Interview with Reinhard Krumm, head of the regional office for cooperation and security in Europe at the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung in Vienna. Krumm was a speaker at the conference “Foreign Policy of Serbia: Between Brussels and Moscow”, organized in Belgrade by the Forum for International Relations of the European Movement in Serbia and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation.
European Western Balkans: Russian influence in the Western Balkans has been the subject of much discussion over the past year, which appears to worry the EU and NATO. How do you assess the strength and nature of this influence?
Reinhard Krumm: Several countries and unions are interested in cooperation with the Western Balkans region: Russia, Turkey, the EU, the United States and China. For Russia, the Western Balkan countries are of interest because of their power projection. Moscow is flexing its muscles and seeking more ties with countries beyond its direct borders. Engaging with Serbia is favorable to Russia due to energy projects but also military cooperation. Other countries in the region are not as important to Russia, with the exception of Bosnia and Herzegovina due to the Republic of Srpska. Russian influence in the Western Balkans should not be overestimated, due to its limited economic capabilities.
ISF: In your opinion, what are Russia’s short-term interests in the region? Does this only oppose the expansion of the EU and NATO or is there something more?
RK: The Russian government feels somehow responsible for Serbia’s interests because of its cultural ties. This is what we could hear while listening to the Speaker of the Russian Parliament Vyacheslav Volodin during his recent visit to Belgrade. For Russia, Serbia is an important country in the Western Balkans, as it can exert geopolitical influence in the region and prevent further NATO enlargement. With EU membership, it is more complicated.
ISF: What is the place of the Western Balkans in this context? “new cold war» between Russia and the West? Do you think the region is important to either side and do you think there is a threat of proxy wars due to potential global crises?
RK: In my opinion, the current situation cannot be described as a “new cold war”. It’s not global and there are no opposing ideologies. What we saw in Georgia (2008) and Ukraine, or partly in the Western Balkans, are symptoms of the security problem we currently have, but are not the root cause. This is part of a larger problem which is the absence of a comprehensive European security order. We have failed to have one, Russia feels like it is outside, as do other countries that are “between” the EU and Russia.
Serbia also aspires to a stable and prosperous future. But the Russian Federation offers very few offers on the direction the Western Balkans can take. It is therefore not surprising that most countries in the Western Balkans are turning towards the EU. The problem is that, for now, the EU is looking inward, absorbed in solving its own problems. The desire to expand further is currently at an all-time low.
This makes it more attractive for Russia to cross its borders with its interests and it makes it more difficult for countries in between, such as the Western Balkans. But let us not forget that all Western Balkan countries are sovereign and independent and therefore are not objects but subjects of international law. They also have a responsibility to find their own path and consider the pros and cons of each approach. You could say it’s a very difficult situation if you’re “in between”, but then, who isn’t “in between”? Germany, as a Central European country, was and will be located between West and East. Countries that fall in between should use geography as an opportunity. Trading is the first thing that comes to mind.
ISF: Serbia is trying to find a balance between the EU and Russia on issues such as EU sanctions and motions in international institutions. Do you think this strategy is viable in the long term?
RK: If you look at the Eastern European Partnership countries, you will see that one of the problems we face now is that these countries feel forced to choose: either the EU or the Eurasian Economic Union . It is clearly up to countries to decide which path of modernization they choose, and they must be able to get the best from both sides. But they must also understand that Russia does not change its postal address, that it does not move away from it.
The ideal world – if you look at the OSCE Paris Charter for the New Europe – is that every sovereign country has its rights and territorial integrity. On the other hand, the Paris Charter also states that if a country changes something in the overall security architecture, all countries of the Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE) must agree on this. point. We are faced with a problem here: freedom of choice versus the security of all.
Serbia has the opportunity to balance its influence and opportunities to achieve the best it can. She must do what she wants, but she must also ensure that the path she chooses does not have repercussions that could harm the path she is following. It is largely up to the Serbian government, and primarily Serbian society, to find the right balance.
ISF: Russian-Serbian ties are undoubtedly historic, strong and deeply rooted. Officials frequently say that these ties are not in themselves a problem, but recent statements have been made, such as that of German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, condemning the predominance of pro-Russian discourse in the country. Do you think that these ties can constitute an obstacle to Serbia’s accession to the EU?
RK: We are currently having in Germany and in the EU in general a serious debate about Russian influence through its media. I would say this influence is generally overrated. However, it could be that in Serbia, the Russian media will have a minimal impact. A country located in the center of South-Eastern Europe, looking towards both Russia and the EU, should be able to find a balance.
I think we should stop understanding that Russia is guilty by default. Life is more complicated than that. The most important thing is that Serbia has every opportunity to choose its own path. Serbia could be an example of moving closer to the EU while maintaining decent relations with Russia. Since Serbia is not yet a member of the EU, it has certain freedoms, in this case it does not support sanctions against Russia. This decision is not expected to play a role in EU membership. The EU can only benefit from countries that have ties outside the Union, because Europe is more than the EU.
ISF: Do you think tensions between the West and Russia could ease in the near future or do you think we will see more of this crisis in relations?
RK: You ask a difficult question. So far, there is no sign that tensions between Russia, the EU and the United States are easing. The main reason for this is clearly Russia’s annexation of Crimea and ongoing fighting in the disputed territories. But there are other reasons, such as neglecting Russia’s aspiration to be part of the European security architecture, which never happened. Our perceptions of the last 25 years are very different. The dream we all had of a united Europe after 1991 unfortunately did not come true.
Differences in international relations are the norm, not the exception. We experienced difficult times in the 1960s, after the Cuban crisis and after the construction of the Berlin Wall, in 1979 with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and in 1983 with the shooting down of a Korean civilian plane by the Soviets. Not to mention the suppression of revolts in Central and Eastern European countries like Budapest, Prague and Poland. Back then, we focused on small steps. Even today, we must look for small steps, islands of cooperation in trade, in cultural ties, in political issues, to move towards a sustainable European security order.
I see no signs that this will become a reality any time soon, which makes the next few years very difficult. Also for Serbia. But I believe that difficult times are just perfect for politicians and exporters to come up with the best solutions for people: peace and prosperity.