Croatia’s attempt to purchase ballistic missile systems could be construed as a single aspect of a NATO plan to continue to isolate Russia.
As the world continues to face unprecedented threats to its security, the old saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same rings truer than ever before. In the midst of rapid global transformation and political turmoil, a burgeoning arms race between two Balkan rivals is leaving many wondering whether the Cold War ever really ended and whether the current events in the Balkans and Ukraine are just another iteration of the decades long struggle between the Russian Federation and the West.
M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (M270 MLRS) (Photo: US Army)
After stating its desire to acquire 12 PzH-2000 mobile artillery systems from the American military in mid-July, the Croatian government recently announced intentions to purchase sixteen M270 ATACMS ballistic missile systems, ostensibly to augment the antiquated inheritance it received from the crumbling Yugoslav Army during the breakup of the 1990’s. In a swift and somewhat dramatic response, the Prime Minister of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, decided that “Serbia must have [an] answer to ballistic missiles in [the] region.” Serbia’s “answer” was to query its old Slavic ally, the Russian Federation, about potentially bolstering its air defense with Russian-made surface-to-air missile systems and anti-aircraft batteries capable of deterring the Croatian missile systems.
The tough talk and military brinkmanship of the Croatian and Serbian governments appears to be nothing more than an all-too-familiar scuffle between the old Balkan rivals; however, given the recent antagonism between Russia and the West over Ukraine and Syria, as well as the ongoing economic sanctions against the Russian Federation, this is likely more than merely a simple military upgrade. The purchase of ballistic missiles by either Serbia or Croatia would shift the balance of power in the region significantly. More importantly, Serbia’s consistent pro-Russian stance is a threat to NATO’s consolidation in Europe as Serbia represents one of the few remaining bastions of Russian influence in the continent. Arming Croatia could be seen as an attempt to pressure Serbia to abandon its pro-Russian stance, secure NATO’s pre-eminence in the region, and isolate Russia from its only European ally.
Making Waves
In October, 2015 the Croatian Armed Forces announced that they are looking to obtain short-range surface-to-surface ballistic missiles, supposedly for purely defensive purposes. The weapons Croatia is looking to obtain are sixteen mobile M270 ATACMS MLRS systems, and a full complement of MGM-140 missiles. These missile systems have an approximate range of 300-350 kilometers. With this range, “You can target, from Zagreb or any other town, any town in central Serbia,” stated Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vučić, leading to condemnation by the Serbian government despite assurances made by outgoing Croatian Defence Minister Ante Kotromanović that Serbia has no reason to be nervous.
According to Sputnik News Agency, Serbia is interested in acquiring medium-range Buk and Tor surface-to-air missile systems, as well as short-range air defense systems like the Pantsir-S1. Additionally, on a state visit to Serbia, Dmitry Rogozin, Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, also discussed Serbia’s desired procurement of S-300 long-range surface-to-air missile systems. While the S-300 has been deemed too costly for the Serbian defense budget, Russia noted that it may assist Serbia’s procurement of the systems through “certain agreements.”
Shifting the Balkan Balance of Power
Regardless of whether the acquisition of armaments is solely for domestic and defensive purposes, the fact remains that as Croatia and Serbia respectively entertain the idea of modernizing their armed forces with ballistic missile systems and air defense systems, the entire region of the Balkans becomes more unstable.
According to the 2016 Global Firepower Index, of the 126 countries studied, Serbia and Croatia currently occupy the 70th and 62nd spots respectively, making them relatively even in terms of military strength. Croatia’s announcement to procure ballistic missiles however, would dramatically skew the balance of power in the region in its favor and would give Croatia a significant military edge over its eastern neighbor. As previously stated, most of central and northern Serbia would be well within range of the missiles and Serbia’s current military arsenal would be incapable of countering any potential ballistic missile threat. As a result, Serbia has been scrambling to announce its intentions to purchase Russian weaponry capable of neutralizing any threat that would come from the hypothetical purchase of ballistic missile systems by Croatia.
Essentially, the Serbian response, as well as Vučić’s promise to not purchase the Russian missiles if Croatia abandons its desire to acquire missiles from the US, signals Serbia’s desire to maintain the fragile equilibrium in the region and to not disturb the current balance of power that exists. However, even if both Serbia and Croatia acquired missiles and air-defense systems that are evenly-matched and equilibrium in the balance of power is technically maintained, the result could be an arms race that would eventually spiral out of control. Neither side would feel secure in their military capabilities relative to one another and would begin arming themselves accordingly.
The Old Cold War
The Western Balkans has been a zone of contention between the West and East for many decades. During the short lifespan of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), both blocs jockeyed for power and influence within the neutral socialist republic. As socialism in Europe collapsed, so too did Yugoslavia, culminating in a bloody five-year conflict that took hundreds of thousands of lives and led to the nation fracturing along the borders of its constituent republics. The disintegration of Yugoslavia represented a new opportunity for both Russia and the West to exert their influence over the newly formed republics and draw new boundaries in their respective quests for geopolitical supremacy.
Once the ex-Yugoslav constituent republics had gained independence, most began to move towards the dominant Western Bloc. Slovenia acceded to NATO in 2004, with Croatia following in 2009. Montenegro received a formal invitation to join in December, 2015, while Macedonia joined the Membership Action Plan to start accession proceedings in 1999. Bosnia-Herzegovina has also received an invitation to join the Membership Action Plan, but has yet to do so. Serbia however, while determined to join the EU, has prided itself on maintaining its neutrality and has refused to entertain NATO membership as an option, with memories of the 1999 NATO bombing campaign fresh in the minds of Serbia’s citizenry.
The New Cold War
Many foreign policy analysts, including Dimitri Trenin, have described the ongoing (and escalating) political and military tensions between the West and the Russian Federation as constitutive of a Second Cold War. With Western economic sanctions against Russia in full swing and a NATO-wide condemnation of Russia’s pro-Assad intervention in Syria worsening their diplomatic relationship, the “sudden” move by Croatia to consider procuring ballistic missiles begins to make sense in the wider geopolitical landscape of current diplomatic hostilities between the West and Russia.
Russia and Serbia have been traditional allies for centuries, sharing commonalities such as an Orthodox Christian religion and a Cyrillic script, and cooperating closely on economic and military matters. Serbia has closer ties with Russia than any of the other nations of the former Yugoslavia and Russian President Vladimir Putin enjoys a higher popularity than even Serbia’s own Prime Minister Aleksandar Vučić; some political analysts have gone as far as to say that joining Western sanctions against the Russian Federation would be “political suicide” for the current Serbian administration. Thus, Serbia essentially represents Russia’s only reliable ally in mainland Europe and as a result, is of crucial importance to Russia and its desire to expand or at the very least, maintain its current level of influence in the Balkans and Europe as a whole.
In December 2015, Montenegro was invited to join NATO, meaning that Serbia, Russia’s main ally in the region would be surrounded by either full-fledged NATO members or states that have explicitly expressed their desire to join the alliance. Croatia’s declared desire to purchase ballistic missiles capable of threatening Serbia’s heartland can now be represented as an additional avenue of pressure that NATO is putting on Serbia and by proxy, Russia. If Montenegro joins NATO and Croatia obtains its missiles, Serbia will find itself completely surrounded by NATO states. If this becomes the case, Serbia will have little choice but to abandon its current stance of Russian-aligned neutrality, lest it be isolated from all of its neighbors; in turn, the Russian Federation would be deprived of its main European ally.
Without a pro-Russian state in the Balkans, Russian influence in Europe would be greatly reduced and its ambitions to establish a Russian sphere of influence in the region would be all but eradicated. Additionally, the loss of Serbia as an ally in the region would be the nail in the coffin for Russia’s goal of building a gas pipeline through the Balkans and into Europe. Thus, the pressure NATO appears to be putting on Serbia represents, in addition to the economic sanctions, a means of isolating Russia and pressuring it into a more conciliatory approach to Western foreign policy objectives.
Given the ongoing massive protests against NATO in Montenegro, it is unclear whether NATO’s strategy of cornering Russia by isolating Serbia will succeed. However, given the wider context of current Russian-Western Bloc political tension, it is clear that Croatia’s military posturing is not primarily targeted at Serbia. Rather, it is targeted at Russia.
Serbia, with its pro-Russian sentiments and official policy of neutrality, is the only country in Europe which stands in the way of NATO’s consolidation of power in the region and the only true ally Russia can speak of in the Balkans. In order to achieve stability and pre-eminence over all of the Balkans, NATO must be certain that Serbia is not in a position to pursue alternate avenues of military and political alliance. Croatia’s attempt to purchase ballistic missile systems could be construed as a single aspect of a NATO plan to continue to isolate Russia politically and economically; Serbia’s abandonment of its pro-Russian neutrality as a result of NATO pressure would result in the Russian Federation’s loss of its last bastion of support in Europe, diminishing its power on the world’s stage considerably and isolating them from their only ally in Europe.
[Correction, February 22, 2016: As originally published, this article referred to the missile system as “MGM-140” and to the missiles as “M270”. It is the M270 system carrying MGM-140 missiles.]
The authors argue that arming Croatia with ballistic missiles and surrounding Serbia with NATO members will pressure it to join NATO. Why? This makes no logical sense. NATO would benefit from Serbian membership, which would deny Russia a bastion in South Central Europe, but I doubt arming Croatia is a part of that strategy. This seems like a counter productive strategy. The authors never fully explain do their argument out.
Serbia starts making nice with NATO and the Americans promptly kill two of their diplomats. Curious to say the least. Perhaps they don’t want Serbia in NATO (or even close) and would rather destabilise the region. The Americans have a record for this kind of behaviour.
If the standpoint of this article is to add up then it must point out a moment in history when Croatian forces have entered or even bombed Serbia. This has never happened, making it rather unlikely. This leaves two possibilities… the Croats want this defence upgrade because they fear Serbian aggression OR they are being coerced by NATO to do so. Both reasons are entirely valid and respectable. The former because of 200 years of constant warmongering by said aggressor and the latter due to Croatia’s status as a small nation right next door to Russia’s sidekick. For the article to constantly mention Russian-Serbian friendship yet to not state the very obvious similar traits they share, namely warmongering, is too ‘tip-toey’, therefore lacking integrity. Call a spade a spade!
Of course as usual with such sources, there is the possibility that 2 ‘vic’ surnamed authors are the wrong type of vic to give Croatia neutral treatment.
Perhaps the authors consider 80% of what we call Croatia to be in fact Serbia? After all, in the nineties every shelled, burned and/or occupied town or village in Croatia was named “liberated” by Serbian media. If this is an assumption, then every defender was an aggressor and it is fair to expect them to repeat their acts of aggression if Serbia was to try to liberate them again.
You’re both forgetting that Serbia isn’t the one threatening to buy ballistic missiles, the provocation is coming from the Croatian side. Serbia even made it clear that it would NOT buy missiles if Croatia agreed to do the same. As for any potential threat, Serbia has made it abundantly clear that it’s committed to EU integration; any implication that it would threaten Croatia militarily is utterly absurd. As for Croatia never having attacked Serbia, they never had to; there were always plenty of Serbs (until now) within Croatian territory for the Croatian government to commit war and atrocities upon (ie. NDH and World War Two). Both of you are making wild assumptions about the current nature of Serbian politics and completely negating any role whatsoever that Croatia has in maintaining stability inthe Balkans
The intent of liberating “Serbian lands” is alive and well in Serbia and it is neither wild nor assumption. The reality of this happening is, however, non-existent, at least for many decades. Balkan states are played by NATO into miniature cold war, with Croatian government being designated lap dog, that’s true, yet it doesn’t diminish the fact that Serbian nationalism is intrinsically aggressive and is a main efficient cause of “atrocities” in countries subject to this aggression, from far before the WW2. I put the “a.” word in commas because, for my mind, it more and more resembles something like “cookies”, i.e: “wanna justify the war … or clean your conscience? Have some atrocities committed upon your people and you are set to go. The more, the better.” Once, the Serbian monk offered them to me like a host to munch on. He said that every Serb killed diminishes their sins before god, so, and I quote in paraphrase, “it’s a pure mathematics – one Serb less, one sin less. What would they’ve done if they were not killed … they would just spit on god. Now they are ascended and purified”. This kind of religion of victimization is suicidal and, being religion, ineradicable final cause of Greater Serbia nationalism. So, please don’t bother us with atrocities, there are plenty to pass around and, as for myself, I wouldn’t want to feed that Moloch any more. The rebellion in Croatia was prepared years in advance and was led by assumption that “all Serbs must live in one nation”. Once it failed, it’s proponents had to move out because they declined living detached from the holly body of their national state. Cards were in their favor initially, having federal army to help them, but that’s how it goes when you invoke the god of atrocities past – you yourself end up on atrocity list.
Btw. if I were a Serb, I would never rejoice upon Russian gifts. They always seem somewhat sentimentally symbolic, yet strangely devoid of substance.
I can assure you Croatia is not scared of Serbia :)
The PZH systems were acquired from Germany not the USA
No war to justify right now, isn’t it? As for one sidedness, you are mistaking the focus on the subject at hand for malicious advocacy of the one side of non-existent conflict. As for war of the nineties and it’s causes, “the bigoted” part of my argument explains it’s most apparent efficient cause. The non-apparent causes requires cool head and careful study of Milosevic’s biography coupled with still more careful study of American diplomatic chore in Belgrade of seventies and eighties. As for rambling nonsense, I presume it concerns “atrocities”. For me there are names, surnames and faces – not abstract moniker “atrocities” – and they belonged to real men and women, non of whom I ever asked to what nation do they belong. There’s nothing so bigoted as turning real people into abstract, quantifiable resources for power-struggle and I, with all due malice, suspect you are doing precisely that. No matter that your power struggle consists solely in typing on the keyboard. As for Serbian Orthodox monks and their “underground cities” and “purification by death” for their own people, those indeed are ramblings, but theirs, not mine.
Finally, as I clearly pointed out, and you sorely failed to notice, I do consider Croatian ruling class the main NATO lapdog in Balkans. Yet if it weren’t so, among other things, there would not be Republika Srpska in Bosnia and no need for Dayton agreement.
Contemplate on that anti-bigot and spare me the politically correct name calling.
It would probably be pointless to point out that I’m not white-washing anyone but sticking to the subject and hand. No need to remind anybody about Jasenovac, as NATO will make sure that it is dully remembered for the same reasons the Šešelj was released and the whole project of Greater Serbia completely white-washed, so the hostilities can proceed ad infinitum. The fact remains that war in the nineties was incited by false pretext of Serbs about to be prosecuted and mythology of “Serbian lands” and “Holly Serbia”, the myths that still have no real equivalent of geopolitical significance among Bosnians and Croats. And those myths are poised to be a threat to all Serbian western neighbors.
And Serbia is not being blamed for anything. If you read ICTY summary on Šešelj’s verdict, the rape of Vukovar and Eastern Slavonia are completely white washed. Ethnic cleansing was defined as something like “humanitarian relocation” and so on. If Šešelj and Simatović are innocent, then Serbian policy of appropriating and ethnically bleaching Croatia and Bosnia are legitimate political actions and I really can’t see any blame put on Serbia any more. This whitewash, however, was not done by Russia but by globalist establishment you, I surmise, take to be demonizing Serbia. It is not. Serbia is the biggest kid on the block and it will be backed by the West in the future, as it was backed at the outset of the war and deep into Bosnian conflict. If Milosevic have played his cards right he could have won the Nobel peace price, but he outstayed his welcome. American policy in 1991. was preservation of Yugoslavia which they very well knew meant Greater Serbia and they obstructed international recognition of Croatia as long as they could.
So who is PC now? I posit Greater Serbia is criminal plan, the ICTY claims it’s merely political. Political correctness means being in line with ruling power and this power completely white washed the most vile aspect of Serbian politics. The PC thing would be to go along with it, don’t you think? Croats are always reminded of Jasenovac by Westerners, not by Russians and not even by Serbs. No one in Serbia will be reminded of Srebrenica few years from now, because it was ruled: not a genocide. And it was genocide, same as Vukovar.
Again: who is blaming Serbia, then? Nobody in the Globalist establishment, obviously.
Therefore, no PC to embrace on my part, I’m afraid.
The monks I mentioned are very much listened to. If not, you always have Amfilohije and others saying same things in just a tad veiled language.
Croatians have a Napoleon complex. They are desperately trying to seem as though they are powerful. Getting ballistic missiles is going a little too far though. If you’re in NATO and most of your neighbours are NATO, why do you need rockets that can reach into Serbia? It’s an outright provocation. Of course Serbia has to have an answer. Sad thing is that both are being played like pawns in the region. Wake up.