Why are sanctions the only tool to “discipline” Serbia?
By: Arben Fetoshi
Just as Milošević in 1998–1999 was refusing international agreements and warnings, “forcing” the world to react with NATO’s “Allied Force, 1999”, his former Minister of Information, Aleksandar Vučić, continues today to evade demands for accountability and constructive conduct regarding destabilizing interference against Kosovo. Serbia persists with its “two-chair policy” (Bieber, 2018), benefiting from the European integration process on the one hand and deepening strategic alignment with Russia and China on the other. Through a strategy that combines “victimization” as deception, aggression framed as “civic reaction,” and attacks through “false flag” operations (attack and blame), it has returned to being the primary source of destabilization, implementing Putin’s doctrine as an “opportunity” to advance the “Serbian World” project.
Reprimands that are not “understood”
The man who is now under investigation for the “Sarajevo Safari” and who once declared that for every Serb killed, 100 Muslims would be killed, is a refined disciple of the Greater-Serbian ideology that continues to benefit from both Brussels and Russia and China alike. The Western challenge following the start of Russian aggression against Ukraine granted Vučić prolonged “understanding” in his perfidious game of destabilization.
The attack in Banjska, the attack on the Iber-Lepenc canal, disinformation campaigns, the instrumentalization of citizens from the Serb community, interference in elections, and other hybrid activities against Kosovo’s constitutional order clearly demonstrate Serbia’s destabilizing strategy and its growing departure from European values and integration criteria. Such undermining interventions not only in Kosovo, but also in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro, as well as the refusal to align foreign policy with that of the EU after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, confirm Serbia as an “extension” of Russian policy, likewise open to Chinese penetration in the Western Balkans.
FBI expertise exposed the “false flag” tactic in the Varragë attack, making the hypocrisy of “victimization” clearer to the international community. However, this clarity—translated into international demands, remarks, or reprimands, such as those of the EU regarding Radoiçiq, of NATO’s Secretary General regarding Banjska, of the U.S. Congress regarding ongoing tensions, and others, is not a message Serbia understands. Just as in Miloseviq’s time, Vuçiq does not “listen” unless he feels concrete punitive measures firsthand.
“Red lines”
President George H. W. Bush’s warning (Christmas Warning, 1992) to Miloseviq about the “red line” in Kosovo was the message that proved U.S. consistency seven years later (1999), and which today is codified through the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This means that the United States of America protects Kosovo as a strategic security priority, guarantees its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and defines the path of Kosovo–Serbia normalization through mutual recognition.
This is a decisive step that “extinguishes” Vučić’s hopes regarding the stance of President Trump, further diplomatic maneuvering through “victimization” or “destabilization,” and strategic calculation based on alignment with Russia and China. The law authorizing punitive measures, financial sanctions, and other restrictions against anyone who threatens peace and stability in the Balkans enshrines mutual recognition as the epilogue of the dialogue, excludes any scenario of territorial division or border reconfiguration, supports the Euro-Atlantic integration process, and counters Russian and Chinese influence in the region.
American resolve against hybrid threats and the Russian agenda in the Balkans was also manifested days ago through sanctions against the Serbian oil company NIS, majority-owned by Russia (over 56% of shares). Therefore, only such a serious approach—adopted as a model also by the European Union—would produce the “bomb-like” effect needed to stop Serbia and curb Russian-Chinese influence in the Western Balkans.
Measures that “discipline” Serbia
History has shown that Serbia “understands” only when international pressure turns into concrete action. Its strategic hypocrisy regarding European integration, confirmed by the refusal to align foreign policy (European Parliament Resolution), is openly reflected in officials’ statements as well. For example, the “partnership” claimed by Interior Minister Ivica Daçiq during his meeting with European Commissioner Magnus Brunner in Sarajevo, was exposed just days later by Daçiq himself, through his reaction to the EU’s assessment that “Serbia is violating its obligations from the dialogue by opposing Kosovo’s membership in INTERPOL” (Koha, 26.11.2025).
Such a stance shows that “European partnership” for Serbia is valid only when it receives millions of euros for the integration process and when Europe “subordinates” itself to Serbia’s hegemonistic interests. For this reason, the European Union must synchronize with American practice by taking concrete steps through measures and sanctions that condition Serbia’s compliance with obligations, such as:
- Suspension of accession negotiations;
- Suspension of IPA III funds, including the Growth Fund;
- Sanctioning individuals, companies, and destabilizing networks, etc.
During the period 2021–2024 alone, the EU allocated over €872 milion in grants to Serbia under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA III). Meanwhile, under the “Growth Fund” plan, Serbia is expected to benefit from up to €1.6 billion in grants and soft loans. Thus, only a new European approach—transforming demands and reprimands into punitive measures against Serbia—is the language that neutralizes revisionist and anti-Western threats in the Balkans.
The author is Director of the Institute for Hybrid Warfare Studies “Octopus”.