Cracks and Fault Lines: Foreign Policy Orientations of Western Balkan Capitals in the Context of the Ukrainian Crisis

IF 0.2 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
E. Arlyapova, E. Ponomareva
{"title":"Cracks and Fault Lines: Foreign Policy Orientations of Western Balkan Capitals in the Context of the Ukrainian Crisis","authors":"E. Arlyapova, E. Ponomareva","doi":"10.24833/2071-8160-2023-3-90-153-179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Ukrainian crisis has reverberated throughout the troubled region of the Balkans in Southern Europe, exposing deep-seated cracks and fractures that have long characterized this geopolitical area. The crisis has not only highlighted divisions between local states but also between communities and ethno-religious groups. In many cases, these intraregional contradictions are exacerbated by external actors and their demands. This article examines the foreign policy priorities and orientations of Western Balkan capitals within the \"five plus one\" format states (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, and the partially recognized \"Republic of Kosovo\") in light of the crisis in Ukraine, illustrating the interplay between regional dynamics and international crises.Drawing on a wide range of sources, including official documents and opinion polls on foreign policy, this paper identifies regional discrepancies in the perception and assessment of the ongoing Ukrainian conflict. The study employs a historical-systemic approach and neorealism principles to discern potential directions for political institutions in the external context. The analysis reveals that a fragile \"balance of threats\" persists in the region, heavily influenced by the goals and interests of external actors such as the EU, NATO, the United States, Russia, and to a lesser extent, China and Turkey.The military and political disengagement observed in 2022 mirrors the alignment of local players witnessed in 2014, but with a significant difference: the West now expects all participants in the \"five plus one\" format to fully adhere to their joint foreign policy, including implementing restrictive measures against the Russian Federation. This presents a challenging dilemma for Belgrade and Banja Luka, as they cannot overlook the widespread support for Russia's actions among the Serbian population. Any anti-Russian steps taken by local authorities may lead to serious internal political conflicts in both Serbia and Republika Srpska, with far-reaching implications for regional stability.","PeriodicalId":42127,"journal":{"name":"MGIMO Review of International Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MGIMO Review of International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2023-3-90-153-179","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Ukrainian crisis has reverberated throughout the troubled region of the Balkans in Southern Europe, exposing deep-seated cracks and fractures that have long characterized this geopolitical area. The crisis has not only highlighted divisions between local states but also between communities and ethno-religious groups. In many cases, these intraregional contradictions are exacerbated by external actors and their demands. This article examines the foreign policy priorities and orientations of Western Balkan capitals within the "five plus one" format states (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, and the partially recognized "Republic of Kosovo") in light of the crisis in Ukraine, illustrating the interplay between regional dynamics and international crises.Drawing on a wide range of sources, including official documents and opinion polls on foreign policy, this paper identifies regional discrepancies in the perception and assessment of the ongoing Ukrainian conflict. The study employs a historical-systemic approach and neorealism principles to discern potential directions for political institutions in the external context. The analysis reveals that a fragile "balance of threats" persists in the region, heavily influenced by the goals and interests of external actors such as the EU, NATO, the United States, Russia, and to a lesser extent, China and Turkey.The military and political disengagement observed in 2022 mirrors the alignment of local players witnessed in 2014, but with a significant difference: the West now expects all participants in the "five plus one" format to fully adhere to their joint foreign policy, including implementing restrictive measures against the Russian Federation. This presents a challenging dilemma for Belgrade and Banja Luka, as they cannot overlook the widespread support for Russia's actions among the Serbian population. Any anti-Russian steps taken by local authorities may lead to serious internal political conflicts in both Serbia and Republika Srpska, with far-reaching implications for regional stability.
裂缝与断层线:乌克兰危机背景下西巴尔干国家的外交政策取向
乌克兰危机在南欧动荡不安的巴尔干地区引起了反响,暴露出这个地缘政治地区长期以来存在的根深蒂固的裂痕和裂痕。这场危机不仅凸显了地方各州之间的分歧,也凸显了社区和民族宗教团体之间的分歧。在许多情况下,这些区域内的矛盾因外部行动者及其要求而加剧。本文考察了“五加一”模式国家(阿尔巴尼亚、波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那、黑山、北马其顿、塞尔维亚和部分承认的“科索沃共和国”)在乌克兰危机中的外交政策优先事项和方向,说明了区域动态与国际危机之间的相互作用。本文利用广泛的资料来源,包括官方文件和关于外交政策的民意调查,确定了对正在进行的乌克兰冲突的看法和评估中的地区差异。该研究采用历史系统方法和新现实主义原则来识别外部背景下政治制度的潜在方向。分析显示,脆弱的“威胁平衡”在该地区持续存在,受到欧盟、北约、美国、俄罗斯以及中国和土耳其等外部行为体的目标和利益的严重影响。2022年观察到的军事和政治脱离反映了2014年当地参与者的结盟,但有显著不同:西方现在希望“五加一”模式的所有参与者完全遵守他们的共同外交政策,包括实施针对俄罗斯联邦的限制性措施。这给贝尔格莱德和巴尼亚卢卡带来了一个具有挑战性的困境,因为它们不能忽视塞尔维亚人民对俄罗斯行动的广泛支持。地方当局采取的任何反俄措施都可能导致塞尔维亚和斯普斯卡共和国严重的内部政治冲突,对区域稳定产生深远影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
MGIMO Review of International Relations
MGIMO Review of International Relations INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信