However, NATO says it is noticing worrying trends in the Western Balkans, primarily secessionist threats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the fragile security situation in Kosovo, and the stagnation in the process of normalizing relations between Kosovo and Serbia.
While Moscow claims that the Western military alliance is militarizing the Western Balkans in order to confront Russia and that the West is undermining security in Bosnia and Herzegovina, opposing messages are coming from NATO and the European Union, emphasizing that the international presence in the country is aimed at maintaining stability, not creating conflicts.
However, NATO says it is noticing worrying trends in the Western Balkans, primarily secessionist threats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the fragile security situation in Kosovo, and the stalled process of normalizing relations between Kosovo and Serbia. “Authoritarian countries like Russia are trying to interfere and undermine democracies, exploiting internal weaknesses in the region to sow discord. Any external interference in internal democratic processes is unacceptable. This includes hacking, information threats, intimidation and other destabilizing activities,” a NATO official told Radio Free Europe (RFE/RL). The allegations of militarization and destabilization of the region were raised at a meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in March, held in Vienna, where Russian representative Yulia Zhdanova stated that NATO’s military and political activity in the Western Balkans region continues to cause deep concern.
The topic of the meeting was the implementation of the Arms Control Agreement, which stems from the Dayton Peace Agreement and refers to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Croatia and Montenegro. Zhdanova said that NATO’s activities undermine the Dayton Agreement and directly Article 4 on arms control. Contrary to Russia’s claims, the European Union in a joint statement after the OSCE meeting stressed that the Subregional Arms Control Agreement has been contributing to the stability of the region for three decades, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
BASELESS RUSSIAN CLAIMS
The Russian delegation, speaking in Vienna, said that “the overall crisis nature of the internal political situation is determined by the destabilizing role of Western countries, which interfere in the affairs of sovereign Bosnia and Herzegovina, artificially inciting interethnic tensions.” Russia accused Western countries of wanting to destroy the “balanced system” established in Dayton, as well as of intending to reformat Bosnia and Herzegovina according to their own standards, violating the interests of the peoples in this country.
Zhdanoa also blamed the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Christian Schmidt, whom Russia considers illegitimate, for “destabilizing the situation,” as his appointment was not confirmed by the United Nations Security Council, which was not even necessary. The High Representative is appointed by the Peace Implementation Council (PIC) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was also done in the case of the current representative of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Schmidt. “We are convinced of the necessity of the urgent and unconditional closure of the institution of the foreign protectorate in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” said the Russian representative, blaming the West for the cessation of Russian funding of the PIC, as well as for its non-participation in the work of this institution.
For the closure of the Office of the High Representative, Bosnia and Herzegovina must meet 5+2 conditions and objectives, including the division of property between the state and other levels of government, the solution to military property, the implementation of the final decision on the Brcko District, the fiscal sustainability of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the rule of law, conditions that the country has not yet met.
Military analyst Gjuro Kozar told REL that the Russian claims are unjustified. “The security situation is negatively affected by the influence of Russian policy in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is manifested through the destructive policy of the leadership of Republika Srpska towards the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, led by the leader of the separatist option, the president of the SNSD, Milorad Dodik. In its efforts to disintegrate Bosnia and Herzegovina, the RS establishment has the support of Russia, which opposes Bosnia and Herzegovina’s membership in NATO,” Kozar said.
FOR RUSSIA, THE STRENGTHENING OF EUFOR IS ALSO UNESTABLISHED
In her speech, Zhdanova also said that Russia is closely following the progress of the operations of the European peacekeeping force in Bosnia and Herzegovina (EUFOR). “We warn that it is unacceptable to involve international forces in internal political processes. We consider the increase in the number of EU forces to be unfounded,” she said during her speech. In recent years, the number of EUFOR members has increased, mainly as a preventive measure after the increase in tensions in the country due to the adoption of unconstitutional and secessionist laws in the entity of Republika Srpska, which were later repealed.
A NATO official, who did not want to be named, told REL that NATO continues to provide support to EUFOR, with the aim of preserving the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina. “We fully respect the sovereign right of every state to independently choose its own political and security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security, which all states, including Russia, have accepted,” the alliance official said. Military expert Kozar assessed that neither the presence of the NATO headquarters nor that of EUFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina implies militarization. “The NATO headquarters has close to 100 people, mostly civilians, and their task is to help strengthen the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina within the framework of NATO’s Partnership for Peace, in which Bosnia and Herzegovina has been since 2006.”
Kozar added that Moscow, through criticism of the strengthening of EUFOR, aims to withdraw the Office of the High Representative (OHR) from Bosnia and Herzegovina, “so that the separatist objectives of Republika Srpska can be realized.”
WHAT DOES THE ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENT INCLUDE?
The Subregional Arms Control Agreement, which was the focus of the Vienna meeting, was signed in 1996, under the mediation of the OSCE. The agreement provides for clearly defined limitations on weapons, including tanks, armored fighting vehicles and artillery. According to the European Union, the signatory states, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, have reduced the amount of heavy weapons and the number of members of the armed forces below the levels provided for by the agreement over the years of implementation. Since 2014, the signatory states have taken full responsibility for the implementation of the agreement, which the EU statement of March 2026 cites as an example of successful regional cooperation and confidence-building.
The joint statement, which assesses the Agreement as “an exception at a time when most arms control agreements are not being implemented”, was signed by, in addition to the EU member states, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, the Republic of Moldova, San Marino, Serbia and Ukraine. “This June marks 30 years of continuous and uninterrupted implementation of the Arms Control Agreement. As such, it has become a stable part of security policy in the region,” the statement says.
NATO WILL NOT ALLOW A SECURITY VACUUM IN THE WESTERN BALKANS
NATO is clear that the Western Balkans remain “high on the agenda” and of strategic importance to the alliance. “Our commitment to the stability of the region is strong and we will not allow a security vacuum to be created,” an official told Radio Free Europe. NATO’s commitment to the Western Balkans is reflected in several activities. Support for EUFOR and the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina was mentioned earlier, while NATO also said that it is deepening political dialogue and practical cooperation with Bosnia and Herzegovina, “including through NATO Headquarters in Sarajevo, the Political Engagement Support Unit, and the newly approved individually tailored partnership program.”
NATO also said that the longest and largest peacekeeping mission in the history of the alliance is in Kosovo, KFOR, which continues to contribute to a safe and stable environment for all people and communities living in Kosovo. “KFOR’s strength and deployment are reviewed and adjusted periodically, in accordance with developing circumstances, so that the mission remains functional and fit for purpose. Currently, KFOR numbers close to 4,600 soldiers from 33 countries, including NATO Allies and Partner countries,” the alliance official said.
Russia, in its presentation at the OSCE meeting, said that in addition to the fact that “the trend of militarization has included the countries of the region that are members of the alliance”, with the instructions of NATO instructors. Kosovo’s combat capabilities are actively increasing. Moscow also sees the holding of exercises in the Western Balkan countries with NATO as a threat. “The alliance does not hide the fact that the Balkans as a whole, and especially its western part, is destined to become an important springboard in the framework of NATO’s preparations for a direct military confrontation with our country within three to five years, for which Brussels is intensively preparing”, Moscow claimed.
However, NATO stressed that long-term partnerships with countries in the region, primarily Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, are based on political dialogue and practical cooperation. “We will continue to advance dialogue and cooperation to support reforms, regional peace and security, as well as to counter malign influence, including disinformation and cyber threats from both state and non-state actors,” the NATO official said. (RFE)