The complexity of shaping a common European security policy is further burdened by the limited capacities of both the EU and NATO to adequately respond to contemporary challenges, alongside the need for countries in the region to more precisely define their security priorities and strengthen resilience against external influences. These were some of the key messages from the latest episode of Civic Angle, by the Centre for Civic Education (CCE) on TV E, where Zvezdana Kovač, CCE’s Director of Strategy and Communications, discussed with Ante Kotromanović, former Minister of Defense of Croatia, Admiral Dragan Samardžić, former Chief of General Staff of the Montenegrin Army, Igor Novaković from the ISAC Fund in Serbia, and Sandi Dizdarević, professor of criminal psychology from Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Ante Kotromanović, former Minister of Defense of Croatia, believes that the White Paper, the document in which the European Union unveils its defense strategy, “heavy” EUR 800 million, is very difficult to implement. He doubts that these funds can be secured without printing new money. Reminding that procurement processes take years; he expressed scepticism that this could be completed within the five-year period planned by the strategy. “It is necessary to assess the needs of each country individually and then incorporate that into a joint plan,“advises Kotromanović.
Igor Novaković, from the ISAC Fund, points out that most of the funds are planned to come from borrowing. “The restriction from the Growth and Stability Pact is being lifted, allowing member states to increase their budget deficit by 1.5% specifically for defense spending.” He explains that this amounts to “a total of around EUR 650 billion, plus EUR 150 billion for a new EU instrument – the Security Agreement for Europe (SAFE). In addition, around EUR 100 billion will be allocated, mainly for dual-use technologies, usable for both civilian and military purposes.”
When asked how such a project could be implemented, considering the divergent views among EU member states, Admiral Dragan Samardžić recalled the words of General Eisenhower, the first Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, at the founding of NATO. “If the American troops, now deployed on European soil for national security reasons, do not return to American soil within ten years, this project has failed,” Eisenhower warned, implying that the deployment was intended only as a temporary measure to allow Europe to build its own security capacities. “However, what followed was the Cold War, and those troops have remained to this day. Europe fell asleep after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and there were even ideas of about abolishing NATO,” said Samardžić, assessing that Trump’s arrival served as a wake-up call for Europe. “What Europe is doing now is Plan B, while Plan A is NATO. After Trump’s term, NATO will strengthen militarily but weaken politically,” Samardžić claims.
Kotromanović believes that defining a common European security policy is extremely difficult, primarily due to the 27 countries with 27 different interests. “Reaching agreement is challenging, and we are seeing a heterogeneous EU with always divergent opinions. I am not sure the people planning within the Union, those representing us, fully grasp what this means,” says Kotromanović, emphasizing that there is a feeling of a lack of leadership, not only within the EU but globally. He believes that NATO will survive despite being threatened by the very country that founded it – the United States. “The White Paper and various statements clearly say that this is not a replacement for NATO. It is about strengthening capabilities and resilience. We must develop the capacity so that, in many situations and times of crisis, the defence industry does not depend on countries outside of Europe,“ he states.
Sandi Dizdarević, a professor of criminal psychology in BiH, highlighted the importance of the Copenhagen School, which is often overlooked. “Since the 1970s, the EU has been focusing on something it usually does not – military doctrines – unlike major powers such as Russia and the USA, which have invested heavily in their military industries, particularly through state-owned enterprises that can easily be converted to meet the needs of potential conflicts,” he says, adding an interesting fact. “Since 1948, when the first initiative to create a common shield among five EU countries was launched and ultimately not implemented, we have had only written initiatives, without concrete indicators on the ground. This shows the distinction between the EU’s political leadership and the real capabilities of its member states in terms of military, police, and overall security capacities.”
Novaković underlines the importance of the issue of military procurement, particularly equipment coming from outside Europe. “Some countries will insist on continuing to purchase from the USA, which Washington itself will encourage. This opens up a range of questions for which we currently have no answers,” he said.
Admiral Samardžić expressed the view that forming European armed forces is impossible. “I do not see how that could happen. EU members are also NATO members – these are the same countries – and I see no point in creating something separate as long as NATO exists. NATO is a serious organisation, broader than the EU, and includes the USA, the world’s most powerful country. I believe that NATO will survive, that the USA will remain a part of NATO, and that it will continue to function. How exactly – we will see,” he concluded.
When asked how the security architecture has changed with Finland and Sweden joining NATO, Dizdarević said that it is not only about abandoning neutrality but also about spheres of interest, particularly in light of the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine. “This is precisely the moment when, on one hand, the EU is trying to give greater autonomy to its own policy and defense forces while remaining a full partner of NATO. On the other hand, after more than 20 years it is becoming fully aware of the extent to which the Russian Federation has established its influence through various channels, not only within EU member states but also in candidate countries, particularly those in the Western Balkans,” says Dizdarević.
Novaković argued that Finland and Sweden had been on the geopolitical sidelines for years, but with “the melting of the Arctic ice and the opening of the Northern Sea Route, which could potentially be used by both China and Russia, the strategic importance of the Arctic has grown, and these countries are no longer in the background but at the forefront of all this,” he says, adding that “we already have a new geopolitical sea route, which will be maximally utilized over the next decade, and Greenland, like Iceland has been so far, is becoming the world’s largest aircraft carrier.”
Commenting on the observation that the current geopolitical situation benefits the Western Balkans because the EU is showing greater interest in enlargement, Novaković pointed out that the integration process in Serbia has been frozen, with no clusters opened in the past three years. Reflecting on the months-long protests in Serbia, he dismissed suggestions that they were a “coloured revolution”. “The students’ demands concern the very foundations of the community – the rule of law,” he assessed, also noting that EU flags were absent from the protests. Kotromanović added that “just as Vučić has a declarative position of wanting to join the EU, the EU has a declarative position of wanting to support the integration process, yet neither side is doing much to make it happen.” Novaković expressed belief that even in the current situation, it is good for Serbia to remain a candidate country, as a large part of investments comes from the EU, enabling it unrestricted access to other markets. At the same time, he pointed out that it is beneficial for the EU to have Serbia as a candidate country, as demonstrated, for example, during the migrant crisis.
Novaković sees two possible outcomes as the epilogue of the protests in Serbia – a new government or elections. However, he leaves open the question of the reaction of those protesting, who are currently focused solely on fulfilling their demands. He notes that both scenarios could lead to a new wave of unrest, while expressing hope that these events will not spill over into neighbouring countries.
Much will depend on the international community, believes Admiral Samardžić, who recalls that just a few years after the end of World War II, NATO was formed, while today, 30 years after the Dayton Agreement, we are on the brink of a conflict that would have already escalated if it weren’t for the international community preserving peace in Bosnia and Kosovo. He emphasises that there is no greater strategic goal for Montenegro than EU membership, and when it comes to the region, there is no higher goal than a stable and democratic Serbia.
Dizdarević agreed with Admiral Samardžić’s statement about the importance of a democratic Serbia for the region. Commenting on the current crisis in B&H – considered the most serious in the last 30 years – and possible solutions, he stated: “Anyone suspected of any criminal offence must be held accountable before judicial institutions. If B&H fails to do what it must — that is, to detain all those suspected of committing criminal acts — the authority of those institutions will be seriously questioned.”
Speaking about the tensions in relations between Montenegro and Croatia, Admiral Samardžić expressed regret over the unnecessary Resolution on Jasenovac and questioned whether Montenegro is ready to close Chapter 31, as he sees no clear policy or serious analysis of what Montenegro needs to do. Kotromanović underlinedhow sincerely Croatia has helped, and still wants, Montenegro to join the EU, but he also said he does not understand how Montenegro could have fallen under the influence of what he called Vučić’s “schizophrenic” policy, which interferes in the internal affairs of neighbouring countries.
Asked whether the new EUR 6 billion Growth Plan and support package for the Western Balkans is an attempt to counter the influence of Russia, China, and Turkey, Novaković confirmed this, but questioned its effectiveness, noting that this is a relatively small amount of money with rather demanding conditions for accessing the funds. Kotromanović pointed out that it is difficult to stop China’s influence as it is a serious global power. “Therefore, as small countries, we must be wise and look after our own interests. We need to anticipate what is happening and protect our interests,” he concludes.
The full episode is available at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWhL8tbJB3c
This episode was produced through the CCE’s project Europeanisation through Civic’ Angle, supported by the SMART Balkan Regional Programme – Civil Society for a Connected Western Balkans, implemented by the Centre for Civil Society Promotion (CPCD), Centre for Research and Public Policies (CRPM), and Institute for Democracy and Mediation (IDM), funded by the the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway. The content of the show is the sole responsibility of CCE and the guests, and does not necessarily reflect the views of CPCD, CRPM, IDM, or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway.
Maja Marinović, Programme associate