The membership of Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina in NATO would permanently isolate the influence of Serbia and Russia in the Western Balkans.

He said this at the discussion on the Western Balkans at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University in the United States of America.

Professor at Bridgewater State University, Albulena Kastrati, said that Russia is constantly supporting Serbia in its efforts to destabilize Bosnia and Herzegovina and deny Kosovo's statehood, reports KosovaPress.

“Russia consistently supports Serbia in its efforts to destabilize Bosnia and Herzegovina and deny Kosovo statehood. The EU and US transactional approach to Serbia – through the military deal with France, the lithium deal with Germany and the arms sale to Ukraine – has only flattered Serbia, the only country in Europe that has not imposed sanctions on Russia. Moreover, two Russian banks 2 continue to operate in Serbia, facilitating the free flow of Russian capital and transactions. The EU’s reluctance to prioritize enlargement has left the region vulnerable to Russian influence,” she said.

On the other hand, Harvard University identity politics researcher Flora Ferati-Sachsenmaier said that the Western Balkan countries are at a critical point in European geopolitics, as these countries are finding themselves caught between the EU's wavering commitment to enlargement and the growing influence of China and Russia, the report said. KosovaPress.

“In the absence of a secure and effective EU, Moscow and Beijing have intervened, using soft power, economic leverage, and political maneuvering. Their influence is reinforced by domestic autocratic politicians like Serbia’s Aleksandar Vučić and Republika Srpska’s Milorad Dodik, who serve as key partners in obstructing the region’s path to the EU,” she said.

Meanwhile, researcher of Russian and Eurasian studies at Harvard University, Pëllumb Çollaku, said that the growing presence of Chinese and Russian investments and financing in Republika Srpska, Serbia and Montenegro in strategic sectors such as energy, telecommunications and critical infrastructure poses economic and geopolitical risks for the region.

Below is the full press release:

KPRESS RELEASE

Conclusions of the panel discussion “The Western Balkans in a Turbulent Landscape: Geopolitical and Geoeconomic Perspectives” at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge MA, March 9, 2025

Panelists:

Albulena Kastrati, PhD Assistant Professor of Economics, Bridgewater State University, Fulbright Fellow at Duke University, and central banking expert

Flora Ferati- Sachsenmaier , PhD Research Affiliate, Weatherhead Research Cluster on Identity Politics, Harvard University, and Taiwan Peace Fellow

Pëllumb Çollaku, PhD (Organizer) Visiting Fulbright Scholar, Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Harvard University; CERGE-EI Teaching and Research fellow, and central banker

Moderator: Albana Shehaj, PhD in Political Science; Project Manager, Center for European Studies, Harvard University.

Conclusions of the panel discussion “The Western Balkans in a Turbulent Landscape: Geopolitical and Geoeconomic Perspectives” at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University

By Albulene Kastrati

The Western Balkans (WB) remains the poorest region in Europe, facing a challenging economic model: low wages and the importation of expensive goods from the EU. Approximately 70% of the region’s exports go to EU countries, mainly Germany and Italy. The Trump administration’s tariffs on EU steel and aluminum will affect Central European exports, which in turn will reduce demand for WB exports.

The suspension of all aid and grants coming from the US under the Trump administration has hampered projects aimed at supporting marginalized communities, where women are often the most vulnerable category. BP is the region most affected by the war in Ukraine, due to Serbia's strong cultural, economic, political and military ties with Russia.

Russia consistently supports Serbia in its efforts to destabilize Bosnia and Herzegovina and deny Kosovo statehood. The EU and US’s transactional approach to Serbia – through the military deal with France, the lithium deal with Germany, and the arms sale to Ukraine – has only flattered Serbia, the only country in Europe that has not imposed sanctions on Russia.

Moreover, two Russian banks 1 continue to operate in Serbia, facilitating the free flow of Russian capital and transactions. The EU's reluctance to prioritize enlargement has left the region vulnerable to Russian influence. NATO membership for Montenegro and North Macedonia has weakened pro-Russian political forces in the region. The eventual NATO membership of Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina would permanently isolate Serbia's and Russia's influence in the Balkans. --

By Pëllumb Çollaku

The Balkans has relied on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) as a key driver of economic growth since the end of the wars that broke up the former Yugoslavia, given the region’s limited domestic capital and the need to modernize its infrastructure. However, these investments have not translated into real benefits, economic growth, and well-being. Apart from Serbia, the other Balkan countries have outsourced their security to Western countries and their energy needs to Russia. The EU’s long-standing ambivalence towards the Balkans and the uncertain prospects for EU membership have left a power vacuum that has been exploited by other major powers with historical interests in the region.

The growing presence of Chinese and Russian investment and financing in Republika Srpska, Serbia and Montenegro in strategic sectors such as energy, telecommunications and critical infrastructure poses economic and geopolitical risks such as debt-trap, energy overdependence, and concerns of political and security destabilization. To balance the need for investment with the risk of over-reliance on external powers with their competing agendas, the region should adopt a multi-pronged approach by diversifying investment sources to avoid economic dependence on any single actor. Strengthening ties with Western investors could reduce the vulnerabilities associated with politically motivated investments.

Furthermore, strengthening regional investment screening and regulatory mechanisms, increasing transparency and good governance, and aligning with the EU's Global Gateway as an alternative to China's "One Belt, One Road" initiative, and promoting domestic capital formation through specific fiscal incentives could help alleviate overdependence. Most investments in the region have not created much-needed jobs and failed to deliver desired standards of well-being. As a result, a major concern for the region is the significant brain drain, with a skilled workforce emigrating significantly to developed countries for better opportunities, mainly the EU.

But rather than seeing this as a loss, the region can use its diaspora as a strategic economic and political asset. Kosovo and Albania have introduced mechanisms to attract diaspora investment and knowledge in both government and the private sector, and examples such as diaspora investment incentives through loan guarantee funds, diaspora scholarship programs in government institutions, remote skills transfer and advisory services, and pilot projects of cultural and scientific cooperation could be a good start.

The current dynamics of Trump’s second presidency and its position on the war in Ukraine are signaling a “rift” between the US and the EU not seen in the last 80 years, signaling new unknowns for the future. Given that the BP has historically been a geopolitical battleground between great powers, such dynamics are expected to reflect regional relations and still pose security concerns. The transactional approach during the first Trump presidency to resolve the two tendencies of secession of Republika Srpska and the tension in the northern part of Kosovo turned out to be wrong.

In the case of Kosovo, a new dynamic approach to the normalization dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia with active and strong US involvement is needed. In the case of Republika Srpska, strong engagement in stopping its secession plan. The security of the BP seems to depend heavily on the brokered peace between Ukraine and Russia, which is also expected to reflect in potential regional conflict zones.

By Flora Ferati-Sachsenmaier

The BCP countries occupy a critical point in European geopolitics. More than two decades after the Yugoslav wars, these countries find themselves caught between the EU's wavering commitment to enlargement and the growing influence of China and Russia.

While overall foreign investment is on the rise, so are high migration rates, exposing a worrying disconnect between economic growth and social well-being. The EU’s self-imposed stagnation – crystallised by Jean-Claude Juncker’s declaration that there would be no enlargement during his term – has created a strategic vacuum. In the absence of a secure and effective EU, Moscow and Beijing have stepped in, using soft power, economic leverage, and political manoeuvres.

Their influence is reinforced by autocratic local politicians such as Serbia’s Aleksandar Vučić and Republika Srpska’s Milorad Dodik, who serve as key partners in obstructing the region’s path to the EU. The EU’s credibility has been further eroded by the appointment of Josep Borrell and Miroslav Lajčák – figures with previous opposition to Kosovo’s independence – as mediators in the Kosovo-Serbia dialogue, further deepening political cynicism. A paradox now defines the region: while the EU remains the most desirable model for the PB, its reluctance to expand and include new members has sown disillusionment and ultimately forced more democratic countries to consider finding new political allies.

The EU now faces a defining choice: continue its transactional, stability-obsessed approach, or reclaim its role as a normative and strategic leader in the Balkans. For too long, it has prioritized short-term crisis management over a bold vision for integration. This reluctance has undermined its credibility and encouraged outside powers to reshape the region’s political and economic landscape – often through authoritarian-leaning local leaders who thrive on the status quo. To break this cycle of self-sabotage, the EU must move beyond empty rhetoric and take decisive action.

The accession process must be accelerated, with at least two new members admitted without further delay. However, even as enlargement hangs in the balance, the EU itself is entering a period of uncertainty, marked by deep security concerns and the rise of populist forces in key member states such as Germany and France. A fragmented EU and a divided BP are a recipe for paralysis. If Europe wants to shape its future rather than react to crises, it must act now – before others do it for it. --

By Albana Shehaj

3 Concerns about the region’s future trajectory remain, however, noting that the BP countries find themselves at a unique crossroads, where economic growth, falling unemployment, and booming tourism contrast with persistent security concerns and political instability. For once, the region’s geography, long a source of vulnerability, offers a strategic advantage. As global powers such as the EU, the US, China, Russia, and Turkey compete for influence, the region has become a valuable geopolitical prize. This competition, if skillfully managed, could benefit the region by unlocking investment, fostering infrastructure development, and accelerating integration into global markets.

In a sense, BP may simply be the proverbial orphan that every ‘mother’ wants to nurture – an unusual but potentially advantageous position in international affairs. However, the greatest threats to the region come not from outside powers but from within. Persistent corruption, particularly from political actors, weak governance and the fragile rule of law threaten to squander these emerging opportunities.

Transparency International consistently ranks BP countries among the most corrupt in Europe, undermining public trust and discouraging investment. Ultimately, while external actors can provide support, the region’s future depends on domestic reform.

Real change must come from within -- driven by local leaders and civil society -- determined to break away from the patterns of the past. If BP can confront their inner demons, they have a rare chance to turn geography into fortune and write a much more hopeful chapter in their history. In closing, we thank the audience for the incredibly rich and thought-provoking questions, concluding that if this discussion has made one thing clear, it is that BP is not just a region to be studied - they are a region that demands to be understood.

BP is never just about the Balkans, they are a mirror and sometimes, a reflection of broader global trends. There is much to understand from the region and to borrow a phrase from the region itself: "We will figure it all out -- eventually."

/Kosovapress/