However, Serbia interpreted it as an open provocation, endangering its territorial integrity and the security of its citizens – to the point that President Aleksandar Vučić declared, last month, that these countries were preparing for an attack.
Military cooperation between states is the norm in the modern security architecture, but in the Balkans, it continues to be seen as a problem – at least by Serbia when it includes Kosovo and two NATO allies, Albania and Croatia. The narrative goes as far as the perception of danger, which does not necessarily reflect the real security situation on the ground. The starting point of all this dynamic was a declaration on cooperation in the field of defense and security between Pristina, Tirana and Zagreb, signed more than a year ago. The signatories presented it as a commitment to strengthening cooperation, protecting territories and contributing to international peace and security, emphasizing that it is not directed against anyone.
However, Serbia interpreted it as an open provocation, endangering its territorial integrity and the security of its citizens – to the point that President Aleksandar Vučić declared last month that these countries were preparing for an attack. “Out of nowhere, a military alliance between Pristina, Tirana and Zagreb appears. Not military-technical cooperation, not military-economic cooperation, but a military alliance. And, of course, I am afraid for every citizen of this country,” Vučić told Radio Television of Serbia. To reinforce this narrative, he last week announced new investments in the military and further increases in defense capabilities, stressing that Serbia must be prepared for any development in a “complex security situation” caused by the activities of Pristina, Tirana and Zagreb. “In the coming days, we will sign very important contracts for the procurement of weapons and military equipment. We expect important visits and new contracts with other countries, with the aim of placing large orders for our army,” Vučić wrote on Facebook. In a Region where the memory of the conflicts of the 90s still influences the way security is understood, even developments that seem essentially cooperative often take on political meanings.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reached out to NATO for comment on the declaration on defense cooperation between Kosovo, Albania, and Croatia and the reactions it is provoking in Serbia. An alliance official said that it is a trilateral agreement between these countries and institutions in Kosovo, of which NATO is aware, but is not a party. According to him, NATO membership “does not prevent” allied states from developing additional defense cooperation. Serbia presents itself as militarily neutral, has the largest defense budget in the Region, and cooperates in parallel with NATO, Russia, and China. Why then would an agreement between three countries, which have neither territorial claims nor declared threats against it, provoke strong reactions in Belgrade? For security experts, the answer lies more in political interpretation than in a real threat.
Aleksandar Radić, a military analyst and publicist, says that a part of Serbian society sees Regional developments through the prism of external threats – which makes it easier for Vučić to create the image of a country “under siege” and mobilize support through security rhetoric. In the context of anti-government protests that have been going on for more than a year, Radić believes that claims of external threats also serve to divert attention from internal crises. “When analyzing the mindset of people who support Vučić, it is noticeable that they tend to believe that external factors are negatively affecting Serbia. They think that foreign intelligence services are disrupting order and acting against Serbian interests. In this context, the agreement between Zagreb, Tirana and Pristina serves Vučić as a useful tool to strengthen the narrative that he is ‘protecting Serbia’ and ‘strengthening the army’, because it is necessary,” says the Serbian analyst. This blurring of public opinion ignores the fact that Serbia itself has a defense cooperation agreement with Croatia. It was signed in 2010 by the then defense ministers, Dragan Sutanovac and Branko Vukelic, and is still in force.
Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic recently spoke out about it, criticizing Vučić’s narrative as clearly constructed for domestic political purposes. “When viewed from the content, the agreement that exists between Croatia and Serbia is similar, and even more complete in some aspects, than what Croatia has with Kosovo and Albania,” Plenkovic told reporters. Croatian military analyst Marinko Ogorec told Expose that it is regrettable that Vučić interprets cooperation that aims to strengthen Regional security and stability through education, training and joint exercises in such a way. According to him, such rhetoric risks inciting unnecessary tensions and even leading to an arms race. “This is called the ‘security dilemma’ in political theory. If you see your neighbor arming themselves too much, naturally you start to react in the same way. This leads to an arms race. We are seeing that Serbia is, in fact, arming itself and buying weapons systems beyond reasonable needs,” says Ogorec.
Serbia has weapons in its arsenal from the West, as well as from Russia and China. Last month, it was announced that it had also purchased CM-400 supersonic ballistic missiles from China, with great destructive power. For Albanian security expert Xhavit Shala, this highlights the asymmetry of armaments in the Region. “Serbia recently received the latest Chinese hypersonic missiles. What did Kosovo receive? Kosovo received anti-tank missiles from the US. They are for defense, while hypersonic missiles are not like that – they are for attack, to harm others. With a range that covers the territories of other countries – including NATO members,” Shala tells Exposé. He assesses that Vučić’s rhetoric of threats against Serbia has become a “chorus of the day,” directed mainly at the polarized domestic public, but also as a political message to the West. “By presenting this as a dangerous alliance for Serbia, he is trying to justify continuing relations with Russia and China, as well as purchasing weapons from them. So, supposedly as a result of the threat, we are forced to act this way,” says Shala.
Kosovo security expert Burim Ramadani agrees that Vučić’s arguments about threats from neighbors are untenable, or, as he calls them, camouflage for other political and geostrategic purposes. “Clearly, Serbia’s propaganda has a purpose behind it and it has to do with strengthening ties with Russia and China, which also have an interest in the Western Balkans being destabilized, its states being under threat and pressure, and NATO being in a more vulnerable situation,” Ramadani tells Exposé.
Serbia has been part of NATO’s Partnership for Peace program since 2006 and has planned joint exercises with the Alliance next month. A NATO official confirmed to Radio Free Europe that they respect Serbia’s military neutrality, stressing the need for trust and commitment to Regional stability. “Moving forward, the NATO-Serbia partnership must be a two-way street, based on mutual trust and respect, as well as a sincere commitment to Regional stability. We continue to call on Serbia to engage with NATO and its neighbors in a responsible and constructive manner,” the NATO official said. The United States Ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, also called on Belgrade to deepen cooperation with the United States and NATO in the field of security during a visit to Serbia this week. In an article for the Serbian newspaper Politika, Whitaker said that “the purchase of defense technology that is not operationally compatible with European or American systems complicates future cooperation and creates unnecessary obstacles.”
Shala, on the other hand, believes that the White House’s proposal to appoint a military man to the position of US ambassador to Albania shows that the US takes the security issue in the Balkans seriously and sees the Region as an important part of its strategic interests. For Radiq, now is the time for Serbia to define its position – “military neutrality is neither internationally recognized nor functional”. “In Serbia, we need to position ourselves towards NATO in a different way – either become a full member, or define neutrality differently and move forward. Not to create the impression that everyone around us is an enemy. Unfortunately, this leads Serbia to a situation similar to 1999, when everyone was against it”. “At that time, NATO bombed Serbia, and the airspace of all the countries surrounding Serbia was used for the operations of NATO forces. This should have been a historical message, that a country should not create an environment completely without allies. Unfortunately, history, in a way, is repeating itself,” says Radić.
Serbia now seems to have little control over the dynamics taking shape in the Region. According to Ogorec, Croatia and Albania as NATO members, and Kosovo as a country aiming for membership, are adapting their military capabilities to the Alliance’s standards – a process he describes as costly, but completely natural for member states. If this is read in Serbia as an arms race or a threat, then it is a matter of the way reality is perceived and not reality itself, Ogorec concludes. (RFE)