Dr Jelica Kurjak
Russia in the Balkans
1. Introduction
Russia’s long presence in the Balkans - from the eleventh century onwards - can be analysed in terms of its two salient features: continuity and, as far as the role of the Russian state in Balkan (especially Serbian) affairs is concerned, inconstancy.
Russia has been trying to push out its frontiers as far as the warm seas ever since Muscovy Russ and the principality of Kiev began to expand. Its imperialistic policy has carried its influence as far south-west as the Adriatic Sea across and with the help of Balkan states. Various Balkan states have found in Russia both friend and foe; this depended on their attitude towards Russia’s rivals among the great powers and towards other Balkan countries at the time. At one time the latter found Russia’s support invaluable, at another they regarded it counter-productive. Russia was particularly adept in capitalising on Balkan crises and wars, in which it took an active part, to strengthen its position in the Balkans; its consequent peace-making efforts were almost always hailed by local populations with great relief. This policy has given rise to a number of myths in some Balkan countries (especially among the Serbs) about there being a selfless "mother Russia" always ready to rush to one’s rescue. However, historical evidence shows Russia to have been far less amiable and benevolent than some local political elites concerned primarily with furthering their day-to-day political objectives made out at the time. In the pursuance of its "Balkan strategy" Russia, i.e. the Soviet Union, sought to realise its political interests; the fact that at some periods these interests coincided with the interests of some Balkan nations cannot be used to defend the thesis that Russia has been an a priori friend of Balkan states, especially of Serbia and/or Montenegro.
Once the need for an outlet to the warm seas ceased being a strategic priority, Russia, i.e. the Soviet Union, found another justification for its presence in the Balkans: having emerged from the Second World War as a major world power, it took part in the partition of Europe into two political systems and controlled one-half of the Balkan peninsula for over fifty years ostensibly to protective those parts from the other, imperialistic side. Throughout that period Russia’s political vocabulary and rhetoric abounded with stock ideological phrases to justify this presence in some Balkan country or other. Finally, the closing years of the twentieth century, witnessing the conflict in the former Yugoslavia and the FRY, proved once again that Russia is an unavoidable protagonist in Balkan tragedies.
As a great power, Russia strove permanently to add territory and then to protect its gains by all available means. Whenever it found it impossible to expand territorially, Russia sought to widen the zones of its political, economic and military influence. Russia either waged war or played nations against each other to realise its strategic objectives in the role of victor or peacemaker as the case may be; whether on the winning or the losing side, Russia always made the most of a situation. To be sure, besides paying rich dividends this policy occasionally backfired: in times of war, for instance, Russia usually paid a heavy price in human lives as well as found it necessary to deal with increasingly strong separatist movements on its soil (especially in 1991-93). But even in such times of adversity Russia found the strength to make the most of the setback. On the other hand, whenever it emerged victorious it tried to keep all the spoils.
This dual line became especially prominent after the cold war and the end of the bipolar division of the world, when Russia failed to learn to play the part of one of the major forces in Europe; it is still finding it difficult to accept its new role of a respectable factor. The contradictory nature of Russia’s imperialistic policy vis-à-vis the Balkans was shown up in particular during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and the FRY. The analyses that follow show that even when Russia seemed to be losing ground it managed to realise its interests at least partially if not in whole.
2. Parameters of Russia’s European Policy
Russia’s different influence in different parts of Europe may be attributed to two factors: the actual balance of power (a result of pragmatism or Realpolitik) on the one hand and historical and traditional considerations (sometimes verging on myth) on the other. These two disparate aspects have consistently determined the influence of the "Russia factor" in European political affairs: one could simply not dismiss this factor regardless of whether he looked on Russia as an aggressor or an ally. For this reason, it could be said that the image of Russia in the eyes of its partners has been one of the principal elements of Russia’s European policy. This potential has evolved over the centuries and every Russian policy-maker has made use of it consciously or unconsciously. The pragmatists have always taken as their starting point the fact that Russia is a great country in every way and that consequently its influence and role on both continents is decisive. Furthermore, as an imperialistic power, Russia has been in possession of an awesome military machine which it has often used, or threatened to use, to influence the outcome of some international question or other. In view of this it has been commonly believed that being on good terms with Russia and knowing what is on its mind is much better than pretending that it does not exist, for Russia’s unpredictability is one of its most unpleasant characteristics. And then there have been those who have always believed in the "eternal friendship of the Slav brothers" and trustingly given Russia carte blanche to regulate the mutual relationship.
The term "Soviet peril" is a characteristic example from a more recent history. A political paradigm has namely been established over the years portraying Russia as a potential rival although at the same time Russia is also viewed as a potential partner. For this reason certain political circles in the West speak these days of a "post-Soviet peril" instead.[1] This thesis is mostly based on a fear of a modified totalitarianism or some kind of absolutism (such as "enlightened" absolutism), either of which, it is thought, could adversely affect Russia’s foreign-policy behaviour (this relates above all to its possible use of nuclear weapons). However, this possibility carries far less psychological weight today than it did during the cold war, and Russia for its part does not play upon it nowadays in its relations with its European partners. Russia’s object at present is to establish itself as an equal partner with Western industrialised countries.
Economic potential as a factor of protection of Russian interests in Europe is much weaker now than in the last decades of the twentieth century. Although factors such as territory and natural resources cannot be underestimated (in fact, in the case of Russia, such potentials may prove decisive at times), Russia is today just one of the fifteen former Soviet republics in terms of economic power, political influence and, partly, military power. The economic power of present-day Russia is estimated to would have accounted for 65 to 70 per cent of that of the former Soviet Union at the time of its break-up; following the unsuccessful economic reforms of 1992, known as the "shock-therapy", this power slumped to what would have been 33 to 35 per cent of the economic power of the Soviet Union. The economy continued to decline before it stabilised and began to pick up in 1999. Russia is somewhere between twentieth and thirtieth place on the list of world trading powers, its share of world exports barely managing 1 per cent. During the crisis period, between the late 1980s and the early 1990s, the fall in Russian exports resulted in diminished interest among European partners in the Russian market.[2]
Economic potential as a lever of Russian influence in European affairs depends largely on Russian exports of petroleum and petroleum products. Shrinkage of territory, new borders separating Russia from old and potential new customers, changes in the economic policy and status of old importers (in the former Soviet sphere of influence) and search for new customers (among members of the European Union) have all combined to make it difficult for Russia to use this factor of influence as much as before. In view of the present difficulties of the Russian economy, the economic factor as a means of influencing certain regions may be said to have become an impediment for Russia, especially with regard to the Balkan region.
However, Russia’s military potential has been considered its main tool for exerting its influence in certain parts of Europe. Therefore the abolition of the Warsaw Treaty, cuts in military spending and armament and the change-over to market economy (from a military point of view the last thing was a disaster considering that over 95 per cent of industry had been engaged in the production of weapons and military equipment) have seriously weakened Russian clout in Europe. Not only has the quantity of military hardware been reduced (though Russia still has a respectable armoury), but the situation has radically changed following the signing of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START 2).[3]
It appears, however, that the main blow at Russia’s military prestige abroad was effected by the adoption of the new National Security Concept and the New Military Doctrine made public on January 14 and carried into effect by the Russian president’s decree of 21 April 2000. Both documents are based on a strategy of preserving the national security, territorial integrity and existing borders of the country, i.e. on a defence doctrine. This policy proceeds from the assumption that the economic situation does not make it possible for the country to invest more in the development of its military technology than its defence necessitates. In other words, Russia needs some time for economic stabilisation and political consolidation. The signing of the special agreement with NATO in Paris on 27 May 1997 was a clear signal by Russia’s foreign-policy strategists that they favour a policy of joint action with major Western powers on terms of equality. Russia’s moves regarding the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and the FRY can be viewed in that context though they are by no means entirely determined by it.
Russia’s ruling elite is guided by pragmatism in determining its foreign policy priorities, being aware of the limitation of the country’s global potentials outlined above. In the years immediately following the break-up of the Soviet state, Russia’s foreign-policy objective was to join existing institutional mechanisms of Western Europe and become part of a collective security system. This orientation naturally affected Russia’s attitude towards old and new partners: during that period Russia attached priority to preserving stable relations with countries in the post-Soviet space because of many outstanding issues and because it had not definitely renounced its leading role in the region; on the other hand, Russia’s active pursuit of its "western" policy affected its position on the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Objectively viewed, Russia is today quite a fair distance from the Balkans, whose countries are seeking for their part to define their status in the region and in Europe. This does not mean that Russia has lost all interest in the Balkans; it merely means that the content and nature of its relations with the region have changed.
3. Russia’s Attitude Towards Balkan Countries
Russia has throughout its history had two main interests in the Balkans. The one has always been regarded as strategic; for instance, Russia’s imperialistic state policy in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries viewed the Balkans as a region of great (and, at times, crucial) importance for the security and stability of the country’s southern and south-western frontiers. With this object in view, Russia sought at once to stabilise its relationship with Bessarabia and achieve considerable control of the peninsula, especially of the Dardanelles, and to prevent any penetration of the Balkans by other great powers having designs on the region such as Austria-Hungary and Germany, and Turkey.
The other interest was to spread its influence through common religion (Orthodoxy) and cultural and historical ties based on the similarity of language and some shared history. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, when it became increasingly evident that the days of the Ottoman empire were numbered, a staunchly pan-Slavic idea took root in Russia. This idea and a pan-Slavic movement that followed were used by Russia as it became increasingly concerned about the fate of the Balkan Slavs and their Christian Orthodox faith and determined to spread Christianity in the region. Although pan-Slavism was by no means the mainstay of Russia’s Balkan policy in the nineteenth century, it exerted considerable influence on some intellectuals and was strongly supported by some official circles. Russia’s strategic interests were also greatly helped by developments in such Balkan countries as were about to throw off the centuries-old Ottoman yoke. A unique historical situation was created in which peoples tended to come closer together and both sides sought to make the most of the opportunities presented to them. Russia’s penetration of the Balkans at that time was to strongly influence Russia’s relations with Balkan states to the present day, and local ruling political elites were to make much use whenever necessary of the "Slav brotherhood" myth built up from the strong emotions on both sides at the time.
However, strategic interests prevailed and control of the Dardanelles remained Russia’s chief policy concern until the end of the twentieth century, when a new major strategic issue emerged concerning a pipeline that would carry Caspian and Black Sea oil to the Mediterranean via the Balkans.[4]