The Balkan geopolitical carousel

...

Politicians have been on for a long time the Balkans realized that their nationalist rhetoric and visualization of socializing with members army maintains or improves political ratings. It is paradoxical that in all their mutual conflicts and outbursts of hatred, they are becoming more and more similar every day, especially in their irresponsibility towards the consequences of their actions. Societies in our region rest on existential anxiety and perverse myths about national homogeneity instead of being interwoven with the perspective and future of young people. That is why in the Balkans we are still waiting for a leader who will not base his policy on public opinion polls but on vision and the ability to create dedicated partners from traditional enemies.

"SOFT BELLY"

In such bleak options and with unstable regional relations, it is easy to fabricate reasons for conflicts in the Balkans. That the region of the Western Balkans could face an increased risk of localized interpersonal violence is also the position of the US National Intelligence Community (ODNI), which announced this in the Annual Threat Assessment for 2024. However, the geographical position of our region is a defining and unavoidable geopolitical factor that is an integral part of the new European security architecture.

Therefore, there should be no doubt that the Western Balkans region will maintain the strategic interest of the EU and NATO, which will not allow the security situation to deteriorate and the potential escalation of the conflict in which Russia could play the role of a catalyst. We already know that special attention is being paid to Russia's potential for destabilizing the region, which will require quick affirmative political responses, such as the possible expansion of both organizations, which could represent the most successful geopolitical mechanism. The region of the Western Balkans does not represent the periphery of the European Union or the Alliance, but its "soft underbelly", which long ago tied its economic development and geopolitical destiny to European values. That's why the countries of the Western Balkans should see this moment as a global danger for civilization, but also an opportunity to integrate into the European Union, as well as into the collective security system, through an accelerated procedure based mainly on political decisions and less on achieved standards.

However, we should not ignore the global geopolitical power recomposition and the attitude of many European leaders that Europe has come out of the post-war period, and that today we are in a pre-war state. In addition to warnings to citizens in some EU countries to prepare for war, many countries are rapidly changing their defense strategies and consequently the doctrine of the use of their forces. Just one example is Germany, which, after the new National Security Strategy, presented the Defense Policy Guidelines, in which warfare is set as the primary task of the Bundeswehr, rather than crisis management and stabilization. The ominous consequences of such decisions are a sharp increase in military spending around the world and an increase in the capacity of defense industries. In such a global situation, it would be wrong to ignore and turn a blind eye to current security challenges and threats.

Never in the history of civilization has rapid technological progress affected the shaping of geopolitical power as it does today. Unwanted consequences of such development are sophisticated security threats that few countries in the world can independently respond to and thus ensure the national and personal security of their citizens. Precisely because of this, the Western Balkans region is directed to coordinate and, if possible, integrate defense potentials so that countries can optimize the relationship between military costs and the level of security achieved. Today, such security cooperation on a bilateral basis seems utopian, but at least for now it is achievable through a collective security system or within the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union.

POLITICAL CAPITALIZATION OF THE ARMY

In such geostrategic uncertainties and the complex situation in the region, it would be quite justified to increase allocations for the defense system and improve the operational capabilities of the Serbian Armed Forces (SAF), especially when our declarative military neutrality rests on the concept of total defense. Admit it or not, military neutrality is absolutely unsustainable in modern circumstances without foreign policy neutrality, without rooted tradition and without international recognition of such a choice. In addition, the strategic documents in the field of defense do not provide the citizens of Serbia with a single indicator as to why Serbia would be threatened and why we are currently significantly increasing military spending.

Given that, according to the IMF's projection, the estimated GDP of Serbia for this year is 76,43 billion euros, the total allocations for the defense system could amount to about 3,5 percent of GDP. Although insufficiently transparent, the budget commitment of 1,5 billion euros, the January announcement of an additional 736 million euros and this year's installment for the purchase of Rafale aircraft in the amount of 421 million euros can be included in that amount, but not the logistical costs for the reception of recruits. contingent of the VS. With such allocations, Serbia is positioned as one of the countries with the highest military spending in the world in relation to GDP. And despite such allocations, we can legitimately ask ourselves whether we are safe as a society and whether military neutrality along with political independence can guarantee us peace and stability.

It should not be overlooked that the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, publicly announced the drafting and adoption of the Foreign Policy Strategy for the first time in our history, as well as the adaptation of defense strategies to the complex situation in the region and the world in order to ensure the country's stability and security. Although, at least for the public, the work on those documents has not moved since the president's announcement, we are all aware that in this geopolitically turbulent time we must know where we are going and what our goals are, what our interests are and what values ​​we are committed to. In such circumstances, the basics of foreign policy strategy should be very simple: (1) security of all citizens of Serbia, (2) protection of state interests and (3) promotion of Serbian values ​​in the world.

In addition, it is necessary to define the hierarchy of strategic documents in Serbia, and to avoid in the future partyocratic incompatible pseudo-strategies or radical rhetoric of political actors who would like to manipulate the country's perspective. Like all citizens of Serbia, such politicians would have to bear responsibility for their expressed views, such as the claim of Serbia's alliance with Russia. Politicians who compromise the Constitution, the declared military neutrality and the foreign policy orientation of Serbia can continue to live with their convictions, but they cannot represent the people of this country.

Although, as a rule, they have limited knowledge in the field of security, the region's politicians are happy to capitalize on the popularity of the army through visits to barracks, military exercises or tactical-technical assemblies. The presentation of the newly acquired combat systems and the inevitable comparison with the environment are particularly attractive. After the politicians, military analysts and the media are happy to compare the effectiveness of those systems on a tactical level, and so, with the indispensable pub patriotism, we all create a virtual regional arms race together. After "Krasuha", "Rafala" and HIMARS, the Balkan geopolitical carousel stopped at the introduction of mandatory military service.

WHAT CONSIGNMENT DOESN'T SOLVE

Simultaneous announcements from Zagreb, Belgrade, and even from Pristina about the introduction of fixed-term composition speak of an unfinished history that burdens bilateral relations in the region and causes continuity of tensions with occasional incident escalations.

However, it is a very expensive project in the financial and wider social context, especially if there are no indications of war in the region. The fact that young people do not see their future in uniform and with weapons is also shown by the number of young people in Croatia who invoked conscientious objection in the years before the suspension of the obligation to serve in the military, which was at the level of 80 to 90 percent. Especially Prishtina should take care of this, because after visa liberalization it is facing an exodus of the conscript population, which shows us the mistrust of young people towards politicians and the desire to live in a safe environment, which all countries in the region should take into account.

We cannot say that the latest initiative to re-introduce mandatory military service in Serbia surprised the public, which is still deprived of the real reasons, detailed analysis and social consequences of such a decision. However, this proposal of the military leadership points to a series of problems that they were unable to solve, such as adequate filling of units, implementation of functional doctrines, operationalization of the concept of active reserve or passive reserve training. Instead of looking for solutions to the problems of the defense system in incentives, the generals lightly reached for obligations with a probably repressive punitive policy and thus brought the country's political leadership to a forced compromise solution. However, it is not entirely clear how such a proposal will overcome constitutional limitations such as gender equality (Art. 15), conscientious objection (Art. 45) or the prohibition of discrimination (Art. 21), but also to solve the issue of dual citizenship or the participation of all national minorities without exceptions.

From the analysis of current world conflicts, it is easy to conclude that modern combat systems have imposed technologically sophisticated threats that recruits are unable to respond to. Therefore, general military conscription is a thing of the past and only a professional soldier can effectively respond to modern security challenges. Probably the biggest illusion of our society is the attempt to assign an educational role to the army, which has always only trained and drilled recruits, without a corrective pedagogical approach. Because of all the above, this represents a broad social issue in which experts from the fields of psychology, sociology, pedagogy and andragogy should be involved, in order to optimally respond to all security challenges for our country, together with decision makers.

Even by solving the issue of fixed-term composition, the state will not make the SC a desirable employer, nor will it restore the motivation of professional, highly trained personnel who are continuously looking for alternative employment. It is true that the labor market is very competitive, and that VS is not in a position to compete with multinational companies in the search for experts of certain profiles. The generals who are still preparing for the wars of the 90s cannot help the political elite because they are too busy with the daily delegation of responsibilities and the authoritative disposal of privileges. Prime Ministers Churchill and Clemenceau recognized this a long time ago when they said that war is too important a matter to be left to the generals.

CHIPS INSTEAD OF STEEL

Precisely for all these reasons, our most effective security mechanism should be our foreign policy. If we continue to base security on unsustainable military neutrality, on the virtual concept of total defense and on commitment to the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), as stated in the defense strategies, then our heads are deep in the sand. Just as we witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 without any awareness of the geopolitical consequences, even today we do not understand (or do not want to) the global context that consequently threatens regional stability. With a balanced foreign policy, we are not only deceiving the people regarding the European integration intentions, but also contrary to national interests, we are depriving Serbia of the potential of true partnership and alliance. It is high time that we reconsider the sustainability of military neutrality and all the benefits of the collective security system, and that we exclusively pursue the interests of Serbia.

Regional cooperation is one of Serbia's foreign policy priorities and it should remain so. Any virtual arms race deprives the region of the possibility of development and wastes the heritage of the young generation. The purchase of any platforms such as the Rafal aircraft or the HIMARS artillery-missile system is only a budgetary expense that does not fundamentally contribute to the level of security, and takes away the possibility of development in many other areas. Only the acquisition of Rafal aircraft far exceeds the financial capabilities of both Croatia and Serbia, and the continuity of maintenance, training and overhaul will certainly generate consequences for a sustainable budget balance. What the military leaders in the region have not yet realized is that the modern arms race does not represent the amount of steel in the army, but the possibility of semiconductor production, and already tomorrow it will be the level of artificial intelligence management.

Precisely because of the politicking that greedily searches for signs of love in international relations, it is necessary to free foreign policy from historical prejudices, tabloid narratives and political calculations about ratings. If we do not want or cannot understand what the consequences of global geopolitical tectonic changes will be, we can live in delusions, but only for a while. That is why all the countries of the region, in their own national interest, should embrace the acceleration of the process of European and Euro-Atlantic integration, and provide their citizens with a sustainable future, collective security and long-term regional stability.

The author is the executive director of the Council for Strategic Policies