Sylë Ukshini: Without confronting the past, the Balkans remain hostage to Serbian hegemony and Russian influence

Europe has been slow to act in the Balkans, an approach that has harmed Kosovo and the European Union itself, former diplomat Sylë Ukshini says in an interview with The Geopost.

"Serbia does not give up on Russia without giving up its hegemonic position," Ukshin emphasizes while talking about the Serbian state's game of two "chairs", between the West and Russia.

Deriisa speaks about Russia's destabilizing role in the region, about the influence of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Serbia's hegemonic projects, as well as about the double game that Belgrade continues to play between the West and the East, he calls for a clearer and more determined approach of the West towards the Balkans and especially towards Serbia. He underlines that without a real confrontation with the past, the region will remain hostage to old hegemonic policies.

Full interview:

Please: He is a professor from Potsdam, not because he said it, but even without saying it, but I find it interesting because often even in the analyses that are done today, I have the impression that people see things briefly. And he says that, without knowing the developments of the 19th century well, you cannot unravel some current problems. Your question also has this connection. And Russia's attempt to expand towards Asia, the loss of the wars with Japan, leaves Russia with only one solution: to either reach the Mediterranean through the Bosphorus or through the Balkans. And since the Ottoman Empire was on the Bosphorus, respectively behind it were the interests of Great Britain itself in the straits, Russia's concentration will be in the Balkans. And the turning point or the moment when its influence begins to be felt in the Balkans, is without a doubt the eastern crisis of 1875-1878. And this is the starting point where Russia seeks clientele in the Balkans. And one of its most favorable clienteles is Serbia, and through Serbia it tries to reach the Adriatic.

And here the idea of ​​territorial expansion arises. And of course Austria-Hungary is also in this match. However, the issue was that at that time, since the European concept, European relations were not as they are now, Russia managed to find allies even within the great powers, it found France, it found Great Britain and starting from this premise, it was able to realize its interests one by one. Even at the St. Stephen conference, the Berlin Congress, then at the London Conference. And it was precisely the London Conference that was the moment when Serbia created the Kosovo issue, Russia, supporting Serbia, that is, its territorial claims.

One thing that was not possible to achieve at that time, because it encountered strong resistance from Austria-Hungary, was Serbia's exit to the Adriatic Sea. The aim was to create a line through Serbia, to create a channel for Russia's penetration. And I have the impression that they clearly had this here and it was also the care of Edward Gray, the then Foreign Minister of Great Britain, who in a way with his neutral stance, but who did not support Russia when it was called into the framework of the Entente, made sure that Russia did not leave. However, if these problems in the Balkans are inherited from the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, in fact they are precisely due to the clientelistic and hegemonic position that it had or the Pan-Slavic idea that was designed in Moscow and then implemented by Belgrade.

The Geopost: This Pan-Slavic idea was also mentioned during the recent visit of Patriarch Irinej of Serbia, in his meeting with Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, and in his meeting with Putin. How do you see the influence of the Orthodox Church and how much has Russia used its influence through the Orthodox Church in the Balkans?

Please: I am sometimes surprised by young European diplomats. They do not know the role, the segment of the Orthodox Church well. Even within the Ottoman Empire, there was a kind of coalition, a kind of cooperation of the Russian and Serbian Orthodox Churches for the realization of hegemonic goals, because the Orthodox Church has always identified the national issue with the religious issue. And even in the wars of the 90s of the last century, the church has been at the service of politics. And in Russia the same thing applies. And on these premises, even the Serbian Church today that claims to, to achieve new concessions in Kosovo, has nothing to do with the issue of Serbian rights, but has the aim of dismantling the state of Kosovo and realizing the idea of ​​Greater Serbia. Because, as a Serbian historian, Latinka Perovic, says, the existence of the state of Kosovo is, in other words, an obstacle to the idea of ​​Greater Serbia. And in this context, the Serbian church is a powerful instrument or the third instrument, alongside the political elites, the third instrument that serves the project of the great state. And so it was during the time of Milosevic, so it was in previous periods, so that nationalist myths and wars or indoctrination, contamination of public opinion in Serbia, is permanently done by the Serbian churches, which instead of prayers to God and religious services, they have ideological, political, hegemonic services. And the church is simply a political instrument that serves expansionist policies.

And you saw it in the last statement, the Serbian patriarch from Kosovo, he talks about untrue things, because we also have an international presence here, but at the same time he also talks about Vučić's messages, that Vučić will come and will not listen to Europe.

But I think that it is not entirely the fault of the Serbian church or of Russia. I think that the European attitude has been too slow towards the Balkans. I have to admit that the European Union has been talking about European integration for 35 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Cold War lasted 45 years. 35 years is a long time, the European Union has walked with the steps of a turtle, and here it has created a gap that Russia has exploited wonderfully. Russia has exploited the same gap in the case of Kosovo, where some European Union countries, by not supporting Ahtisaari, by not supporting independence, have actually undermined the success of the West in the Balkans and in Kosovo. And I often say that this approach of the EU countries, as much as it has damaged Kosovo, has also damaged the position of the European Union itself. This situation that is being created, this instability that is being created, in fact, we must also seek responsibility from Brussels, because Brussels has always pursued clientelistic policies in the Balkans and Serbia has not been helped to have a real confrontation with the past. And on this basis, look, just the fact that we are being forced to maintain a church on the university campus that Arkan inaugurated. I have nothing against church buildings, but it is a church of Arkan or Milosevic.

And what does a cult object require within a university campus? And you have never seen the Serbian church distancing itself, a distancing position from what is said that the church was built without our interest, without a religious mission, with the intention of insulting, of ignoring Albanians.

I think that, as a foreign author says, the Serbian Orthodox Church has also been the center of anti-Semitism. And the very creation of the Serbian state and the expansion from the Pashalik of Belgrade, was started on these premises: ethnic cleansing, fighting minorities and above all these and behind this project permanently, continuously, has been the Serbian Church, which of course has also had the support of the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian political circles in Moscow.

The Geopost: We have big changes happening in the world right now. Serbia with its double game in position with the West, Russia and China, is sometimes seen as positive by the West, but from our perspective it looks different. Where do you see Serbia and all this Russian influence in the Balkans?

Please:  It seems naive to me to expect that Serbia will become pro-Western, because in the foundations of the existence and creation of the Serbian state, there have always been two currents, between the East and the West, and they have waged a permanent war, but they have always been used here to obtain privileges and bonuses from both the East and the West.

I think that Serbia should be left free to choose where it wants to go. I regret this request that we make to it, but Serbia exploits it in the most brutal way. I also saw it in a document from the 90s, from the German Foreign Ministry, on how Serbia should be approached. It was during the Bosnian war and the occupation of Kosovo.

Even then, the West had almost the same methodology. We need to bring Serbia closer, because it is an important country in the Balkans, so that it does not go to Russia. And look now, three decades later, we are still in this rhetoric. I think the issue is that they need to recognize the will of the Albanians to be part of the Euro-Atlantic processes and to integrate. Meanwhile, at the same time, it can be made clear to Serbia that you can go there. I think that by offering a clear Euro-Atlantic perspective for Kosovo, it gives Serbia more of a message that countries that choose this path can make progress. But, if Serbia opens chapters one by one, without any obligation, while imposing sanctions on the victim like Kosovo, of course this does not contribute to it pursuing a policy of pragmatism towards the West.

Everything that followed, I think, was clientelistic politics and a politics that played the political card. I saw the same thing in confidential German documents, Tadic also played it, that if, if you don't support me, extremist spirits will come.

Vučić uses the same thing. 'Support me because even more radical people will come than me.' And historically, the history of Serbia has operated, or the entire history has developed on these tracks, playing or using two cards, both the West and the East. But we must be clear about one thing: Serbia does not give up on Russia without giving up its hegemonic stance. And on this basis, the stance of the West, silent towards this doctrine, (for me it is a silent stance), seems to me to be wrong. Because, if we look at the events of 1914, how the assassination in Sarajevo happened, the First World War, we also look at the case of Banjska, it seems to you that you are reading Vučić's current acts. The summoning of the ambassador, the summoning of Russia, the victimization of Serbs, that is, it is a methodology and a similar calendar on which Serbian politics operates.

/The Geopost