In a country where almost everything is dependent on one man, the choice of Serbia in the west or Serbia in the east also falls under the domain of his decision-making. Our future position depends to the greatest extent on political wisdom, an ability to observe the global situation without cheering and emotional favouritism, and diplomatic skills that are being put to the test in a way that hasn’t been seen for a long time.
From the outset, President Vladimir Putin used Kiev as the location from which to send a message to the West: Moscow doesn’t recognise the unipolar world ruled by the United States; NATO’s eastward expansion must stop at Ukraine’s borders, after which negotiations must begin on a new security architecture for Europe.
These demands essentially contain nothing new, because the ruler of the Kremlin has been repeating them for 15 years, since the security conference in Munich. Putin supplemented his script in 2008, when he intervened militarily in Georgia, and printed a new edition in 2014, with the annexation of Crimea.
With his aggression against Ukraine, Putin has once again demonstrated his readiness to violate international law – which is in the DNA of great powers – and that he has no intention of stopping the invasion or negotiating until his key first-phase demands are met: Ukraine’s demilitarisation, the de-nazifying of the country’s regime and the permanent loss of Crimea.
Broader negotiations would then follow in the second phase, which would include a repeat of the Conference on European Security and Cooperation that culminated half a century ago with the Helsinki Act. Only then could we discuss some new geopolitical map of Europe.
Despite everything seeming to indicate rarely seen Western unity, the U.S.’s European allies have been practically capitulated into action under the pressure and demands of the Americans who are in a position to monitor the Ukrainian conflict from a comfortable distance or lead sanctions against Russia – the collateral price of which, particularly when it comes to energy, will once again be paid by Europe.
If pax americana survives, which actually represents the preserving of the existing status quo, that would lead directly to a new cold war, that this time wouldn’t spare the western Balkans, but rather would turn the region into a peripheral but important part of the frontal conflict
Pax Americana actually represents the preserving of the existing status quo, which leads directly to a new Cold War that this time wouldn’t spare the Western Balkans, but rather would turn the region into a peripheral but important part of the frontal conflict.
Under such complicated circumstances, Serbia is calculating that it could preserve its proclaimed yet unacknowledged military neutrality, with the idea that it would thereby be able to maintain some kind of political balance.
If the Ukrainian conflict is resolved relatively quickly, that could be possible, but if the geopolitical tension persists, Belgrade wouldn’t have the luxury of continuing to stick to the aisles. In a country where almost everything is dependent on one man, the choice of Serbia in the West or Serbia in the East also falls under the domain of his decision-making.
What repercussions could that have on the pacifying of the two most troubled parts of the region: Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina? Actually only minor ones, because the West and Russia have conflicting views on these issues that are not diminishing, though if they mutually sharpen that could shift the Western Balkans further away from lasting peace. This doesn’t mean that the alternative is some new war, despite regional leaders not abandoning their propagating of nationalism, which – as a rule – they utilise for election purposes.
When it comes to Serbia, our future position depends to the greatest extent on political wisdom, an ability to observe the global situation without cheering and emotional favouritism, and diplomatic skills that are being put to the test in a way that hasn’t been seen for a long time.
Photo: Fonet
