Author: Prof. Dr. Asoc. Arben Fetoshi – Director
What lies behind Serbia’s anti-NATO narrative?
Even on the 26th anniversary of NATO’s intervention against barbarism, as characterized by Tony Blair in his “Doctrine of International Community” speech on April 22, 1999, in Chicago, Serbia continues to avoid apologizing for the genocide and instead disguises itself as a political hyena aligned with Russia’s objectives. Through victim rhetoric, it attempts to obscure the ethnic cleansing, killings, and massacres committed in Kosovo—crimes which, according to human rights organizations, “left no alternative” but NATO’s intervention (Under Orders: War Crimes in Kosovo, HRW, 2001). While condemning the defensive alliance between Kosovo, Albania, and Croatia as a threat and a violation of the 1996 arms control agreement, Vučić conveniently “forgets” Serbia’s own recent rearmament. At the same time, by “lamenting” to Serbian citizens about the consequences of the bombings, Serbia cultivates a “sense of injustice” as a precondition for new scenarios of violence.
Serbia as an extension of Russia
Due to its campaign of crimes and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, on March 24, 1999, NATO began bombing the military targets of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The consequences of its aggression in Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina had already convinced the international community of the need for a firm response against Milosevis. The monstrous crimes in Kosovo with over 13,000 civilians killed and massacred, nearly one million forcibly expelled, and thousands of women and girls raped, legitimized, as then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated, the “use of force in response to massive violations of human rights.” Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright emphasized in her memoirs that ethnic cleansing could not be permitted in the heart of Europe (Albright, M. (2003). Madam Secretary, Miramax Books). NATO spokesperson at the time, Jamie Shea, according to whom the intervention preceded the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine, today recalls the importance of the alliance’s swift and forceful reaction.
However, despite the truth, as on every anniversary, Serbia continues to complain about “aggression” and “historical injustice” as part of a strategic narrative aimed at denying the crimes committed in Kosovo and portraying NATO as the “enemy” of the Serbian people. This is also echoed in the recent reaction of Milorad Dodik, sanctioned by the United States and wanted by the judiciary in Bosnia-Herzegovina for actions against the constitutional order—who, using emotional rhetoric, denounces NATO as a “criminal alliance that dropped bombs on children.” Serbia has long relied on such rhetoric and manipulative narratives—also disseminated by the Church—to deepen citizens’ hostility toward the West and to strengthen ties with Russia. By considering every NATO or EU agreement or expansion as a provocation and threat, Serbia reveals its fear of democracy and functions as a prolongation of Russian geopolitical interests in the Balkans. Although it presents itself as moderate, it continues its aggression against Kosovo, continues rearming, and interferes in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro. This means that its anti-NATO rhetoric is not merely rooted in historical grievance, but serves as preparation for new scenarios of violence and destabilization. Through its victimhood propaganda, it is reloading the weapon for its old expansionist aims. Therefore, the battle for truth is inseparable from the battle for peace in the region: neutralizing this propaganda is not merely a duty to historical truth but also an imperative for a future without bloodshed.
Serbia in the Role of the Hyena
Based on NATO’s resolve and the new alliances formed against the Serbia-Russia threat in the Balkans, Serbia in 2025 is more of a political hyena than an open enemy—a player that pretends to be a victim, howls in international forums about “justice,” but in the background threatens, stirs tensions, and prepares to strike if it senses weakness in its opponent. Serbia’s “howls” against the defense agreement between Kosovo, Albania, and Croatia (March 18, 2025) reflect its fear—not of an attack it knows will not happen, but of the failure of its “predatory” plans. Following the agreement—which includes:
- cooperation in the defense industry,
- interaction in education, training, and joint exercises,
- strengthening resilience against hybrid threats, and
- support for Euro-Atlantic integration—
signed by the defense ministers of the three countries in Tirana, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic accused Albania and Croatia of initiating an “arms race” in the region by cooperating with Kosovo’s institutions. Defense Minister Miloš Vučević labeled the agreement a “provocation” that undermines regional security efforts. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs requested explanations from Tirana and Zagreb regarding Kosovo’s inclusion, claiming that the agreement undermines regional stability.
However, these noises from Belgrade were met with swift and clear responses from Croatia and Kosovo—through Defense Minister Ivan Anusic and President Vjosa Osmani, who emphasized that “the time when Serbia was asked is over.” Vučić’s complaints about an agreement between two NATO member states and Kosovo—which is already within NATO’s orbit through KFOR—were also disregarded by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte during their meeting in Brussels. Serbia knows well that the agreement poses no threat to it, but its strategy is to play the victim, to pretend and maneuver like a hyena, while preparing the ground for a new attack in the name of “defense.” The continuation of perfidious propaganda against NATO while disguising itself as “innocent,” and its aggressive militarization while portraying itself as a “victim,” confirm Serbia’s role—coordinated with Russia—in pursuit of their shared geopolitical appetites. For this reason, the anniversary of NATO’s intervention remains a date to recall its necessity. Narratives that aim to transform the aggressor into the victim are not merely manipulation—they are a threat to the future. Full Stop.