For years, Serbia has balanced between the EU, the US, Russia and China. The war in Ukraine, sanctions and energy pressures have now seriously shaken this policy, German and Swiss media write, Deutsche Welle reports.
After Kosovo declared independence, Belgrade pursued a policy of balancing between the world's great powers, the war in Ukraine changed this, writes the Swiss newspaper Neue Zircher Zeitung (NZZ). "At first glance, this is understandable: a small country like Serbia, with about 6.6 million inhabitants, in a multipolar world does not rely solely on one strong partner. From this understanding, Belgrade developed the so-called 'Four Pillar Doctrine'.
"According to her, foreign policy should be based on the most favorable relations with the EU, Russia, China and the US, while constantly taking into account its own interests," Andreas Ernst writes for NZZ.
Vučić's troubles
According to this newspaper, this worked quite well for almost twenty years and gave the top of the state considerable room for maneuver. “Belgrade has often played above its true level on the international stage. However, over the past year, three of the four pillars of Serbian foreign policy began to unravel.
And this at a time when the thirteen-year-old regime of President Aleksandar Vučić has been weakened from within as never before: in the face of the student and civic movement and the strengthening of civil society.” Andreas Ernst writes that Serbia’s most patient partner, the European Union, is turning its back on it. “Accession negotiations have been moving at a slow pace for years, and since 2021 they have been practically frozen, mainly because the state of the rule of law and media freedoms has worsened instead of improving.”
The end of 4-chair politics
However, Serbia’s balancing policy was primarily intended for a domestic audience, the Swiss newspaper estimates. “Domestically, Vučić managed to present himself as a statesman who maintains relations with world powers. He was received by Putin, established a “strong friendship” with Xi and was also welcomed in Brussels.” He was also well received in Serbia because he evoked memories of the era of the Non-Aligned Movement: the period between the 1960s and 1980s when Tito skillfully maneuvered socialist Yugoslavia between power blocs. But Serbia is not Yugoslavia and Vučić is not Tito, writes Andreas Ernst. In the end, as the Swiss newspaper concludes, the four-pillar game is coming to an end. “This further undermines Vučić’s already weakened authority. His successor’s task will be to choose the right ally in the new geopolitical environment. The European Union must prepare for this by reforming its integration policy.”
The Berliner Zeitung article emphasizes that the US is using sanctions as a means of pressure to force Serbia to reorient itself in the energy sector. Through OFAC, Washington granted NIS a temporary operating permit, avoiding a complete paralysis of oil supplies, but without removing strategic pressure. According to the newspaper, the simultaneous permits for NIS and JANAF show that the American goal is not to close down the Serbian energy infrastructure, but to restructure its ownership. The main goal of the US is the complete removal of Russian capital and influence from Serbia's energy sector.
According to author Boban Djukic, the NIS case shows that the harsh US sanctions policy is yielding results, exerting not only economic but also political pressure on Serbia. Relations with Russia have been strained, especially due to the deadlock in negotiations and Russia's refusal to sell its shares directly. Berliner Zeitung emphasizes that the next three weeks are crucial, because during this period a permanent solution for the ownership of NIS must be found, before the expiration of the US license. If Gazprom's shares are transferred to MOL, Serbia would signal a clear energy and geopolitical orientation towards the West. On the contrary, the failure of the negotiations would return the country to the brink of a new energy crisis.
Lini një Përgjigje