The speeches of political leaders Aleksandar Vučić and Milorad Dodik, along with the adopted Declaration, clearly emphasize the strategic goals necessary for implementing the concept of the “Serbian World,” which is increasingly taking the form of a robust geopolitical strategy with an assertive stance on territorial and cultural issues. Essentially, the folkloric decor and grandiose tones characterizing the assembly serve as a facade for a much more serious agenda: laying the groundwork for a new phase of Serbian expansionist policy.
Declaration of the “Serbian World”
When former Defense Minister, Interior Minister, and current Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia, Aleksandar Vulin, first used the term “Serbian World” a few years ago, it was an idea in its infancy, ideologically aligned with the “Russian World” concept. Given that Vulin had long been a mouthpiece for Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, it was clear this was not just an individual’s idea but rather a sophisticated concept tied to older, Milošević-era expansionist policies.
The alternating use of the term “Serbian World” and the phrase “Serbian Unification,” promoted by Serbia’s new Prime Minister Miloš Vučević, is not merely a reminder of the late 1980s and early 1990s. It represents dangerous ideas now being transformed into strategy through the recent Declaration. The conclusions of the Declaration are not just a reproduction of old expansionist policies or the 1986 SANU Memorandum, which historian Milivoj Bešlin called “dynamite under the foundations of Yugoslavia.” The Declaration reflects adaptations to current international and domestic political realities, though it may seem benign because present geopolitical circumstances prevent more overt action.
The Declaration highlights the cultural and spiritual unity of Serbs beyond Serbia’s borders, pointing to the Serbian language, culture, and Orthodox faith as integration points. It promotes a collective identity that transcends state borders, creating a sense of belonging to a larger Serbian community. This ideologized geopolitical dimension implies that Serbia has a natural and historical right to influence and protect Serbian-speaking Orthodox populations in neighboring countries, thereby justifying political actions and church support to maintain and expand Serbia’s influence. It also advances a particular Serbian historical narrative, rejecting the UN General Assembly resolution on the genocide against Bosniaks in Srebrenica, as it contradicts this narrative.
By outlining the “Serbian World” strategy without explicitly using the term, the Declaration highlights the importance of uniting all Serbian communities in the region into a cohesive sphere of influence, regardless of current political borders. This vision is not solely about territorial expansion; it embodies an implicit irredentist approach with an explicit call for the protection of Republika Srpska, an entity integral to Serbian cultural and historical identity, despite being part of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It promotes a revisionist view of history and geography, focused on an imagined Serbian greatness that diminishes the specific history and identity of Bosnia and Herzegovina and other regional states like Montenegro.
This revisionist agenda seeks to integrate Republika Srpska into a unified Serbian narrative, promoting the idea of a continuous Serbian state and cultural tradition despite the fact that Republika Srpska was created through organized violence against Bosnia and Herzegovina and that key military and political figures in its leadership have been convicted of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
A Dual-layered Strategy for Republika Srpska: Internal Secession and Informal Confederation
The Declaration emphasizes that Republika Srpska is inherently part of the “Serbian World,” providing a basis for justifying actions to protect the Serbian population in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This mirrors Russia’s approach in its “near abroad” policy, making territorial claims or intervening in neighboring countries’ internal affairs. The Declaration should be read alongside President Vučić’s speech.
Some interpreted Vučić’s comments about not supporting “peaceful separation” as a message to Milorad Dodik, but this interpretation overlooks the broader content of the Declaration. While Vučić publicly opposes “peaceful separation” from Bosnia and Herzegovina, he recognizes that such an attempt would destabilize the region, which is currently geopolitically unsustainable. He also understands that other forms of separation, including forceful methods, are unachievable due to a lack of international support, as well as economic and demographic weaknesses in both Serbia and Republika Srpska. Internal political challenges and Serbia’s strategic focus on Kosovo further constrain any such ambitions.
Vučić’s rhetoric, combined with the Declaration’s points on Republika Srpska, reveals a dual-layered expansionist strategy. The first layer involves promoting internal secession for Republika Srpska, using political and institutional steps to reinforce its autonomy within Bosnia and Herzegovina, effectively reversing political developments since 1995. This would transform Bosnia and Herzegovina into a confederation of two entities, despite its official continuity as the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The second layer involves creating an informal confederation with Serbia, deepening political, economic, and cultural ties without formally breaking away from Bosnia and Herzegovina. The strategy calls for close cooperation in all areas, including synchronized laws and security arrangements, effectively creating a political and territorial union. This dual approach reflects Vučić’s pragmatic awareness of the limits imposed by the current international climate. His strategy is to wait for more favorable geopolitical circumstances to formalize territorial ambitions, with particular attention to changes in U.S. leadership. Hopes for a Donald Trump victory, which could bring foreign policy advisors sympathetic to these goals, form a key part of this broader strategic vision.
Creating Enemies and Justifying Expansion
The Declaration’s narrative is dangerous because it constructs an image of enemies, intertwining historical, ethnic, religious, and geopolitical dimensions into a portrayal of threats to Serbian identity and sovereignty. It presents Serbia and Republika Srpska as encircled entities, needing to defend their interests against regional and global opponents. References to historical alliances serve to frame international relationships as a division between friends and enemies, reinforcing the notion of Serbia being surrounded by external forces undermining its stability. The call for regular meetings of the All-Serbian Assembly to discuss national issues further reinforces this defensive posture.
The speeches by Vučić and Republika Srpska representatives at the All-Serbian Assembly hint at potential future conflict, with warnings of “difficult days ahead” and the need to defend Serbian identity. These assemblies, while seemingly folkloric, are carefully orchestrated geopolitical events that reflect a broader strategic agenda. Through rhetoric of cross-border unity, nationalist ideology, and defiance of the liberal international order, Serbia and Republika Srpska are positioning themselves for future territorial claims. These events should be closely watched, as they foreshadow potential geopolitical implications.
Source: Radio Sarajevo
