No Events
The Cold War ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Following this period, the Balkans remained outside the scope of great power competition for a certain time. However, since the 2010s, the region has once again begun to emerge as a focal point of geopolitical interest. Particularly with the outbreak of the Russia–Ukraine War, attention toward the Balkans has been steadily increasing.
The European Union’s slow progress in sustaining its enlargement policy and the occasional stagnation of this process have led to the continuation of structural problems in the countries of the region. In addition, tendencies of democratic backsliding and transformations in global power balances have rendered the Balkans both fragile and open to the influence of external actors. In this context, while the United States maintains an institutional and military presence in the region, the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China are seeking to expand their influence through different tools and strategies. The Russian Federation deepens political vulnerabilities in the Balkans through identity, history, and particularly energy policies. Russia’s development of political relations with Republika Srpska in order to indirectly influence Bosnia and Herzegovina, and its support for secessionist rhetoric through this entity, constitutes a concrete example of this situation.
The People’s Republic of China, on the other hand, aims to establish a long-term dependency relationship through economic instruments and infrastructure investments. In particular, transportation, energy, and mining projects carried out with Serbia constitute one of the main components of China’s strategy to increase its economic influence in the region. In contrast, the United States seeks to maintain its influence through NATO, international institutions, and bilateral relations. Its military presence in Kosovo and the security-based relations it has developed with Albania are among the key indicators of the United States’ strategic position in the region. This situation transforms the Balkans into a multidimensional arena of competition where different powers intersect.
This study aims to examine great power competition in the Balkans within the framework of balance of power, sharp power, and hedging (risk-averse balancing/diversification or playing both sides) strategies. In this context, the position of Serbia within this competition will be analyzed in particular. China’s strategy of influence developed through economic investments and financial instruments, as well as the policies pursued by the United States through tools outside NATO, will be evaluated in light of current developments. Furthermore, it will be discussed to what extent the strategic orientations of Russia and China in the Balkans are aligned and whether this relationship produces competition or complementarity. Finally, Serbia’s balancing strategy in the face of this multi-actor power struggle, along with the multidimensional nature of the United States’ presence in the region that goes beyond the military dimension, will be presented.
Strategic Positioning of Small States
For many years, international relations theorists have argued that when states face a rising or potentially threatening great power, they adopt either balancing strategies against this power or bandwagoning strategies, whereby weaker states align themselves with stronger ones. However, recent international literature and policy publications reveal that small states do not rely solely on balancing or bandwagoning strategies in response to a rising power; they also make use of hedging strategies. Indeed, many analysts suggest that small states pursue neither strict balancing nor strict bandwagoning policies; rather, they adopt a middle course best conceptualized as “hedging.”
The balancing approach suggests that small states, particularly those acting with the aim of preserving their own security, tend to perceive a rising power as a threat that must be countered through both external and internal balancing. As a matter of fact, this perception becomes more pronounced when geographic proximity to the rising power is combined with that power’s offensive capabilities and aggressive intentions. The bandwagoning approach, on the other hand, argues that instead of opposing a rapidly rising power, states choose to come under its protection and accept its influence in exchange for certain benefits. Nevertheless, there are various reasons why states do not adopt pure balancing or pure bandwagoning strategies.
…
