Yugoslavia instead of Albania (against the wishes of the ethnic Albanians who lived there). Since that time, Serbia has sought to exercise political dominance over the region against the wishes of the ethnic Albanians who’ve served as an ethnic majority in this land for about 2500 years.

      By contrast, the Russian ethnic majorities in the breakaway republicans in Georgia and Ukraine are only there as a result of Russia’s long history of trying to politically control and ethnically dilute the Georgian and Ukrainian people. If these Russian occupiers in these breakaway republics are unhappy living under Georgian or Ukrainian rule, then they should go back home to Russia.

      There is no prior home for the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. They’ve been there since at least the 5th century BC.

      The world should right the wrong that the allied powers made in 1918, and let the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo reunite politically with their ethnic brothers in Albania.

      Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Walkinginthelightga

      Also, all three breakaway regions in Georgia were majority Georgian at the time of separation and only became 'breakaway' republics because of the "Red" Army, acting for the most part independently from the Russian government. Even then, they probably would not have been able to break away, but the "Red" Army was sponsoring different sides of a civil war within Georgia, weakening their response to unrest in Batumi, Abkhazia, and Ossetia. The differences with the Yugoslavian break-up are massive.

      Collapse
    5. Keatonm88

      I can't really blame Serbia for feeling raw about Kosovo. It's a very similar situation to Northern Ireland where a piece of what had always been traditionally Serbia, had change in population and the population no longer identified with their original country due to violent conflict. I think both sides have interesting arguments but its literally the same thing as Ireland so people should keep that in mind when hastily jumping to conclusions about who is right and wrong.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        George.Skinner

        Arguing for sovereignty over a territory due to a historical precedent rather than self-determination of the current population is a seriously problematic approach. For the United States, it's a precedent that could be used to suggest that California, Texas, and most of the southwest properly belong to Mexico. Going further back, it could be a point for arguing that Native American tribes actually possess sovereignty over what's currently the United States and Canada.

        Collapse
      2. Bobby D

        You’ve been listening to too much Serbian propaganda. The Albanians and the Vlachs lived on this land for centuries before the Serbian Slavs invaded in 1160 and maintained control for about two centuries. During that time the Serbs never comprised an ethnic majority, and ruled over the Albanians and the Vlachs as occupiers. After the area was incorporated into the Ottoman Empire in the late 1300s, the Serbian occupiers left and retreated to the lands of modern-day Serbia. In the same time period, many Vlachs moved to Romania.

        Thus, I see no persuasive claim that the Serbs can proffer. The Albanians occupied this land for centuries before the Serbians invaded in 1160. After the Serbian invasion, the Albanians continued to make up an ethnic majority. And with the departure of the Serbs and Vlachs following Ottoman takeover, ethnic Albanians have had the land to themselves for the past 600+ years.

        The ethnic Albanians have a far superior claim to this land. The fact that the Serbs subjugated them for about 200 years in the 12th to 14th centuries does not seem to give Serbia or the Serbian people any meritorious claim to the land.

        Collapse
        1. Keatonm88

          I don’t know of any Serbian propaganda sources but I’d be interested to see some for comedic purposes if you’d care to share.

          That is interesting background on the longer term claims to Kosovo, thanks for sharing. I was unaware of how many centuries this land has been disputed. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised given the history of every other border conflict in Europe!

          Collapse
          1. Bobby D

            I suppose that it exists. I’ve picked it up mainly from ethnically Serbian acquaintances.

            Serbians partisans will spin this narrative about Kosovo being part of some alleged ethnically Serbian heartland. But this tale is patently false. The ethnic Albanians and their Illyrian predecessors have inhabited Kosovo for as far back as the 5th century BC. The Slavic migration to the Balkans didn’t occur until the 550s, and never reached Kosovo. During the Serbian occupation that ran from 1160 to 1389, there was an effort by the Serbs to enforce Slavic culture and religion onto the unwilling ethnic Albanians. There are a few Serbian Orthodox holy sites in Kosovo from that period. But these sites are tied to efforts by the Serbs to subjugate the ethnic Albanians and to wipe out their culture. It’s not the sort of thing that would support a Serbian claim to be entitled to rule over Kosovo politically.

            In my opinion, there’s something kind of screwed up about Serbia and Serbian people. The country and the people seem to carry this palpable sense of displacement and loss. It’s a country and people whose identity is deeply tied to a grievance narrative. But the grievances are mostly manufactured. Sure, they endured 400 years of Ottoman subjugation. But that’s true for most countries in southeastern Europe. And the Serbs have had their autonomy since 1817. Serbs are plagued by a tendency to see themselves as superior than the people’s around them, and they see it as some kind of assault to Serbian dignity that the surrounding people groups are not living under a Serbian boot heel. The whole country seems to live in a state of constant ressentiment that prevents them from developing further.

            Collapse
    6. Avatar photo
      Brianboyce

      I was a diplomat in Georgia when we recognized Kosovo. Most of the diplomats I know were opposed to it for the very reason you cite. This is complicated by the fact that circumstances are different, but it certainly makes a good talking point. Consider that the Georgia "breakaway" Ossetia is really just a gangland with ties to Russia. Kosovars were the subject of a Serb genocidal campaign to slaughter civilians. No such slaughter was initiated by Georgians in Ossetia. Quite the opposite. In 2008, the Russian military cordoned the area populated by ethnic Georgians after the initiation of hostilities. The gangs then moved in and ethnically cleansed all Georgians from S. Ossetia. The Serbs gambled and lost and Kosovo will never be part of Serbia again. It's all over but the crying. South Ossetia may be the same. The Georgians initiated hostilities in 2008 in order to recover their land, S. Ossetia may never be part of Georgia for much the same reason.

      Collapse
      1. Bobby D

        Well said. Never mind that, during the periods when Serbia has exercised political control over Kosovo (1160-1389, 1918-2008), they’ve done nothing but mistreat the ethnic Albanians and undertake efforts to ethnically cleansed or dilute them in this land where the ethnic Albanians or their ethnic predecessors have lived for 25 centuries.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Walkinginthelightga

        Putin tempted and taunted Georgia to go in, thinking they could then crush the Georgian army and restore peace. The Ossetians didn't cooperate, running away and surrendering as soon as they faced soldiers. The Russians had to open up fresh opportunities when they invaded almost 24 hours later. Saakashvili falling for the Russian provocation was his worst mistake. Also, an Ossetian mistake as the only place Ossetians will speak their language in the near future in be within Georgia.

        Collapse
    7. Avatar photo
      Mick.Staton

      There are no "breakaway republics" in Ukraine. There is Russian occupied territories in Crimea and the Donbas. Nearly all of the Balkans states have been playthings of the surrounding, more powerful empires of the time, whether it was the Ottoman Empire, the Austria-Hungarian Empire, or finally the Soviet Union that swallowed them all up after WW II.

      What is going on in Ukraine is completely different. It is an invasion from a foreign power.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        MatthewRobin

        Nope, I clearly referred to Ukraine in 2014 when the two Donbas republics declared independence, just like how Kosovo declared independence from Serbia.

        "Nearly all of the Balkans states have been playthings of the surrounding, more powerful empires of the time"

        That is a very dangerous argument. You can say the same thing about Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltics.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Cogitatio

          I would not compare a false flag operation with Russian soldiers playing as separatists and Russian puppets declaring independence from Ukraine with the collapse of Yugoslavia. Russia is flat out invading an independent nation, and that is indisputable at this point.

          As for the mess that was "The Land of the South Slavs," the collapse of Yugoslavia left an autonomous set of semi-nations around Serbia, including Kosovo. When Milosevic decided to revoke the autonomy of Kosovo, it created a rush to declare independence from Croatia, Kosovo, etc. Similar to Putin's "Anywhere there are ethnic Russians living, there is Russia and we must defend it" game, Milosevic decided that there was a "Greater Serbia," which meant that Serb enclaves in other soon to be nations were still part of Serbia and could not be part of the newly forming nations. Kosovo became his center piece, as he attempted to ethnic cleanse the Muslims out of Kosovo, essentially claiming the entire country as part of Greater Serbia.

          The two are not remotely similar, other than the tyrants involved.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          George.Skinner

          Sham referenda held by a corrupt occupying power doesn't really confer legitimacy. Superficially you can argue they're comparable. An examination of the facts and history doesn't support it. National self-determination tends to be the operative principle in these cases. Interestingly, Russian and Serbian oppression of these national groups tends to grow the desire for independence that they're trying to suppress. Nobody wants to be part of a Greater Russian Empire other than reactionary Archie Bunker idiots.

          Collapse
        3. Avatar photo
          Alina M.

          There were no "Donbas republics" that declared "independence". These were russian-supported separatists that were part of russia's long-range plan to take control of all of Ukraine. Crimea was simply annexed because it is a peninsula and so was easier to invade.

          Collapse
      2. Deleted Comment

        This comment has been deleted