Abstract Due to its proximity to the EU, Serbia’s strategic importance in the Western Balkans has attracted attention from non-democratic external actors. While existing research on autocracy promotion has primarily focused on cases of geographical proximity, this article examines whether Russia’s foreign policy toward Serbia can be classified as autocracy promotion. It thereby contributes to the literature on authoritarian external influence. Drawing on the frameworks of Katsiaryna Yakouchyk and Oisín Tansey, the analysis examines Russia’s motives and political mechanisms in Serbia between 2012 and 2024. The findings suggest that Russia’s primary motive is the fear of losing influence in Europe and identify mechanisms through which Russia shapes domestic politics and supports political elites. The article argues that Russia’s policy toward Serbia is better understood as autocratic sponsorship driven by democracy resistance rather than autocracy promotion. It also suggests that other non-democratic external actors may similarly shape political developments in the region.
Abstract This article shows how decades-old narratives, shaped partly by state-led campaigns against “walled-up” households in state socialist Macedonia, influenced the post-2001 armed conflict narratives and endure today. Drawing on the concept of slow memory, the authors argue that portrayals of Albanians as separatists and Macedonians as defenders persist beyond the formal peace established by the Ohrid Framework Agreement. These entrenched perceptions manifest in everyday practices, localized commemorations, and the absence of official efforts to address past injustices. The study introduces the notion of ethnic spatialization, understood here as the linking of ethnic identities, power relations, and spatial practices that assigns particular groups to particular places, to explain how collective memories are physically embedded in segregated commemorative sites, further reinforcing longstanding divisions. As a result, the 2001 conflict emerges less as a sudden rupture, as predominantly suggested in the public discourse, than a continuation of unresolved tensions stretching back to the 1980s. The authors here thus call for deeper engagement with these historical legacies and inclusive remembrance practices to foster more meaningful reconciliation and long-term social cohesion.
Abstract Over the course of past three decades, extensive external efforts aimed at consolidating democracy in the Western Balkans have been underway. Despite these endeavours, persistent political gridlocks and security crises serve as a stark reminder that substantial work remains. This article adopts the viewpoint of Western donor states, exploring the impact of their democracy promotion policies on the region. Focusing on the United States’ approach, it examines why externally supported democratization, originally rooted in principles, has fallen short of its intended goals, and in some cases helped lead to autocratization. The prevalent stabilitocracy theory ascribes externally “facilitated” autocratization to the procedural and political failings of the EU enlargement and accession negotiations process. This article offers a distinct theoretical perspective by introducing the concept of chessboard politics among major global powers and posits that Western policies are increasingly driven by systemic competition. As regional leaders with undemocratic and illiberal proclivities align with revisionist states, Western donors, reluctant to lose geopolitical influence, find themselves extending tacit or explicit support to those same local elites engaged in autocratization. The article relies on process tracing to illustrate these dynamics within the context of developments in Serbia and US foreign policy towards it since 2000.
Abstract The Western Balkans have become a battleground for competing visions of the global order. While the European Union demands a rules-based approach through accession negotiations, China promotes infrastructure projects, direct investments and trade as its preferred way to modernity within the framework of the Global Development Initiative. This oversimplified view portrays the Western Balkans as passive recipients of external influences. Countries in the region have agency. They engage in hedging and adopt opportunistic behaviour, driven by a rational-instrumental logic. Even this perspective runs the risk of oversimplification. Drawing on literature about institutions as networks and examining Serbia as a case study, this article argues that Serbia’s engagement with both powers contributes to the reshaping of regional and global orders. The incentives offered by Brussels and Beijing are not mutually exclusive; governments may simply have different timeframes for their objectives, or different reputational risks and opportunities. We may even see a relative convergence of the EU’s and China’s narratives in the region, combining the rule of law with effective development. This article looks beyond hedging as a standard perspective on Serbia’s foreign policy and sheds light on complex interactions between Belgrade and these two external powers.
Abstract Why is it essential to examine the securitization of China in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s (BiH) public discourse, particularly in light of China’s growing global presence? This article fills a gap by analyzing how local and international actors construct narratives around China’s presence as a security concern in BiH. Utilizing qualitative content analysis and expert interviews, the study uncovers narratives shaped by media outlets, think tanks, and local experts acting as narrative brokers. These brokers frame China’s infrastructure initiatives and bilateral relations through specific themes, heavily influenced by Western funding that highlights “malign influences.” The securitization intertwines with ethnic and political divides, EU integration concerns, corruption, and democratic backsliding. The article concludes that China’s role is predominantly interpreted through a security lens, potentially obstructing balanced relations. Additional research is required to assess the long-term implications for BiH’s foreign policy and its engagements with both China and the EU.
