Military alliances in the Western Balkans: Permanent external enemies for domestic political stability

As countries in the region strengthen their cooperation and coordination, as well as coordination between NATO and the EU, the process increasingly becomes the subject of disinformation campaigns. Although Serbia considers itself to be under a security threat from several NATO member states in the region, it maintains close military cooperation with Hungary, a NATO and EU member, acquires Chinese missile systems, and participates in joint exercises with the Alliance

 

Author: Stojan Sinadinov

 

The trilateral defense cooperation agreement signed by Albania, Croatia, and Kosovo in Tirana on 18 March 2025 has, for more than a year, served as a kind of “fuel” for the spread of disinformation and spin by Serbia. By generalizing the alleged security threat and elevating it to the level of a narrative about an “anti-Serb alliance,” while also invoking false narratives from the past, Serbia has used this development to justify the creation of its own military alliance with Hungary and Republika Srpska, while simultaneously continuing to significantly expand its military arsenal.

The joint declaration of Croatia, Albania, and Kosovo, described as a memorandum rather than a formal alliance treaty, aims to enhance security coordination in the Western Balkans, strengthen defense infrastructure, facilitate intelligence sharing to counter hybrid threats, including cyberattacks and disinformation, and promote joint military exercises. Croatia and Albania are also focused on supporting Kosovo’s integration into regional and Euro-Atlantic structures by helping the Kosovo Security Force meet NATO standards.

The strengthening of military ties, the enhancement of interoperability, efforts to counter hybrid threats through joint training and the transfer of defense technology, as well as support for Kosovo’s integration into NATO have prompted a strong reaction from the Serbian authorities.

Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić not only criticized the declaration, but also accused the signatory countries and NATO of violating the 1996 arms control agreement and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244. Although the declaration is open to participation by other countries in the region, North Macedonia does not plan to join this framework of military cooperation. Kosovo’s Minister of Defense, Ejup Maqedonci, denied reports that Bulgaria, another NATO member state, was prepared to join the initiative. The claim was quickly refuted, leaving the “anti-Serb alliance,” as portrayed by Vučić, with one member fewer.

Military cooperation or a security threat?

The trilateral declaration explicitly states that it is neither an international treaty nor a military alliance and therefore does not create any new international or intergovernmental legal obligations among the participating states. Nor does it affect their existing obligations toward other countries. Nevertheless, the narrative promoted by Serbian officials is that the formation of such “military alliances” represents a new threat to peace and stability in the region.

A year ago, Serbian Defense Minister Bratislav Gašić described the declaration as a provocative initiative by neighbouring countries and argued that it validated Serbia’s strategic investment in strengthening and modernizing its armed forces.

For Serbian President Vučić, this declaration represents a violation of an earlier subregional arms control agreement from 1996, originally signed by Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (which became the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro in 2003, and then the independent states of Serbia and Montenegro in 2006). According to Vučić, this gives Serbia the right to accelerate its armament and to initiate military cooperation with other countries in the region, including Hungary and Republika Srpska. Under this pretext, Serbia recently acquired supersonic Chinese-made missiles for its MiG-29 fighter-bombers. In the media, these were colloquially referred to as “Zagrepčanke”, because their range is around 400 kilometres, roughly the distance between Belgrade and Zagreb.

 

A brief digression: as noted by former Croatian politician and diplomat Božo Kovačević, the defense cooperation declaration between Croatia, Albania, and Kosovo is similar to the Balkan Pact of 1953, concluded between Yugoslavia, Greece, and Turkey. At the time, Yugoslavia, after its break with the USSR, entered into a pact with the two NATO member states as a form of preventive defense against Soviet expansion. However, it did not last long due to political and military tensions between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus.

In any case, the more countries in the region strengthen their mutual coordination, as well as coordination between NATO and the EU, the more this process becomes a driver for the spread of disinformation narratives.

The West is generally portrayed in a negative context, while Russia is presented as a saviour and protector of Orthodoxy in the region. NATO is depicted as an aggressive organisation expanding towards Russia’s borders. Sputnik also seeks to reinterpret Montenegrin history, presenting the decisions of the Podgorica Assembly of 1918 in its publications as legitimate and as an expression of the majority will of the citizens, said Milan Jovanović of the Atlantic Council of Montenegro at the presentation of “Russia’s Presence in the Information Environment of the Western Balkans” last year.

 

Blocking the ‘blockaders’ with an alleged anti-Serbian plot

The disinformation narratives spread by Serbia regarding the declaration by Croatia, Albania, and Kosovo are being kept alive in part because of the country’s ongoing political instability. The civic protests that followed the collapse of the canopy at the Novi Sad railway station, which claimed 16 lives, have varied in size, but the “blockaders” have not backed down from their demands to curb corruption, which they say is driven by officials from President Vučić’s ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS). This is especially evident during election periods, such as the current local elections in ten municipalities, when pro-government media go into overdrive and the “blockaders” are demonized.

This is why the Serbian president’s response has consistently been to look for enemies in the region and blame them for the protests in his country. He has even invoked warnings of a supposed “Macedonian scenario” aimed at bringing down his government, while also exploiting the tragedy of the fire at the Pulse nightclub in Kočani in March 2025.

The misrepresentation of the aims of the declaration by Croatia, Albania, and Kosovo has proven to be fertile ground for disinformation narratives about Serbia supposedly being under threat from all sides, with the exception of Hungary.

Croatian analyst Jasmin Klarić pointed out that there are also other written documents, older than the much-cited declaration, and of greater importance.

When it comes to military cooperation, there is a much more significant document in force than the declaration signed a year ago in Tirana by the three ministers. It is called the Military Cooperation Agreement between Croatia and Serbia, signed in 2010 by the two defense ministers. Since this is not just a declaration but a serious military agreement, it was also debated and adopted by the Croatian Parliament (Sabor). Not only that, but four years later an exchange of trainees at higher military schools began, and a joint military exercise titled “Joint Response 14” was also held. As relations between the two countries deteriorated over time, no new joint maneuvers were held, but the agreement remains in force, Klarić writes.

The Polish fact-checking website Pravda, in an explainer devoted to disinformation narrative techniques, points out that such narratives are increasingly based on a simple but effective mechanism: generalization.

From individual incidents and historical episodes, an image of an entire nation is constructed: “they are all like that.” As a result, emotions replace facts, and collective stereotypes replace individual judgment. This mechanism, well documented in social psychology, reinforces fears, divisions, and a sense of threat.

…Importantly, studies on the dynamics of stereotyping show that the tendency toward generalization increases especially when the group making the assessment finds itself in a state of uncertainty or perceived threat, whether economic, cultural, or existential. In other words, the stronger the sense of frustration and insecurity in a society, the greater the tendency to create simplified categories and divisions between “us” and “them,” according to Pravda’s analysis.

 

“We live in peace, but prepare as if war could break out tomorrow”

If Serbia’s current government has somewhat forgotten about the supposed “Macedonian scenario” for toppling Vučić, the cast of characters in that scenario continues to expand. Alongside the Croats, Albanians, and Bosniaks, the Bulgarians may soon join them as well, naturally because of Macedonia.

Vladimir Đukanović, a member of the Serbian Parliament and of the presidency of Vučić’s ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS), wrote the following in a recent column for the Belgrade daily Politika about threats to Serbia’s security and the alleged Bulgarian threat to Macedonia as a pretext for military buildup:

The military alliance concluded between Zagreb and Tirana, where I deliberately leave out Pristina given that Kosovo and Metohija is an integral part of Serbia, and it must once again be emphasized that the so-called Pristina is in fact Tirana, is clearly directed exclusively against Serbia. Why else would a new military alliance be created between Croatia and Albania within the framework of a military-political body such as NATO? Who else could such an alliance be directed against? Surely they are not planning to act against Hungary or Austria. Perhaps Turkey? All of that is absurd, because it is as clear as day that this alliance, which Bulgaria may at some point join because of its aspirations and ambitions in North Macedonia and southeastern Serbia, depending, of course, on who is in power in Bulgaria, is directed exclusively against Serbia.

Interestingly, an official from the ruling SNS party uses the well-known phrase, “We live in peace, but prepare as if war could break out tomorrow,” which was a central tenet of Tito-era Yugoslavia’s military doctrine. At the same time, Russian media have also played a role in reinforcing the narrative that Serbia faces military and security threats. This narrative tends to intensify around March 24, the date on which Serbia commemorates the anniversary of the start of the 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

On that occasion, Moscow stated that the 1999 military intervention had become “a tragic turning point in the history of the Serbian people, a devastating blow to the system of international law and to the foundations of European security established after the Second World War.”

The Balkan edition of RT (Russia Today) argues that although “Belgrade pursued a policy of military neutrality, positioning itself as a stabilizing force in a region still haunted by the unresolved legacy of the 1990s, and Serbia balanced between East and West, maintaining open channels with Brussels, Washington, Moscow, and Beijing while avoiding the rigid alliances that have historically turned the Balkans into a geopolitical battleground,” Serbia’s neutrality is nevertheless under pressure. As a result, “its response is measured but clear. Plans to significantly expand military capabilities over the next 18 months reflect a shift toward deterrence. The reintroduction of compulsory military service, albeit for a short period, signals a broader mobilization of national resilience.”

In the same vein, Maria Zakharova, spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, claimed that Croatia, Albania, and Kosovo are operationalizing their military cooperation as a supranational military bloc, or alliance, aimed at strengthening military capabilities, jointly procuring weapons, and developing the defense industry.

Serbia believes it faces security threats from several NATO member states, which, among other things, seek to formally integrate Kosovo into NATO. Serbia, however, still considers Kosovo part of its own territory. At the same time, it maintains close military cooperation with a NATO and EU member state, Hungary, acquires Chinese missile systems, and is set to hold joint exercises with the Alliance in May under the title “Platinum Wolf.” The Kremlin interprets these developments as pressure on Belgrade to adopt an anti-Russian stance.

Chinese supersonic missiles, with speeds reaching up to Mach 4.5, a range of up to 400 kilometers, and a warhead payload of up to 200 kg, are not the only controversial issue in the region’s “small arms race.”

Croatian President Zoran Milanović pointed out that not only has China sold weapons to Serbia, but Israel is also systematically helping it strengthen its military capabilities. According to him, Israel is selling Serbia dangerous offensive systems and is involved in their integration.

In the past five years, Serbia has imported the most complex weapon systems in the Western Balkans region, according to the latest data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), as stated in an analysis by Deutsche Welle.

According to the institute’s data, Serbia ranks 37th in the world in imports of major weapons systems, placing it even ahead of some EU member states in the region, such as Croatia and Bulgaria.

In the past five years, Serbia has imported complex weapons systems from 13 different countries. The largest supplier has been China, primarily due to the procurement of medium-range air defense systems, while the largest donations have come from Russia and Belarus, according to Deutsche Welle.

According to SIPRI estimates, Albania ranks second in the region and 103rd in the world in terms of the volume of arms imports, which is about six times lower than Serbia’s. Kosovo is ranked 118th, North Macedonia 138th, Bosnia and Herzegovina 144th, and Montenegro 152nd among a total of 166 recipients of major weapons systems worldwide, the media outlet reports.

The comparative level of engagement in purchasing new weapons can be seen most clearly in the following video:

Pavle Trajanov, a former long-time official in the security services and Minister of Interior, and currently the national coordinator for preventing violent extremism and countering terrorism, says that we are witnessing psychological warfare, an overemphasis on military capabilities and armament, conspiracy theories about alleged armed conflicts, and attempts to redraw borders.

Nothing of that will happen. Everything depends on us, but also on the fact that most Balkan countries are members of NATO and candidates for EU membership. In these processes, Russian interference is also emphasized, but it is not decisive, because the EU, and especially the United States, will not allow it.

Macedonia is a peaceful and stable country with full alignment of its foreign and security policy with EU policies, and strong relations with the United States as our strategic partner and guarantor of the inviolability of borders in the Balkans, Trajanov claims.

We can conclude that the disinformation narratives propagated by Serbia over an extended period, claiming that the declaration of mutual military cooperation between Croatia, Albania, and Kosovo constitutes a serious security threat to its territory, will continue to circulate across the region and will likely identify new adversaries as long as the country’s domestic political situation remains unresolved.

This article was produced in 2026 for the project Prebunking at Scale, with support from the European Fact-Checking Standards Network.

All comments and remarks regarding this and other Vistinomer articles, correction and clarification requests as well as suggestions for fact-checking politicians’ statements and political parties’ promises can be submitted by using this form