There is no rock under which Vučić can hide

On Friday, February 24, it will be exactly one year since Russia invaded Ukraine. At the beginning, it seemed that this event - one of those that "accelerated history" - would not last long: the Russians quickly reached Kiev, conquered large areas in the east of Ukraine, and it seemed that Russia would win relatively quickly.

A year later, the same Kyiv is visited by American President Joseph Biden, and forecasting anything about the continuation and ending of the war in Ukraine is an extremely thankless task.

However, that was exactly the question that started the "Vremena" interview with Ivan Vujacic. With the former ambassador of Serbia to the USA, who represented the country in Washington in the period 2002-2009. year, we also talked about the war in Ukraine, about the way in which Serbia positioned itself towards that event, but also about the relationship with the EU and the so-called to the Franco-German proposal for an agreement with Kosovo.

"VREME": Is it even possible to make any estimate about the moment when the war in Ukraine will end and how? What would be the necessary preconditions for ending the war?

IVAN VUJACIC: This is the most important question that arises in all wars. Russia has changed its goal - from overthrowing the government in Ukraine to annexing part of its territory. During the war, it caused such damage that it will take half a century to recover - the estimated damage so far amounts to around one thousand billion dollars. In addition, ten million people fled Ukraine, some of whom will never return. On the other hand, Russia has also lost a number of talented people and dynamic IT and other companies. In the long run, Russia has lost markets, potential foreign investments, and will soon face stagnation and technological backwardness.

Unfortunately, the most likely is the continuation of the war with the offensive of Russia, in order to achieve either the encirclement of the territories of the annexed areas, or the infliction of the greatest possible losses on Ukraine before the heavier weapons promised to it by the West arrive at the front. This means that a war of attrition will continue until a stalemate is reached, resulting more in a ceasefire than in peace negotiations. A permanent cessation of war can only come when a potential zone of possible compromise is seen or when one of the sides is defeated. Currently, neither is in sight. In short, the war is likely to escalate in the near future, hopefully with less human casualties. It is estimated that by now each side had at least one hundred thousand dead and wounded.

From the point of view of average citizens, for example in Serbia, and perhaps in other countries in Europe, it seems that this conflict is no longer in focus, while in Ukraine a large number of people die every day, various weapons are imported, the number of refugees is increasing... Has Europe grown tired and forget about this conflict?

This war is the biggest historical event on European soil in the last thirty years, that is, since the fall of communism and the collapse of the USSR. At the same time, this is the biggest defeat of diplomacy. Every major international war is a defeat for diplomacy, which should be based on reason and mature, focused thinking. The biggest loser is Ukraine, then Russia, then Europe, and then other countries and regions of the world. Everyone is at a loss. Let's be clear, there are no innocents in this war, but there are no justifications for Russia's attack on Ukraine.

When it comes to the European Union, this crisis has fundamentally disrupted it. Previous crises – the eurozone crisis, the migrant crisis and the first Ukraine-related crisis of 2014 – have somehow been weathered, although none of them have been fundamentally resolved. The problems are either minimized, or their solution is postponed. In light of these previous crises, the biggest credit for burying and delaying the problem goes to Germany, with Angela Merkel at the helm.

In what sense?

In the period until the election of Macron as the President of France, Angela Merkel dominated EU politics. She imposed not only the German interest, which is somewhat normal, but also her way of solving the problem: for the Eurozone crisis and the rescue of the banks, when Greece was punished in such a way that it will not really recover from the imposed measures for a long time and in which the perspective of a good life was taken away for generations; for the migrant crisis and bribing Turkey with money to keep migrants; for undermining the position of Ukraine through the Nord Stream pipeline...

Angela Merkel's basic approach is summed up in the slogan "strategic patience". World statesmen should really assess when it is worth taking the initiative and when it is necessary to exercise restraint. But Angela Merkel made a philosophy out of doing nothing and declared it an art. Strategic patience means "do nothing to rock the boat." I have never been able to understand those who praise her for leadership, because that "leadership" was not manifested anywhere. In our area, it had a great influence in supporting the stabilocracy. In the wider field, the EU protected Orban for so long that now the EU has a problem that is difficult to solve, and at the same time it represents a problem for the further expansion of the EU to our region. I have been talking about her lack of leadership for a long time. It was interesting to me to see that some, who had previously praised her so much, revised their opinion in the direction I have just outlined - for example, Neil Ferguson, the famous historian, and many others.

How did the war in Ukraine affect the EU?

He demoted her. In fact, it is Putin who demoted her. German Prime Minister Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron were humiliated and sent home like two little schoolboys. Putin made it known to the entire EU that he wants to negotiate only with the Americans, that is, with their president Joseph Biden. This is also partly thanks to Angela Merkel, who allegedly had a special relationship with Putin, due to his long stay in East Germany and the importance of the Nord Stream, and who therefore should have strengthened Russia's partnership with the EU and respect for its position and views .

Putin made the EU return to the period of the Cold War - which, by the way, the USSR lost - and the EU, after the growth of skepticism towards the US during the Trump administration, turned to America again, but now as a significantly reduced partner, whose security he guarantees NATO with the USA at the head. By the way, I think the US entered this conflict unwillingly because it identified China as a major strategic competitor. This war complicated their strategy of containing China and diverted the energies and resources of the Biden administration from this task.

Therefore, the EU cannot "get tired" or "forget" about the war in Ukraine. That war actualized two of its external problems and one internal one. External problems are security and energy. As for the first, the neutral countries Sweden and Finland rushed to NATO as the only guarantor of their territorial integrity. With that, essentially - thanks to Putin - NATO experienced an expansion that it never hoped for. In addition, security requires an increase in military spending, which many European NATO member countries avoided by relying on the US.

But all that I have said about the problems facing the EU should not lead to the wrong conclusion that the EU is in a crisis that it cannot overcome. The history of the EU is a history of crises that it has survived and often emerged stronger. The EU, together with Great Britain (which is not in the EU but still belongs to Europe), has a total nominal gross domestic product only slightly smaller than the US. It must not be forgotten that EU countries are, by almost all standards, the most attractive to live in, and that the European welfare state is something that most of the world looks at with envy and admiration.

In your opinion, what role did Serbia play in relation to the war in Ukraine?

The President of Serbia, who exercises all power in this country, tried to avoid making a decision. Sam was talking about a rock to hide under. But it was predictable that this was not possible. At the very beginning, he struggled to draft a statement in which he did everything to avoid condemning Russia for attacking Ukraine. In that announcement, which was subsequently signed by the government, it was written that it was considered "wrong to violate the territorial integrity and sovereignty of any state", only 48 hours later Serbia would vote to condemn Russia in the United Nations.

I understand the attempts of Vučić to postpone the decision on sanctions against Russia due to the energy agreement. Serbia is not the only country that depends almost entirely on Russian gas. But, regardless, it should have been obvious that sanctions against Russia are a watershed in the eyes of the vast majority of EU countries. Serbia has now been so long overdue in introducing at least a symbolic package of sanctions against Russia - which, by the way, President Vučić is bragging about - that even the introduction of sanctions cannot improve the image of Serbia in the eyes of many European countries. In my opinion, we will pay for this attitude for a long time in the process of European integration. The Serbian sanctions could have been symbolic and would not have affected the Russian people, as claimed. The introduction of sanctions now will be a clear sign that the government is giving in under pressure, which is bad.

In May of last year, you said that Serbia was delaying the introduction of sanctions against Russia and that it was waiting for a favorable moment.

Then the energy agreement with the Russians should have been signed.

And what is waiting now?

Now the real problem is that the average citizen of Serbia supports the Russian narrative about the war in Ukraine, and besides, the Russian version of the causes of the war in Ukraine is served day by day on national television. This is also the real reason why the authorities took the position of not imposing sanctions on Russia. Maybe there are other reasons that we don't know.

But the government creates that narrative? The government cannot "remove itself" and say "the people won't do it", when the same government tells the citizens that all the time. How to get out of that vicious circle?

Difficult. Gradually and hard. First, the government should start a pro-European campaign, which it has never done. Why is Russia the most important country in Serbia? Among other things, because the EU has been degraded - on the one hand, pro-Russian propaganda is systematically carried out, and on the other hand, anti-European propaganda is carried out. There are two weights, both of which lead to Russia having more influence than it would otherwise have.

Of course, it is in Serbia's interest to have good relations with Russia. Building support for Russia in Serbian society, however, was done systematically. Putin gained the status and popularity of a rock star, like Mick Jagger. A hundred thousand people were brought to see him. The number of meetings at the national summit exceeded all others. In the narrative of our relations, we and the Russians have become centuries-old close brothers. It ignores the fact that we did not even have diplomatic relations from the October Revolution until just before the beginning of the attack on Yugoslavia by the Axis powers. Then, that since 1948, we have maintained a distance relationship with the USSR for forty years.

Russia has recently become a factor in our internal politics since the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo. Thanks to the described influence of the government on public opinion, these relations are the most important in the eyes of the broad domestic public, and therefore Russia's influence on domestic politics is greater than the influence of other countries.

Why are the local authorities - not only this government but also the previous ones - so satisfied with this situation that they are not moving towards the EU?

I'm not sure that's true, the previous authorities were still pulling more towards the EU. However, the turning point was the unilateral declaration of Kosovo's independence: it broke or postponed the EU story, but Tadić continued to move towards the EU, which is how we got the candidate status. If our assessments of reforms are converted into numbers, since 2015 we have stopped on that path. So, not only is anti-European propaganda being conducted, but nothing is actually being done regarding the reforms, except cosmetic things. The only significant change is the unforced attempt at the so-called reform of the judiciary, through a referendum, which was conducted almost in the dark, where people did not know what it was about, even though it was about changing the Constitution.

Who benefits from the EU accession standing still since 2015?

Everyone. The European Union has been relatively uninterested in this area until now. With all the aid and trade, it actually showed support for stability above all at the expense of democracy and the values ​​it now publicly swears by when it comes to Ukraine. Everything came down to transactional politics, formal "paper" reforms for the opening of clusters, pictures on television and creating the appearance that something is moving.

"We, like, give you tasks, and you, like, try to fulfill them."

That's right. In essence, the EU neglected us for two reasons: one is the character of the political elites and the stabilocracy in these regions, and their desire not to fundamentally reform anything, and on the other hand, the EU does not have the political capacity for active expansion, and that is why it stopped . The authorities in Serbia have not fundamentally shown that they care about those reforms, and that's why they didn't exist. For its part, the European Union does not think of seriously considering accepting truncated democracies or hybrid regimes, in which the connection of politics with crime and high corruption is manifested.

And where does this rush about Kosovo come from now? I mean the so-called Franco-German proposal.

In light of the war in Ukraine, there has been a change. The European Union had to do something in this area for two reasons. The first is to show that it is able to do anything in the political sense outside its borders, and the second is to, with the help of the USA, which is the only one with some authority in Kosovo, unlike the EU, which has none, to lead to the pacification of these areas on a more permanent basis. binding basis, in order to maintain minimum stability. In short, the rattling of a potential conflict by local actors (without going into who is more to blame) led to this reaction. The European Union must no longer allow itself to continue to show impotence.

However, the proposal of the political agreement and the way of its use are already taking on the proportions of a farce in our public, both from the perspective of the government and from the perspective of the opposition and so-called analysts. Everyone is surprised, and I am surprised that so many people are surprised. That paper, which has not actually become public, so it is speculated about, is treated as if it were at least the ultimatum of Austria-Hungary Serbia in 1914 or the Informburo Resolution from 1948. President Vučić also contributed to this by confessing about the threats he was exposed to.

As far as I have seen, some voices from the West have denied that an ultimatum was presented. If there were real threats, it speaks of the wrong strategy and weakness of our diplomacy. In other words, if the European Union discovered that actors from these areas should be talked to using threats, it speaks quite badly about these actors and their understanding of the world. If, on the other hand, you talk about threats as a reason for accepting the plan, it creates even greater resistance to the European integration that you are supposedly striving for.

It is true, however, that it is essentially another concession to Kurti. In other words, that paper should not have appeared in any written circulation before the formation of the Union of Serbian Municipalities. In this sense, I think that the position of the Serbian side that the prerequisite for the agreement (to which, as far as I can see from foreign diplomatic statements, the Serbian government has already agreed, but it must not yet publicly say so) is the formation of the Union of Serbian Municipalities - basically correct .

In fact, Kurti received something that resembles a factual recognition, without having done anything regarding the formation of the Union of Serbian Municipalities, and he still publicly opposes it. The task of bringing Kurti to a regular dialogue has fallen on the US, and it is difficult for them, because he has potentially growing support in Kosovo for his views. They cannot blackmail him with his biography. The Trump administration fired him once, but he quickly returned invigorated. Since the European Union has zero credibility in Kosovo, the task fell on the US, which is not easy at all (as our public thinks). I think the Americans are very frustrated with his attitude and statements. Hence the compliments to Vučić for his constructiveness.

How do you see the unfolding of the story with Kosovo?

Only the solution of the status of Kosovo should be viewed realistically. Serbia is expected to cede its sovereignty over Kosovo. The Albanian side is expected to relinquish part of its sovereignty in the form of the Community of Serbian Municipalities. The experience of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the Republika Srpska supports the fact that the powers of that Community of Serbian Municipalities will be less than those of the Republika Srpska.

At the same time, those powers should be somewhat above Ahtisaari's plan. Of course, there are other issues - the status of monasteries and cultural heritage, private property and the like, and especially international guarantees. The agreement, if signed, basically represents the acceptance and institutionalization of the existing situation.

What is problematic about all of this is that there is no real positive compensation for either side. For Kurti, there are no guarantees (which, not without reason, he unsuccessfully seeks) that all five European Union member states that do not recognize Kosovo will do so after signing the agreement. On the other hand, Bilčik's story about the "big carrot for Serbia" is empty and comical. As far as I understand, the story of "European perspectives" is becoming a never-ending story (never ending story) and without a realistic perspective. If you add to that the rumors about the long term for the implementation of the agreement, it speaks in favor of the assessment that essentially nothing will change, or that it will change with an uncertain outcome.

The problem for the EU is that its treatment of these areas undermines its credibility in Ukraine and Moldova, which have been granted candidate status. How can anyone in Ukraine believe in gaining membership if they look back for a moment at the promise of membership that the European Union made to the Western Balkans exactly twenty years ago? How should they look at all those visits, handshakes, and televised addresses that abounded in this space? Macron was the only one who told them the truth, which everyone else is trying to cover up. He told them it would take decades to reach membership. The problem, when it comes to these areas, is that after two decades, the European Union is sending an identical message to Ukraine. ¶