cepa.org <https://www.cepa.org/moscows-balkan-partition-strategy>  


Moscow’s Balkan Partition Strategy


6-7 minutes

  _____  

MOSCOW’S BALKAN 
PARTITION STRATEGY

What Are the Kremlin's Ulterior Motives for Backing Balkan Land Swaps?

For Washington, a potential territorial exchange between Serbia and Kosova 
could normalize relations between the two states and help stabilize the wider 
region. For Moscow, the prospect of land swaps can add a new dimension to its 
divide and conquer plans in the Western Balkans and establish usable precedents 
elsewhere.

In recent 

months <https://www.cepa.org/russia-exploits-serbia> , the prospect of border 
adjustments between Kosova and Serbia has been at the center of political 
debate throughout the region. Although any such plans are tentative and 
high-level discussions have not been transparent, even raising the legitimacy 
of territorial changes has sparked both hope and fear in several states. When 
Washington reportedly gave the green light to such negotiations between 
Belgrade and Prishtina, Moscow pounced on a new opportunity to foster conflict 
and promote its influences.

During the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, Russian officials backed 
Slobodan Milošević’s plans for a larger Serbian state that would encompass 
Montenegro, Kosova, half of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and parts of Croatia. They were 
not averse to changing the borders of former Yugoslav federal units in order to 
strengthen their main ally in the region. The Kremlin also calculated that 
Balkan border adjustments could bolster its own plans to carve up former Soviet 
republics and enlarge the Russian Federation.

Russia’s new partition strategy in the Western Balkans has emerged in the past 
few months with several overlapping goals. The first objective is to create 
fissures among Albanian politicians and divide Albanian societies in Kosova, 
Albania, and Macedonia. Albanian populations are not only renowned for being 
staunchly pro-American, they are also deeply resistant to Russian political and 
economic penetration. Moscow may now exploit any emerging divisions over border 
changes to implant itself.

In Kosova there is a growing disconnect between those who support and oppose a 
transaction involving sections of Kosova’s four northern municipalities in 
exchange for parts of three Serbian municipalities in the Preševo Valley. 
Moreover, any closed-door discussions inevitably beget rumors that can be 
exploited by provocateurs to inflame political disputes.

Kosova’s President Hashim Thaçi and Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj have 
expressed diametrically opposed positions on border shifts. Thaçi met 
<http://tass.com/pressreview/1030948>  with Putin during the Paris Peace Forum 
in November 2018 and reportedly discussed the territorial question. It is worth 
remembering that the Russian leader regularly whispers disinformation to 
foreign leaders to test their reactions and plant ideas that suit Kremlin 
interests.

After his recent visit to Washington, Thaçi declared that he had received 
guarantees that Russia would recognize Kosova once an agreement with Belgrade 
was implemented that could entail border adjustments. However, any pledges by 
the Kremlin must be treated with enormous caution, as Putin is notorious for 
breaking agreements that suit his larger ambitions, whether these are arms 
treaties with the United States or border agreements with neighboring countries.

A second Kremlin goal is to exacerbate divisions between Serbs and Albanians so 
that neither Serbia nor Kosova can enter NATO or the EU. The most effective way 
to close doors to membership is by creating diversions that foster inter-state 
conflicts so the disputants are viewed as unfit for accession. Moscow is well 
aware that both Serbian and Albanian nationalists will pounce on the prospect 
of territorial acquisitions and can be encouraged to pursue more ambitious 
irredentist claims, such as dividing Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, or 
Macedonia.

It is unclear whether the Serbian government is fully aware of Moscow’s ploys 
or whether it is being duped. President Aleksandar Vučić needs to be mindful 
that Serbia could be drawn into more protracted conflicts with neighbors by 
working too closely with Russia. Belgrade’s stated goal in forging an agreement 
with Kosova is for Serbia to gain faster entry into the EU. But why should the 
Kremlin assist Vučić in an EU accession endeavor that it has tried to quash in 
Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and elsewhere?

As Russian officials drive wedges between the region’s capitals, they can 
simultaneously offer regional settlements and inject themselves as mediators to 
reduce the role of NATO and the EU. By purportedly assisting in resolving 
regional conflicts, Moscow also calculates that it can gain additional 
advantages, whether in lessened Western opposition to its gas projects in 
Europe or a special status with diplomatic immunity for its intelligence base 
in southern Serbia.

A third motive for Russia’s support for Balkan land exchanges is to establish 
usable precedents, particularly for its own partition of Ukraine, Georgia, and 
Moldova. Moscow’s coerced border adjustments can be propagandized as legitimate 
moves that mirror Western support for ethnic homogenization in the Balkans. 
This would help reduce calls for sanctions and other punishment against Russia 
for carving up its neighbors’ territories.

In an ideal world, a bilateral border exchange between Serbia and Kosova could 
be arranged without provoking political conflicts, ethnic resentments, or 
irredentist claims. But conditions in the Balkans and other regions where the 
Kremlin has injected its influences are far from ideal. With “normalization” 
between Serbia and Kosova as the tempting prize, Western actors may be stepping 
into a partition trap whose unintended consequences may prove more far-reaching 
than was bargained for.

Europe's Edge is an online journal covering crucial topics in the transatlantic 
policy debate. All opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent the position or views of the institutions they represent or the 
Center for European Policy Analysis. 

Photo: "Vladimir Putin in Serbia March 2011-1 
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vladimir_Putin_and_Boris_Tadi%C4%87#/media/File:Vladimir_Putin_in_Serbia_March_2011-1.jpeg>
 " by premier.gov.ru  <http://premier.gov.ru/events/> under CC BY 4.0. 
<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/> 

Janusz Bugajski
25 February 2019

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"serbia" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/serbia.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to