Putin Exacts His Revenge for the "Brothers Across the Danube"; Is Kosovo Crimea Now?

During Vladimir Putin's remarks before the Russian parliament this past week to declare his annexation of Crimea successful in the aftermath of a plebiscite with winning results in excess of 90 percent, he revealed a newly embraced nationalism for a resurgent Russia.  He also announced his exacted vengeance for Serbia's loss of Kosovo in the crudest terms.

Putin mentioned Kosovo frequently throughout his speech; and exacting his revenge for Serbia's loss was apparently a desire he had harbored for a number of years. 

He crudely referenced the American bombing by referring analogously to it as "screwing everyone" but not asking for their permission. According to journalist Masha Gessen in her Slate report, who wrote: "The expression Putin used, however, was "vsekh nagnuli," street slang for having had non-consensual anal sex with everybody, rather than for having everybody agree."

Columbia Professor Kimberly Marten pointed out Putin's unvarnished embrace of Russian nationalism during his Duma speech when he referred to Russians as "Russkii" for exclusively ethnic Russians, as opposed to the customary reference of "Rossisskii" when acknowledging anyone who had a a Russian passport, in other words, a Russian citizen, irrespective of ethnicity.

Marten drew a plausible parallel to Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic nationalism project to violently create a "Greater Serbia" as he led Serbs through a series of wars that slaughtered thousands of people and destroyed Yugoslavia. 

It remains to be seen how far Putin will take his Crimea odyssey.  Will he venture into Eastern Ukraine?  Will he venture further afield to establish a Putinesque Russian empire?

But now a resurgent Russia has fully emerged, led by strong man Putin who appears to be not only omnipotent, but is bent on righting past wrongs carried out against Russia. His paternal declaration of protection for his Serbian slavic brothers was an unparalleled throw down and upends Europe's previous policy overtures to draw Russian into its organizations as a western leaning partner.  

These revelations should be a wake-up call for the Europeans.

Herein lies a defining fulcrum -- that of the historical slavic ties between the Russians and Serbs that runs deep with several centuries shared between them and notable for opportunistic manipulation of one another. Harkening back to the Vienna Congress of 1815, is just one example when Russian Tsar Alexander made clear in a diplomatic note circulated to delegates:

...calling attention to Turkish atrocities in Serbia, Alexander stated that [as] the emperor of Russia [he]was the natural protector of the Orthodox Greek Christians under Ottoman dominion...and the note concluded that Alexander was obliged by his religion and the voice of conscience to go to the aid of the oppressed Serbian people.

Timing is everything in geopolitical affairs.

The Crimean referendum was not the only election held on March 16.  On the same day a new Serbian government was elected that is expected to be led by Aleksandar Vucic, a populist and a political son of Slobodan Milosevic (Vucic was his spokesperson).  Vucic, a former nationalist hawk, ran a campaign that called for Serbia to join with Europe and resolve the Kosovo issue, a sharp juxtaposition with Putin's claims that his violent takeover of Crimea was an action to settle scores over on behalf of Serbia.

Will Serbia now choose to move forward and engage in a series of reforms required of future European Union members? Will they make peace with Kosovo while a resurgent, saber rattling, nationalistic Russia patron is on the move?

On the issue of Kosovo, the Serbs have always been supported by the Russians as evidenced in the UN Security Council during the Balkan wars where the Russians effectively used their veto powers to block action, or watered down resolutions against the Milosevic regime. 

Likewise, Russia has played a similar role in the permanent council of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which operates on the basis of consensus.  Russia has effectively blocked Kosovo's OSCE membership despite years of reform and international oversight that was carried out before its independence was declared in 2008.

It appears that Belgrade is juggling its European agenda while maintaining a friendship with Moscow. 

Over the years, but more frequently since 2012 when Putin returned to the Russian presidency, officials from Moscow and Belgrade have been frequent fliers in a concerted effort to curry favor and deepen their ties. 

Awkwardly at times, Bosnian Serb interloper Milorad Dodik, the premier of the Serb entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina has also been a presence in Moscow.

In the week before the Crimea referendum, Dodik traveled to Moscow where he was presented an award by the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill "for his outstanding contribution to improving the unity of Orthodox Christian peoples and consolidating and promoting Christian values in society." 

Justification for the the award was also attributed to Dodik's leadership of Bosnian Serbs and its relationship to the “Serb Republic [as the only] legal option to ensure safety of the Serbs west of the Drina River, which divides them, or more accurately connects them to Motherland Serbia.”

Not surprisingly, but nonetheless bizarre, Emir Kustrurica, the Serbian film director who is originally from Sarajevo and had once been a secular Bosniak, was in attendance at the ceremony held in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, along with a number of Russian diplomats and officials.  Kusturcia, who converted to the Serbian Orthodox faith in 2005, has made frequent trips to Moscow and attended the May 2012 Putin inauguration.

While many dismiss Dodik as desperate to maintain power and should not to be considered seriously, he nonetheless has the attention of major political players in Moscow. So no surprise that he would issue a solicitous statement of congratulations to the people of Crimea, calling the referendum a "legitimate and democratic referendum in keeping with the Constitution, international law and the UN Charter on the Right of People to self-determination." Russian ambassador to BiH Alexander Botsan-Kharchenko stood by his side as a proud and grateful witness.

None of Dodik's activities with the Russians advances the interests of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina to be improved, or to enhance responsiveness to the needs of its citizens. Dodik is using these meetings and relationships with Russians to affirm Bosnian Serb autonomy while invoking their "frail" position within BiH who must seek protection from their brethren in Moscow and Belgrade.

A more serious meeting between the Russians and the Serbs took place in April 2013 when Ivica Dacic, the prime minister of Serbia met with Putin to agree to become a "neutral" observer to Russia's Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a post Cold War organization, viewed as a successor to the Warsaw Pact. Other members include Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The agreement was hailed as a geopolitical advance in the Russian media and forecasted that when Serbia becomes a full-fledged member of the CSTO, the organization could speak on behalf of Serbia on Kosovo issues. 

And while official Serbian soldiers have not been deployed to Crimea, at least for now, Serb Chetnik volunteers have shown up for duty in Crimea.  They were interviewed by Vice media journalist Simon Ostrosky, while working at a checkpoint located on a Crimean highway.  

Ostrosky approached Bratislav Zivkovic (second from the right) who hails from "central Serbia, where he said "Czar Lazar started his campaign for Kosovo" and was in Crimea to help the Russians because "we have been helpful to each other through the ages." He added:  "We have come to help share our experiences from the barricades in Kosovo and Metohija."  Enough said. Apparently Kosovo is Crimea now.  Just ask Vladimir Putin and Bratislav Zivkovic.

Photograph of Vladimir Putin, courtesy of the Kremlin website. Photograph of Serbian Chetniks, courtesy of Twitter.

Tanya Domi is a Fellow at the Emerging Democracies Institute, Washington D.C. She is also an adjunct professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs and Harriman Institute.

Croatia Recycles its History: A Cautionary Tale for the European Union

Protesters against the Croatian referendum to ban same-sex marriage

Co-Authored with Reuf Bajrovic, the President and Founder of Emerging Democracies Institute, based in Washington, D.C.

When Croatia became the newest member of the European Union on 1 July 2013, its entry—the first ever by a single country—was hailed by overwhelming majority of observers as an important step in the democratic consolidation of the Western Balkans. The prevailing narrative was that Croatia would export democratic values to the region and that its success would act as an inspiration for its neighbors to move past the burdening legacy of the wars of the 1990s.

Less than six months into its membership, it seems that Croatia is not the next Estonia but the next Hungary of the European Union.

The outcome of Croatia’s December 1st ballot initiative that proposed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman places Croatia in the company of Hungary and four other EU members—Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland—all former Communist states, as well as countries like Belarus and Ukraine in effectively banning same sex couples from civil marriage.

The overwhelming support for the amendment shocked the established political class. The ad-hoc conservative group “In the Name of the Family” led by right-wing businesswoman, Zeljka Markic, blindsided the ruling parties with more than enough signatures to get the referendum onto the ballot. Joining forces with a far-right political party, Markic repeatedly issued a conservative trope to voters, indicating the referendum’s aim was to “protect children and families.”

Strong conservative and traditionalist political beliefs remain deeply embedded within the Croatian electorate and throughout the region. Rights of homosexuals are particularly opposed by super majorities throughout the Western Balkans according to the 2010 Gallup Balkan Monitor Survey data report.

In that sense, Croatia is not much different from its neighbors. But other disturbing developments make this referendum a more troubling event.

Efforts by conservative veterans’ associations and other right-wing groups to ban the use of Cyrillic letters in the eastern city of Vukovar—the symbol of the country’s war 1991-1995 for independence—are sending a disturbing message to Croatia’s minority Serb population. As it stands now, right-wing groups seem to have collected enough signatures to organize a referendum on the use of Cyrillic letters.

To add insult to injury, Croatia’s national soccer team’s recent qualification for the World Cup was celebrated by tens of thousands of fans chanting “For the homeland, ready”—a salute of the World War II era pro-Nazi regime which ruled Croatia and collaborated with Hitler’s Third Reich and was also used by extreme nationalist groups during the 1990s war.

The situation escalated when the Croatian police decided to ‘call in for questioning’ Matija Babic, the country’s leading journalist and owner of the most read news portal index.hr and a vocal critic of Croatia’s increasingly nationalist tendencies. Protesting the recent developments, Mr. Babic and Index.hr published an authentic Nazi-era photograph of the Croatian Catholic Church priests using the Nazi right hand salute, as well as a photo superimposing a swastika on the Croatian flag. The State Prosecutor now wants to punish Mr. Babic for breaking the country’s law on the flag.

But it is not just Croatia’s domestic affairs that are a cause for concern. Its foreign policy is once again focused on Bosnia and Herzegovina at a time when this troubled neighboring country is trying to address its own war legacies. The European Union has conditioned Bosnia and Herzegovina to change the discriminatory aspects of its Constitution under which Jews, Roma and all other citizens who refuse to identify with any of the three major ethnic groups cannot seek the highest elective offices in government. But instead of concentrating its efforts on helping Bosnia and Herzegovina’s disenfranchised groups secure equal treatment under the law, Croatia’s efforts in Brussels are consumed by the narrow priorities of two Bosnian Croat nationalist political parties.

All this smacks of the 1990s and rolls back democratic gains made under previous president Stjepan Mesic, who once made Croatia a role model for aspiring EU members in the Former Yugoslavia.

Precedents for these troubling trends are unfortunately present elsewhere in Europe. Hungary is a case in point.

Following his election in May 2010, Prime Minister Viktor Orban of the conservative Fidesz party lurched rightward when he rolled back media laws and protections to journalists. In the face of strong criticism by the international community, Orban only doubled down in 2012 by adopting a new constitution that strips some 300 faiths and religious institutions of their legal status. The constitution and related new laws also limit the scope of the constitutional court and violates the independence of judges, the central bank and the governments’ data-protection agency. Even the EU had no choice but to act, issuing a 30-day warning to Hungary to amend several controversial laws to avoid being taken to the European Court of Justice.

Against this backdrop, the extreme right Jobbik Party has escalated its use of hate speech, recently calling Jews a “security risk” and recommending that all Jews living in Hungary should be registered. Jobbik’s numbers of elected officials have more than doubled since 2006, making it Hungary’s third largest party.

Britain, France, and Austria have also been challenged by the growing popularity of the far-right movements, exposing minorities to escalating hate speech and attacks.

The response of the official Brussels to this troubling pattern across the EU has not been very vocal. The whole world has suffered greatly in the last century every time Europe went down the path of self-destruction. Older members of the EU might think of themselves as stable democracies in a stable neighborhood. But the troubling developments coming from its newest member may be a good reason for some much-needed self-reflection. Else the message sent to minorities is that their rights are protected for as long as an aspirant needs to demonstrate its EU worthiness. Once it enters, all bets are off.

Image courtesy of EDI.

This article was originally published on December 24, 2013 at www.edi-dc.org.