Why U.S. Action Could Be Key to Keeping the Peace in the Western Balkans

Kosovo Security Force Soldiers in a Military Parade. Photo by SHUHEJLO.

Recent violence in northern Kosovo instigated by irredentist Serbs has confirmed the tenuous state of peace in the greater Western Balkan region. Since NATO leaders, at the behest of the U.S., first stepped in to broker the ceasefire that ended the Yugoslav wars in the late 1990s and early 2000s, U.S. support for its allies in the Balkans has been a key counterbalance to a rampant Serbian nationalism that claims the region as its rightful territory. A definitive stance in support of Kosovo’s independence while maintaining economic collaboration with Serbia could therefore prevent a resurgence of hawkish Serbian nationalism that would trigger military adventurism. Expanding economic ties with Serbia would help decrease pro-Russian sentiment in the country and the greater Western Balkans, a key region in the larger U.S.-Russia competition.

The conflict between Kosovo and Serbia began during the violent breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, which contained six modern-day Balkan countries as constituent republics inside of one large socialist state. Modern-day Kosovo was formerly part of the Yugoslav federated republic of Serbia, in which it enjoyed semi-autonomous status along with the province of Vojvodina. After Yugoslavia’s fall, the entire region went through a bloody period of war in several fronts starting in 1991, as the many constituent republics of the diverse country broke off in several interrelated violent conflicts. This turbulent period lasted until a NATO bombing campaign on Serbia and diplomatic pressure resulted in several peace agreements that ended the violence in 2001. This formalized the present-day borders between the former constituent republics of Yugoslavia and set forth an international criminal tribunal which indicted many prominent leaders of the war for crimes against humanity and genocide.

Kosovo and Serbia’s peace extended from the 1999 Kumanovo Agreement and the 2001 Končulj Agreement, which resulted in a ceasefire between Serbian troops and Albanian-Kosovar separatist militias. Empowered by this ceasefire, Kosovo later declared its independence in 2008, feeling that its ethnic Albanian population faced discrimination under Belgrade’s control. Serbia disputes this and views the quasi-state as an autonomous region of the country. While only about half of U.N. nations recognize Kosovo, including the U.S. and most of the EU, Russia and China side with Serbia in non-recognition.

Kosovo has its own sovereign government and is ethnically distinct from Serbia with a 92% Albanian population, despite not being recognized by several major members of the international community. This places it in a tense political relationship with Serbia, which alternatively sees Kosovo as the historical heartland of the state and refuses to let it go. 

Recently, tensions have once again embroiled Kosovo, restarting in 2022 after Kosovo police issued fines for Serbian license plates displayed on the cars of ethnic Kosovar Serbs. Although diplomatic pressure from EU and U.S. officials secured a deal to halt the authorization of Serbian license plates and Kosovar fines, tensions in the region continued to mount. This reached new heights last September when a police standoff with 30 far-right nationalists in Banjska, Northern Kosovo resulted in three deaths, materializing the growing tensions between the country’s Serbian and Kosovar Albanian population. The attack represents the first instance of mass violence since the war, which threatens to escalate should it be left unchecked.

If fighting spreads, U.S. involvement in the region would be inevitable because a regional conflagration would pull in NATO’s Balkan member states. The Kosovo-Serbia situation threatens to reignite tensions in Bosnia, where the ethnic Serb-controlled autonomous Republika Srpska has been ramping up efforts to secede from Bosnia and join Serbia. Violence on the Kosovo border could be enough to kickstart a violent secession and inflame other points of tension in the region, as it did during the 1990s wars. Several ex-Yugoslav countries—Albania, North Macedonia, and Montenegro—are now part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), whose doctrine compels member states to act in defense of fellow member states when attacked. This would mean that NATO’s article five, which guarantees mutual defense of member states, would be invoked and the U.S. would be forced to intervene in the conflict.

U.S. intervention was key to ending the war as NATO bombing raids over Serbia caused the Belgrade government to pull troops out of Kosovo. U.S.-brokered deals ended many of the conflicts, establishing the borders and terms of surrender that have maintained peace to this day. In Kosovo, towns such as North Mitrovica near the Serbian border are subject to continuous NATO presence, which has maintained an effort to quell conflict between the Serb and Albanian communities there.

As the U.S. played an instrumental role in establishing the region’s security architecture and maintaining the current peace, preserving peace in the Balkans is in Washington’s interest. The post-war political systems set up are fragile and require mutual cooperation between the states involved, so any disruption to the status quo could lead to violence to spring up again. If the two states were to return to violence, it would represent the third significant theater of battle in the greater region, as the Western Balkans are close to the Ukraine and Israel-Hamas conflicts, all three sharing the Mediterranean sea. The U.S. has committed to intervention efforts in the latter two conflicts: the House passed a $14 billion aid bill to Israel and has been keeping military aid to Ukraine steady through the last few years, amidst political pressure for a reduction. U.S. backing of Kosovo would strengthen its ties with allies in the region and counter growing Russian influence in Southeastern Europe. Serbia is one of the few countries in Europe to not impose sanctions on Russia after its 2022 invasion in Ukraine, and a significant Serbian political base still harbors a grudge over the West.

A definitive stance by the U.S. to back its support of Kosovo independence would counter the increasing Russophilia of Serbian nationalist groups—who in the past year have become increasingly militaristic. U.S. and EU inaction in recent years has caused the Serbian military to become more aggressive in recent years, with troops and tanks spotted on the Kosovo border following the standoff. As seen in the Yugoslav wars, violent nationalism only increased during warfare, and was the primary motivating factor behind various crimes against humanity.

Crimes such as various massacres, concentration camps, and mass rape were rampant during the wars that plagued the region, which cost the lives of around 140,000 civilians. This caused a mass displacement of refugees, triggering a crisis around Europe. Maintaining peace should be a moral imperative of the United States if it considers itself a defender of democracy and human rights. 

At the same time, U.S. collaboration in other areas with the Serbian government—which itself has notably kept its distance from fully supporting Russia despite its neutrality on sanctions—could counter anti-Western sentiment in Serbian politics, leading to greater integration within the EU system and less alignment with Moscow. Greater U.S. economic collaboration and support for Serbia’s EU candidacy could help the two countries’ relations while Washington maintains a hard line against the violence and nationalist aggression that would arise from Serbian efforts to retake Kosovo. This two-pronged policy would ensure that Serbia could improve its relationship with the West and not fall into the hands of Russia, as well as ensure Kosovar Albanians’ rights to self determination.

U.S. reaffirmation of its stance on the Kosovo issue and reiteration of NATO's imperative to intervene should the conflict spread to its member states would place more political pressure on Serbia to continue demilitarization of its border with Kosovo. A firm stance on respecting the territorial integrity of Kosovo would also reignite more talks of Kosovo recognition worldwide, leading to the chance of more diplomatic normalization.

Although NATO and the U.S. are severely constrained due to their commitment in providing aid to Ukraine, ensuring stability before violence escalates would prevent greater loss of resources in the long run, since intervening into a full regional war would be a lot more costly. Stopping mass violence before it ignites would prevent unnecessary loss of life as well as maintain the systems set up at the end of the Yugoslav wars, which have been able to foster development and maintain peace.

The people of Kosovo and the greater Western Balkan region deserve peace, as they live in the memory of the wars that ravaged their homes twenty years ago. U.S. reiteration of its commitment to its allies while maintaining clear support for Kosovo independence could lead to more dialogue between ethnic groups, as local leaders will want to avoid full-scale war with NATO involvement. Additionally, more U.S.-led economic development initiatives and collaboration with the EU could help sway pro-Russian actors to consider integration with the West and avoid militant nationalism, which would lead to catastrophic instability.

Jack Gonzalez (GS ’24) is a senior editor at Columbia Political Review studying history. He has been interested in foreign policy from a young age and hopes to bring global issues to the forefront through his writing. He can be reached at mjg2279@columbia.edu.