The state-sponsored funeral of convicted war criminal Ratko Mladic in Belgrade this week has intensified debates within the European Union regarding Serbia’s membership prospects. For many policymakers and analysts, the hero’s farewell to the former Bosnian Serb military leader signals that Serbia’s path toward EU integration has not merely stalled but has effectively lost its political momentum.
Engjellushe Morina of the European Council on Foreign Relations told DW that Brussels has long treated Serbia as a standard candidate country despite continued regression on democracy and the rule of law. Naim Leo Besiri from Serbia’s Institute for European Affairs echoed this sentiment, noting that the ruling majority has failed to deliver on promised reforms over the past five years.
Both experts highlighted that Belgrade has refused to align itself with EU sanctions against Russia. Under nationalist President Aleksandar Vucic, democratic standards have deteriorated while tensions with Kosovo persist. Despite receiving a life sentence from a UN court for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, Mladic was buried with military honors on Monday in the presence of government representatives. Although President Vucic did not attend, he facilitated and publicly defended the mourning process.
The event triggered an unusually strong response from EU leadership. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen described the scenes as shocking, while European Council President Antonio Costa condemned the glorification of war criminals. EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos subsequently canceled a planned visit to Serbia.
However, Morina and Besiri argue that these reactions are insufficient. They contend that Vucic has been afforded too much latitude for too long, largely because he has been viewed by some in Brussels as an indispensable partner essential for stability in the Western Balkans. Besiri noted that Serbian civil society had warned years ago about attacks on media freedom and judicial independence, but the EU largely ignored these alerts.
The relationship between the EU and Serbia remains complex, characterized by strong economic ties but political divergence. The EU is Serbia’s primary trading partner, investor, and financial donor, yet Belgrade has cultivated close political links with Moscow. A common justification for maintaining engagement is the fear that increased pressure could drive Serbia further into the spheres of influence of Russia or China.
Morina acknowledged that isolating Serbia carries risks but suggested there are middle-ground options. She argued that the EU should engage more deeply with Serbian society while compelling Vucic to make decisive political choices. Besiri agreed that neither Russia nor China could substitute for the European market, suggesting that Vucic uses the threat of Western alignment loss as a deterrent against firmer EU action.
Both analysts perceive a strategic dynamic at play: Vucic benefits from cooperation without implementing necessary reforms, while Brussels can claim that Serbia remains anchored to Europe. This status quo is evident in historical actions, such as Vucic’s 2007 placement of street signs designating a ‘Ratko Mladic boulevard’ in Belgrade.
The EU has begun applying financial pressure, withholding further payments under the Growth Plan for the Western Balkans due to concerns about judicial independence. However, Besiri doubts this will alter Vucic’s calculations, arguing that broad funding cuts would disproportionately affect the general population rather than the political elite. He advocates for targeted measures against those responsible for democratic decline.
Serbia’s early parliamentary election on October 25 may test Vucic’s political dominance. After twelve years as president, he seeks to remain the country’s leading figure by becoming prime minister. Besiri described the opposition as fragile, stating it is extremely difficult to win democratically in undemocratic conditions.
Neither expert believes a single election will repair Serbia’s institutions or fundamentally reshape its EU relationship. Reconciliation in the region appears distant, as Serbia has yet to fully acknowledge its role in the 1990s wars or accept established facts about the crimes committed. Narratives casting Serbs exclusively as victims remain entrenched in politics, education, and media. As Morina concluded, the recent events represent a reversal of progress made over many years, underscoring how far Serbia remains from both regional reconciliation and EU membership.
Leave a Reply