Why the Balkans Remains a Powder Keg?

Examining Geopolitical Crossroads, Historical Manipulations, and Religious Dynamics in the Balkans

The Balkans has always been a complex region, with a rich history and culture. Vincha culture, found in the region close to today’s Belgrade, is the largest Neolithic settlement in Europe, dating back more than 7,000 years B.C. Such archeological sites allude to the theory that claims that the Balkans are the cradle of modern European civilizations. Whatever the fact may be, its terrain was an attractive option for many of our pre-historic ancestors, who have lived in the region. This has also meant that this region was attractive for many occupiers and imperial powers, which have fought for centuries extensively for a piece of land.

The Romans, Barbarians, Greeks, Persians, Slavs, Celts, Avars, Mongols, Ottomans, Austro-Hungarians, Nazis, Fascists, and the Soviets; all fought at one time or another for a piece of land. However, if there were no invasions from foreign powers, it was not unusual for tribes in the region to fight against each other. Illyrians for example, which were a group of tribes that shared the same culture and language and have lived during ancient times in the Balkan peninsula, have often fought against each other. We can look at the constant wars that the city-states in ancient Greece have often fought against each other. We have also seen in the 20th century an incredible amount of wars and conflicts, usually among the nations that share language, culture, and historical legacy in common.

So let’s try and understand some of the factors that have contributed to the instability and occurring conflicts in the region. Balkan was, is and unfortunately remains the powder keg of Europe.

The Geopolitical Highway

One of the obvious reasons why the Balkans are the powder keg of Europe is contributed to its terrain. For example, its mountainous terrain didn’t allow such an easy-flowing transition of goods and people. This is why the Balkans have such a diverse cultural and historical legacy, but it was also the reason why Balkan nations have gone to war with each other more often than not.

France for example, has fairly flat terrain and big and long rivers, so it was easy for the French to travel and exchange goods, communicate, spread the same culture, same language, and ultimately create one nation. This is not the case with the Balkans. Because of its terrain, we have today a term that explains this phenomenon called balkanization. Although the term has emerged because of the dissolution of Yugoslavia into smaller nation-states, it can be certainly attributed to the entire region.

Its mountainous terrain was also at times a big advantage. During the Ottoman era, there were villages and tribes in the tall mountains of Montenegro, that the Ottomans could not conquer, no matter how big and advanced their army was. To put into perspective, imagine a small Asterix-like village resisting the mighty army of the Ottoman Empire, with a magical potion called high altitude. This is the same type of terrain that has beaten the US army in Afghanistan, just on a smaller scale in our example. It is no wonder why it was of geostrategic importance for many invaders.

Also, the Balkans lie at the crossroads of three continents. In the past, if you wanted to travel from Europe to Asia, you would go through the Balkans, and vice versa. Many invasions both from Europe to Asia and Africa, and from Asia and Africa to Europe have meant that you had to go through the Balkans. It was and to some extent still is, a geopolitical highway.

It shouldn’t be overlooked that for the majority of its existence, the Balkans was a resource-rich region, which is why it was always an attractive option for occupiers.

Because of its complex historical background, it is incredibly difficult to draw borders along ethnic lines in the Balkans. If this were the case, we wouldn’t have seen a large portion of armed conflicts that have happened in the last 150 years. I will dedicate a special post on this subject soon.

Historical Narrative as a Political Weapon

In the last interview between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Tucker Carlson, a substantial amount of the interview was dedicated to Russian history, to explain the conflict in Ukraine. Following the interview, there have been ongoing discussions about how history is being used as a justification in the pursuit of political agendas. However, this phenomenon is nothing new.

Hitler tried to pursue a theory that the Germans were Aryans and thereby genetically and biologically superior to other nations around the world and should by right rule over the world.

Western colonizers also believed in the civilizational superiority of the white race and its role in shaping the colonies that were under their control. The idea is simple, if a nation is at a higher level of civilizational development, then it has a moral obligation to “help” those lesser nations in their civilizational journeys. This was the “justification” behind the atrocities that were committed by the Western colonizers.

History was often used as a weapon to push certain political agendas by many nations in the past, and the Balkans are not different in this regard at all. Certain historical narratives were imposed by imperial forces on the nations of the Balkans, to achieve their geopolitical aspirations. We could probably write hundreds of books on such topics, and there would still be things that were left unsaid.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire had the most prominent role in the creation of false historical narratives in the region, and the reason for that is very simple. If you see Serbia as the biggest factor of instability in the region, as it is portrayed by the Western media, well examine the question deeply and you will see that the roots of this perception lie in the remnants of the Austro-Hungarian policy in the Balkans.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire came relatively late into the geopolitical arena. It was surrounded by great powers, on the north and west by Prussia (later the German Empire), and on the east by the Russian Empire. If it wanted to expand, it could do that only by focusing on the Balkans. Its obstacles were the sick man of Europe- the dying Ottoman Empire and the nation of Serbia. One additional issue that the Austro-Hungarian Empire faced was the large Slavic population in the Empire.

Following the Congress of Berlin in 1878, when the Slavic nations in the Balkans gained independence from the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg dynasty of the Austro-Hungarian Empire had growing fears that its Slavic population would unify with Serbia and other Slavic nations in the Balkans (backed by the Russian Empire), and ultimately destroy the Austro-Hungarian Empire. To stop this from happening, the Austro-Hungarians wanted to wipe out Serbia and the Serbs from the map, since they had aspirations to free the remaining Slavs in the region and create a new Slavic state.

In 1908 Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was before that given to Austro-Hungary by other Great Powers for a transitional period, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, to ensure its development. At that time, the majority of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina were Orthodox Christians (Serbs). To address the challenge of the growing influence of Serbia in the country, the Austro-Hungarian Empire installed Benjamin von Kállay in a position to govern the annexed province of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A large portion of today’s political instability in the country is the result of his policies. His main goal was to turn the Croats and Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs, who were seen as the biggest threat to the Empire, by implementing the age-old strategy “divide and conquer”. It is an understatement to say that his policies continue to divide the ethnical groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

It was because of such policies, that Gavrilo Princip shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand in the the first place (you can see the illustration of the event in the first picture), resulting in the First World War. However, it is a false assumption that he or anyone associated with him was a nationalist. The proposed idea of their group “Young Bosnia” was a liberation from centuries-old occupation and unification with other Slavic nations. His and his comrade’s goal was the formation of Yugoslavia, not Greater Serbia, which did happen following the end of the First World War.

In any case, the Great Powers had prepared themselves for the First World War, and the event would take place, regardless of whether Franz Ferdinand was shot or not. Additionally, Franz Ferdinand was the only one in the Habsburg Monarchy who wanted long-term peace with the Slavs and who argued that Slavs should have the same rights in the Monarchy as the Austrians and the Hungarians. By killing him, the last barrier towards the Great War was lifted, and Austro-Hungary had the justification it searched for to start the war. If you are interested in understanding the events that led to the First World War, I highly recommend you to watch The Long Road to War.

Coming back to the topic, to stop Serbia from gaining access to the Adriatic, the Austro-Hungarians, through their diplomats worked on the development and creation of the Albanian nation, which was until that point a heterogenous group of diverse tribes, with no national identity. Teodora Toleva explains this process in detail in her book “The Influence of Austria-Hungary on the Formation of Albanian Nation 1896-1908”. She has presented an extensive number of the Austro-Hungarian state documents from Vienna archives, that explain how and why this was done. Unfortunately, the book was never translated into English, but there is a good YouTube video that goes into some of its content. Such policies continue to shape the relations between modern-day Serbs and Albanians.

On the other hand, in that same period, the Russian Empire supported Bulgarian national interests in the Balkans. The ethnic background of what is today North Macedonia was always diverse. Bulgaria wanted to expand its influence in the Balkans and it has aimed to do that by expanding its language and enforcing “Bulgarization” in the region.

As a consequence of this, the Second Balkan War took place, between Bulgaria on one side, and Serbia, Romania, Montenegro, Greece, and even Ottomans on the other. For this reason, Bulgaria was on the side of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during the First World War, and on the side of the Axis powers in the Second World War. This was followed by horrific war crimes. Such policies continue to shape the region of the Blakans even to this day, with Bulgaria blocking the entrance of North Macedonia into the EU until it accepts that its language is a dialect of the Bulgarian language.

Communism in the region has also played a big role in falsifying historical narratives, to fit its agenda. Because of its historical proximity, this topic deserves special attention, so I will leave that for some additional blogs.

Please take into consideration that this was just a selection of historical events that can offer us a glimpse into the complex dynamics that have shaped the region of the Balkans. There are hundreds, if not thousands of events, crimes, conflicts, and policies that were committed by all actors in the Balkans, so take my outlook with a reserved attitude, and try to look at general trends that have shaped the Balkans.

"Who Controls the Past Controls the Future"- George Orwell

However, today’s outlook in the region is bleak. As a result of some of the trends, Balkan nations have different outlooks on their historical past, and their historic rights in the region. The history taught in schools often aligns with the national identity of the country, shaping a narrative that glorifies one's own nation while often casting others in an antagonistic light. This creates a strong victim mentality, which can lead to relativization and subjectification of historical atrocities that were committed by one own nation. I will dedicate a separate blog to try and answer this question.

The Role of Religion

This is an incredibly big topic and one which is tied closely to national identities in the region. To illustrate this point, if we take a look at Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), Croats, and Serbs, the only true difference between them is their religion. So, how did we come to the point where there are distinct national identities, based solely on the religious aspect?

The first factor is closely tied with the Great Schism of 1054, when the Christian Church was split into Eastern and Western, into Catholicism and Orthodoxy. For a large part of human history, religion was used as a political tool. Kings were crowned by heads of churches, which meant that they were chosen and blessed by God himself. Firstly, peoples in the Balkans were predominantly orthodox, as a large portion of the region was under the rule of the Eastern Roman Empire. This has changed with the invasion of the Ottoman Empire.

To be a Christian in one of the provinces of the Ottoman Empire was a living hell. People were killed, raped, and were enforced to live under extreme living conditions if they did not accept Islam as their religion. Children were forcibly taken by the Ottoman soldiers, they were Islamized and trained to become an elite form of soldiers, called the Janissaries. History remembers this as the Blood Tax. To understand how big of a trauma this has left on the living population in the region, just read the lyrics of the famous Serbian ethno song- Janissary by Predrag Cune Gojkovic.

As wild wind as fire; In the midst of a fierce battle;

A warrior ignited; The village where he was born.

Fiend had taken a son; From its mother's arms;

Now that son curses his destiny; Because he is a Janissary;

On the hearth in front of a desolate home; A old women was crying;

Above her sword is raised; From hand of a warrior who want to kill her;

Fiend had taken a son; From its mother's arms;

Now that son curses his destiny; Because he is a Janissary;

Please don't do it, my son; don't do it, have mercy!

I am your mother, because I recognize; Your a birthmark above a lip;

Fiend had taken a son; From its mother's arms;

Now that son curses his destiny; Because he is a Janissary;

A young Janissary got off a horse; He threw a sword, he let a tear;

Mother wanted to say something; But she kept quiet!

Fiend had taken a son; From its mother's arms,

Now that son curses his destiny; Because he is a Janissary.

Many people in the region wanted to avoid such a gruesome destiny, so they accepted Islam as their faith. This was especially the case in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had the biggest percentage of Islamized population in the Ottoman Empire. This created socio-economic class differences in the provinces of the Ottoman Empire since the Muslims enjoyed first-citizen rights, which the other Christians, both Orthodox and Catholic didn’t. This is a major factor in why the Christians and Muslims in the region remain polarized in certain parts of the Balkans, even to this day.

What defines one nation is usually the language, however, in the Balkans, there are multiple national identities, all speaking the same or very similar languages, yet are very distinct from each other. Different ethnic orthodox churches, the Vatican, and the Ottoman Empire were some of the defining factors in the creation of modern national identities in the Balkans.

In the past there were no newspapers, information traveled slowly, and large illiteracy rates were normal. Outside of the courts, religious scholars were usually the only ones from the common people who could read and write, and they were usually trusted by the locals. It is an understatement to say that it was exactly these religious scholars who played one of the biggest roles in the creation of modern national identities in the Balkans.

In hard times (and there was no shortage of those in the Balkans), people usually seek refuge in churches and mosques and pray for help from God. So, if the Western states and the Vatican wanted to expand their power and pursue certain political agendas in the region, they could do that through religion. The same can be said for the Ottomans or other Great Powers who had their interests in the region.

Even today, many leaders seek good relations and “blessings” from their religious authorities, to back up their positions of power. This is especially true in the Orthodox and Muslim World.

I have tried to offer a rough and short overview of the history and the factors that continue to shape the region of the Balkans. I will dedicate a lot of posts in the future to address such and similar questions. What continues to divide the region, even to this day, is the influence of big power dynamics, which spills over the regions, through geopolitics, historical (today media) narratives, and the role of religious institutions.

To prevent the recurrence of such horrific events, it is imperative that we grasp the depths of our past. It is within the annals of history that we unravel the complexities leading to our present circumstances, paving the way for the construction of more peaceful and prosperous societies in the future.