‘Serbian World’ And The Return Of Brezhnev’s Doctrine – OpEd
The doctrine of “Serbian World” was a concept that was announced by Serbian ideologues and Slobodan Milosevic himself during the 1980s and 1990s, in the period of the outbreak of conflicts and the disintegration of Yugoslavia. It has been revived in the meantime as a replacement for the notion of “Greater Serbia” along with the return of Brezhnev’s doctrine.
Introduction
Since the founding of the modern Serbian state [1878], Serbia has a close and deep history with the Russian Federation, including strong cultural and historical ties. In fact, Serbia is a product of this cooperation. This has led Serbia to seek support from Russia on the international stage, especially in the United Nations Security Council, in relation to issues it considers critical for its interests, such as the Kosovo issue. However, Serbia has also had excellent relations with the Middle East, especially with France, Great Britain, Italy, etc.
Meanwhile, after the Second World War also with the USA, depending on the geopolitical interests of these countries in relation to South-Eastern Europe. Efforts to develop good relations with neighbors have been one of the priorities in Serbian foreign policy, but there are still challenges and tensions remaining. After the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, when the geopolitical redistribution of groups into separate blocs is taking shape, Serbia is faced with an alternative: with Perednimi or with Russia.
In this position for decision-making, the silhouette of the former Serbian prime minister killed in his office, Zoran Djindžić, appears in the mind’s eye of every Serbian leader. The epilogue will depend on the current developments in domestic and international politics, which will determine the evolution of Serbia’s position between Russia and the West. The December 17 elections were the turning point for an expected positioning. In this context of dramatic developments, the doctrine of the “Serbian World” has been promoted.
The term “Serb World” is not a doctrine that has an official promotion, but as such it is increasingly penetrating the political vocabulary. However, this term has several concepts and ideologies that have been described by some political figures and analysts as part of a broader approach to Serbia’s role on the international stage and its relationship with the Serbian community outside its borders. The efforts to realize the “Serbian World” is already a state political project for the realization of which the hybrid war has been selected. However, some action of real war is not excluded.
The real threat
The governments of the European countries should constantly show the people that in the event of the outbreak of the second front of the war in the Western Balkans, the costs will be significantly higher for the states than what they should be for coping, respectively prevention its, especially in terms of inflation, recession, energy prices, refugees and financial sums for the army. But at the same time it must be made clear that there is a real threat to security at the European level.
This results from Vučić’s programmatic statements, which should be taken seriously. In his public appearances only during these days, as the protests of Serbian students and citizens continue in Belgrade, with emphasis on December 17, when Dodik and Mandić, with his “arms” on the ground, presented the “deep victory” of the elections by his strength political, he was de facto warning of the new phase of his political war, the realization of the “Serbian World”. But even in the letter that his puppet, Prime Minister Brnabić sent to the European institutions, he warned that he will move all possible stones to re-annex at least the north of Kosovo.
These behaviors and this letter seem to remind us of Putin’s actions before the invasion of Ukraine, especially the letter of December 17, 2021 addressed to the American administration and NATO. In that letter, Mr. Putin had called for some kind of “reversal” of changes in Central and Eastern Europe, which would correspond to a revival of Leonid Brezhnev.[1] That letter seemed to revive the doctrine: satellite states in Moscow’s exclusive sphere of influence.
But the bleak prospects if Vučić achieves his goals [the creation of the Serbian World and access to the Adriatic Sea through Montenegro…] could be ominous for the West. In this case, to the Russian project for the reconstruction of the Russian Force with war experience on NATO’s borders from the Black Sea to the Arctic Sea, in the event of its victory in Ukraine, the geographical spaces would be added as a wedge in the Western Balkans, which guarantee the Russian Fleet to land in the warm waters of the Adriatic.
The “Serbian world” in the dimensions claimed by Vučić would be a satellite the size of White Russia in Southeastern Europe. If the reoccupation of Montenegro is tolerated, then the United States will have to deploy additional, even significant, parts of its ground forces to Southeastern Europe. Serbian nationalism, being at the service of postmodern geopolitics, see for this, can be compared in its destructive dimensions in South-Eastern Europe, only to the platform of the German National Socialists and Lebensraum.
Similarly, as with the possible Russian victory in Ukraine, and with the Serbian victory in the Western Balkans, for the creation of the “Serbian World”, the United States will have to station a large number of stealth aircraft in Europe. While building and maintaining these aircraft is known to be an inherently expensive undertaking, “but the challenges in producing them quickly will force the United States to make a terrible choice between keeping enough of them in Asia to to defend Taiwan and other Asian allies and to deter or defeat a Russian attack on a NATO ally. The entire venture would gobble up entire coffers, and the cost will last as long as the Russian threat persists—potentially indefinitely.[2]
In this case, German, American soldiers may die defending the alliance in Montenegro as much as in Lithuania, even sooner than can be imagined today.
Kosovo, in this state of major geopolitical upheavals, has no choice but to continue to strengthen the KSF, its defense system and coordinate it with the Republic of Albania, since in front of Serbia we will be forced to be truly One.
Northern Kosovo, as well as Montenegro and Sandžak…which Serbia claims to include within the new borders and within the framework of the “Serbian World” through war or negotiations, as it is doing through the so-called “dialogue” EU-led Kosovo-Serbia are not abstract areas – no man’s land, but they are first and foremost the homeland of Albanians. The fate of those who remain under Serbian occupation is known; Toplica, the province of Nis, Kurshumli and Vraj, which until 1878 were part of the Albanian trunk, experienced the first Serbian genocide against the Albanians; today those areas are completely Serbized lands.
Limited sovereignty of Montenegro
The Brezhnev Doctrine, also called the doctrine of limited sovereignty, was a Soviet foreign policy doctrine promulgated by Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev in 1968 during the Cold War. This doctrine was announced in the context of the crisis in Czechoslovakia, after the attempted liberal reforms in the Central European country.
Events began with the Prague Spring in 1968, when Czechoslovak leader Aleksander Dubcek launched a period known as “Socialism with a Human Face”, aimed at reconceptualizing the socialist model. These changes had the potential to lead to the loss of Soviet influence in the region. In response, Soviet leaders, led by Leonid Brezhnev, decided to use force to limit this movement and influence the foreign policies of their satellite countries.
The Brezhnev Doctrine supported the idea that if a socialist state sought to turn from the right path of revolution, and if the interests of the socialist bloc were at stake, then the bloc had the right and obligation to intervene to protect “social realism” and “subjugation of which are spotless”. This meant that Russia and its allies had the right and responsibility to use military force on other socialist countries if they threatened the socialist order.
Brezhnev’s doctrine was based on the idea of the legitimacy of violating the principle of the independence of countries and the use of force to keep other socialist countries under control. However, its representatives defended it by saying that it was an attempt to maintain stability in the socialist bloc and prevent the overthrow of their regimes by internal liberal movements.
Meanwhile, Moscow and Belgrade are acting in this spirit in relation to their neighbors. The war in Ukraine and the tendency to start the second front of the war in Europe – the Western Balkans, is based on the Brezhnev Doctrine and seeks to bring it back to life with the legalization of the war and the Russian and Serbian expansionism.
The doctrine of the “Serbian World” was a concept that was promulgated by Serbian leaders, especially Slobodan Milošević, during the 1980s and 1990s, in the period of the explosion of inter-ethnic conflicts and the disintegration of Yugoslavia. This doctrine has meanwhile been revived as a replacement for the notion of “greater Serbia”. This concept supported the idea that Serbia had a leadership role and a special responsibility for protecting and promoting the interests of the Serbian people in all parts of the former Yugoslavia.
In this context, it can be argued that the concept of the “Serbian World” influenced the promotion of a kind of “limited sovereignty” for Montenegro. As Yugoslavia imploded and disintegrated, Montenegro came under pressure from Serbian leaders to take a more favorable stance towards Serbia and Serbian interests.
In 2006, Montenegro passed the independence referendum, declaring itself an independent state. This declaration of independence marked a significant change from the previous period of Serbian influence and the orientation towards a more complete sovereignty. However, Serbian relations and influence remain an important factor in current politics and developments in Montenegro. Indeed, the influence of the Serbian Church, especially in recent years, was the force that returned Montenegro almost to a satellite of Serbia today! The photo of the trio Vučić, Dodik, Mandić at the end of December 17, in Belgrade, speaks volumes in this respect.
Let’s remember the fact that Montenegro has been a member of NATO since June 2017.
This realignment can be considered as an important change in the foreign policy of Montenegro. That act seemed to pave the way for a more accelerated approach to joining NATO. In this way, the leading political elite had shown a clear orientation towards integration with Western structures and away from the previous Serbian influence. But, meanwhile, the situation is almost reversed.
The doctrine on the “Serbian World” has revived a pronounced influence in some parts of Montenegrin society, especially in the Serbian community. Some Serbian groups have taken a complicated stance towards Montenegrin independence and have felt part of a “Serb World”. These forces already have power in Montenegro. However, the impact of this doctrine is dependent on many other factors, including political, economic and social developments in the country. In these circumstances, Montenegro’s state identity and its independence are severely compromised.
In principle, Montenegro has a large spatial disproportion not simply because of its geographical smallness and the small number of inhabitants, but above all because of the fact that it does not represent a structurally homogenous state. Both in the spatial and cultural plane, there are profound changes between different ethnic communities, which, as time has already proven, have been significantly manifested. In this framework, the Serbian Church has played and continues to play the greatest influence.
In the 2011 census the majority of the population, almost three-quarters of all residents (74%) considered themselves either “Montenegro” or “Serb” without further identification (there was also the option of identifying as part of a specific subgroup) .
If we pay attention, it would be interesting to see in which communities the “Montenegrins” are the majority and in which “Serbs”. The demographic map of Montenegro shows that in the north of Montenegro, which borders Serbia, Serbs are generally in the majority, while Montenegrins are the majority in the center and south. Herceg Novi is an exception: there is also a slight surplus of Serbs here. This is due to the fact that during the second Yugoslavia there was a large investment in the tourism industry and for this reason many Serbs settled there, as was done during the colonization process in Kosovo.
In studies of this nature, the number of the Albanian population and those who are declared as Bosniaks, but who are actually assimilated Albanians, is given less weight! However, that affiliation is over 20% of the total population. It was precisely this community that gave independence to Mali in 2006 with an absolute majority during the referendum that determined the independent state of Montenegro.
Timely response and support
In addition to the necessary sensitivity for the victims of the wars that Serbia has caused during the war in the former Yugoslavia, by carrying out the next genocide on Bosniaks and Albanians, the interest of the West in the light of the perspectives described above, is not without hope and without solution. The possible diplomatic intervention and the strengthening of KFOR in Kosovo and the deployment of NATO troops in Montenegro and Albania, the supply of weapons to the KSF, are the real lines that could avoid the new Albanian war. Serbian. The government must intervene strongly and support the completion of the state-building process of the Republic of Kosovo, imposing on the four NATO members and the majority of the EU members to urgently recognize the independence of Kosovo, but also by arming the KSF. with whatever is necessary” and, above all, “in due time”.
If we pay due attention, despite the deepening crisis in Serbia, the situation is not as hopeless as it is described time and time again. Apart from the fact that Vuçiqi has miscalculated in many aspects – especially on the unity between our two republics [the Republic of Albania and that of Kosovo]; emphasizing the unity between NATO and the EU; on the determination of Kosovars to protect their Freedom and Republic; on Western military support; on the further expansion of NATO – the achievement of its strategic-political goal is far from the proclaimed goal and requires a long time.
In the Serbian march for the creation of the “Serbian World” there is nothing legitimate about the Serbian “defense” – it is insisting on keeping away or even returning under the hooves of its conquering kizma, the once stolen land.
It is already five past twelve
The renewed campaign of the EU envoy for the Western Balkans, Miroslav Lajcak, which seems to pretend to serve to neutralize the measures that the EU should undertake towards Serbia, claiming to keep Kosovo responsible for the “frozen situation” , which is more of an expression of the defeatism of EU diplomacy. This neighborhood of Western diplomats, responsible for creating the situation in the Western Balkans, seems to want to spread the responsibility. This situation speaks more about the “self-fulfilling prophecy” of those themselves than about the political will of the EU and the West as a whole.
The “freezing” of the conflict in relation to Kosovo, as Belgrade and its lawyers, Lajcak’s side, can claim, also contradicts the EU’s own interests – this action would simply give Serbia time and space to prepared for a renewed war to occupy Kosovo and confront NATO.
The period of diplomatic caution and intervention measures is coming to an end. In fact, September 24, 2023, when Serbia exercised open aggression against the Republic of Kosovo, add to this the most anti-democratic elections held in the period of political pluralism in Serbia on December 17, 2023,
have exhausted all the counterarguments of a quarter of diplomats who pleaded for increased caution since, they judged, Serbia can break away from the Russian orbit with prudence and diplomatic actions. What were the motives for such care? Considerations for Vucic and his ability to save face? Ideas to leave open the possibility of collaborating with him again later? Fear of escalation? …
Serbia, as evidenced by the investigations carried out by the Kosovar side for the aggression of September 24, 2023, still explicitly aims to erase Kosovo as a Republic and as a concept, as a people and as a state.
The creation of the Serbian Republic on the ruins of the genocide crime in Bosnia, a kind of “silent separation” of the north of Kosovo after the deployment of the French KOR forces in the north of Kosovo in 1999, had rewarded Serbia. That action by Perednim has cemented an ultra-nationalist ideology that believes in forceful expansion and is fundamentally anti-Western.
Meanwhile, Vuçiqi has consolidated the Serbian elites and society around his pro-war agenda for the return to Kosovo and the Anschluss of the Serbian Republic and the soft occupation of Montenegro. Serb victory in Bosnia and the creation of the Republika Srpska, despite its founders at the helm with Milosevic and Karadzic, was an almost guaranteed path to another Milosevic or worse, due to the political imperatives that an empowered nationalist community would create. . Vucic therefore does not present anything new, except the continuation of Milosevic’s course.
Responsible politicians, not only in this area of South-East Europe, finally, after more than three decades, are clear that the clock is already twelve to five.
Germany’s strong reaction to the irregular elections on December 17 and the clear appointment of the person responsible for the chaos it is creating in Serbia and the Balkans gives hope for the expected turnaround.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Germany stated that the irregularities in the elections in Serbia, reported by international observation missions, are “unacceptable” for a country that is a candidate for membership in the European Union.
“Serbia has voted, but the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) have reported abuses of public resources, intimidation of voters and cases of vote buying. This is unacceptable for a country that has the status of a candidate country for membership”, the German Ministry asserted through a post on X – the platform previously known as Twitter.[3]
Time for the “Frank Sinatra Doctrine”
Brussels and the West as a whole are clear that the values on which the second Albanian Republic in South-Eastern Europe – Kosovo – was founded, match the interests of the West in this part of the old continent and that there is a strong and convincing argument based on common values to help Kosovo preserve its sovereignty and become part of the integrated Euro-Atlantic family.
The consequences for Serbia’s actions and its prolonged tolerance by Brussels and the West as a whole, now is the time to make them public and bold. In any case, this action should be accompanied by the rejection of any blackmail that Belgrade uses by invoking the right to “self-defense”, as Vuçiqi did with his rage against Germany’s statements.
I am inclined to see the German reaction as evidence that the Germans do not at all “know how to walk alone” as there are presuppositions from anti-democratic circles in Europe. This attitude of Germany proves a kind of independence of judgment, which makes Europe anyway more open to the decisions that President Biden can take, who has also proven to be very careful.
“EU leadership” also means encouraging others, first of all France, for a positive change of course towards Southeast Europe in general and the Republic of Kosovo in particular. The battle for the inclusion of the Western Balkans in the sphere of Westernization should not be considered lost. Kosovo has its own weight in this immediate battle that also coincides with the interests of the EU and the West. It is time for an urgent high-level meeting of the supporting nations in the “Ramstein format”, said Brigadier General Dr. Klaus Wittmann, lecturer in contemporary history at the University of Potsdam.
On November 12, 1968, hope for democratization in Eastern Europe had come to a temporary end. Almost three months after the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw Pact troops, head of state and party Leonid Brezhnev had announced that the Soviet Union generally reserved the right to suppress opposition movements in socialist countries by force if necessary.[4]
Serbia’s blackmail through the deployment of Serbian forces in 48 bases around Kosovo, on the one hand, and the hero-like treatment of the terrorists who landed in Banja d’Albanik [Leposaviq], on the other hand, is unprecedented for a candidate country for EU accession! Recently, the blackmail through the “wave of the sword” against Germany, for allegedly interfering in the election process, should be called by its name – unacceptable political blackmail. The revival of Brezhnev’s doctrine is impossible. She is dead once and for all. Time for the “Frank Sinatra Doctrine.” Now each country decides for itself the path it wants to take, the former Soviet spokesman of the Gorbachev era, Gennady Gerasimov, would say to the world.[5]
Conclusion
The letter of the Serbian authorities addressed to the European Union, through which it is stressed that Serbia will not de facto recognize Kosovo, as requested; that it does not respect its territorial integrity, and that it will not agree on Kosovo’s membership in the UN and its accompanying organizations, has caused the EU unusual conflicts.
It is time for Brussels to respond to Belgrade’s strategy, not only ensuring that Kosovo properly faces the Serbian special war, paving the way for integration processes in the Euro-Atlantic mechanisms, but also demonstrating that Serbia’s borders are not permanent. Instead of Brussels and Perednimi acting to prevent the second front of war that Russia claims to open in the Western Balkans through Serbia, the strategic counteraction would force Belgrade to face the possibility of burning its own house.
The West’s full commitment to preventing the second war front in Europe – in the Eastern Balkans at any cost and the full integration of the region into the EU and NATO at any cost would not only prevent Russian penetration, but also “will to deal an asymmetric blow to the Russian threat and the anti-US coalition.”[6]
The West must recalibrate its perception of the possible escalation of the war in Southeast Europe; it must definitely stop Serbian expansion. It in its interest.
Notes:
1. https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/open-source/ukraine-krieg-warum-der-westen-wladimir-putin-jetzt-unbedingt-entschlossenheit-zeigen-muss-li.2169921
2. https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/the-high-price-of-losing-ukraine
3. https://www.evropaelire.org/a/gjermania-kritikon-serbine-per-zgjedhjet/32736697.html
4. https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/hintergrund-aktuell/279720/vor-50-jahren-breschnew-doktrin-von-der-eingeschraenkten-souveraenitaet-sozialistischer-bruderstaaten/
5. Ibd.
6. Institute For The Study Of War: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/high-price-losing-ukraine-part-2-%E2%80%94-military-threat-and-beyond
