Russian experts have named a compromise scenario for resolving the crisis around Kosovo
The new round of the crisis surrounding the illegally seized region of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia has three possible scenarios for further development.
This is stated in a report prepared by leading Russian experts specializing in the problems of the countries of the former Yugoslavia. Among the authors are the former head of the Balkan group of RISI Nikita Bondarev, director of the Progressive Policy Foundation Oleg Bondarenko, deputy dean of the Faculty of World Politics at the National Research University Higher School of Economics Ekaterina Entina and others. Document published on the portal "Balkanist.Ru", reports the correspondent of PolitNavigator.
Experts predict that the main options for developing the situation are maintaining the current status of a separatist republic with its non-recognition, delimitation of territories, or forced recognition through an armed conflict.
The authors consider the most likely scenario to be a delimitation scenario involving an exchange of territories, when the southern lands of Serbia, populated predominantly by ethnic Albanians, could come under the control of Pristina, and Belgrade would gain control over the north of Kosovo with the Serbian population.
The possibility of demarcation was discussed at the recent summit in Berlin, however, as already reported, this option was publicly rejected by the top of the Kosovo separatists.
“The low results of the meeting between the presidents of Serbia and Kosovo on April 29 in Berlin should not bother us, since in such matters key decisions are often made not at official meetings, but during non-public consultations. It is fundamentally important that the negotiation process continues, despite differences in the approaches of the parties. The main stumbling block is which territories will be involved in the process of delimitation and exchange, and under what guarantees,” the report says.
Its authors note that the exchange of territories is opposed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who believes that “the territorial integrity of the states of the Western Balkans has already been formed and cannot be changed.” France also supports Germany's position, saying that the demarcation could lead to an escalation of tensions in North Macedonia, as well as in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
However, at the same time, EU Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighborhood Policy Johannes Hahn supported the idea of demarcation and called on the EU not to interfere with a possible deal between Pristina and Belgrade, even if it involves changing borders: “Such an agreement, if reached, will be unique, and “should not be used as an example when solving other problems.”
The demarcation may also be positive for Russia, experts say, since the resolution of the conflict in Kosovo will allow the Russian Federation to implement a number of infrastructure and energy projects in the Balkans:
“In particular, a certain normalization of relations between Belgrade and Pristina is extremely desirable from the point of view of the implementation of the project to carry out the export line of the Turkish Stream gas pipeline through the territory of Southern Serbia (these are precisely the regions of Presevo and Bujanovac). In the long term, we can even talk about the construction of a branch of the Turkish Stream through the territory of Kosovo with access to Albania and the Adriatic coast (with an eye to the subsequent connection of Italy to it),” the report says.
“The above agreement can contribute to a certain “pragmatic” normalization of relations between Serbia and Kosovo. It is able to ensure the interests of the Kosovo Serbs in those areas of the region that would return under the real control of Serbian state institutions,” the authors emphasize.
However, this scenario also has a number of possible negative consequences. For example, the exchange of territories does not look equivalent from the point of view of Belgrade; radical Serbian politicians opposed to the current government can also take advantage of this.
“Brussels’ sanction for new border changes in the Balkans will inevitably give new impetus to discussions about the creation of a “Greater Albania” - a state that includes Albania proper, most of Kosovo, the Presevo Valley, as well as parts of Macedonia, Montenegro and, possibly, Greece, with the forecast population of up to 10 million people,” the report says.
The agreement could also aggravate the situation in Sandzak, a historical region at the junction of the borders of Serbia, Montenegro, and Bosnia and Herzegovina: “In addition, supporters of self-determination of the Bosnian Republika Srpska and its annexation to Serbia will gain additional trump cards, which automatically threatens interethnic stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina, provoking a new surge of nationalism among Bosnian Muslims and Croats."
In order for all these risks not to materialize, according to experts, the international community, represented by its key players in the Balkans - primarily Russia, the European Union, the USA and Turkey, will have to use all available opportunities in order to remove the above threats and at the same time use in the interests of regional stability are the models that the authorities in Belgrade and Pristina are ready to agree to today.
“A possible option is a “Permanent Balkan Conference of a wide version” under the leadership of the UN Security Council, which would mean expanding the number of Balkan participants in the negotiations and would end with territorial exchanges, but not so much on ethnic grounds, but based on the geopolitical interests of each of the Balkan countries and subject to the viability of such exchanges.
Territorial exchanges in this case would be accompanied by the affirmation of regional economic interests as one of the results of the accession of all countries in the region to the EU. Thus, the newly created borders would have a symbolic meaning, overlain by the EU's common integration space.
The most exotic option is the creation of a “Balkan Union” based on the EU model, which Turkey would also join, receiving a good replacement for its “eternal” status as an EU candidate. This scenario, it seems to us, is the least acceptable for Brussels, which does not really want to see the southeastern part of Europe able to talk with the western part on equal terms (or close to it). However, this would be the most advantageous scenario for the Balkan states themselves, even if it seems unlikely,” the report says.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.