Ilustration: Truthmeter.mk
As part of the program Regional Initiative for combating disinformation “Western Balkans Combatting disinformation Center: Exposing malicious influences through fact-checking and Analytical Journalism“, we present you a new analysis of fake news and disinformation narratives.
History repeats itself: In the eyes of the West, the Balkans and Russia are part of the same front
The news published on the Sputnik Serbia portal represents a typical example of how media connected to the Russian narrative use history and geopolitics to support anti-NATO and anti-Western messages. The author, referring to Ković’s statements, claims that “after the failed attempt of a direct attack on Russia from Eastern Europe, the Balkans could become the new battlefield.” In the text, the Balkans and Serbian lands are presented as natural allies of Russia, while the West, including NATO, allegedly continuously threatens the Balkans. Such a narrative serves to spread fear and sensationalism, as it creates the impression that war is inevitable and that Serbia is permanently drawn into a global conflict, which is not true.
Ković claims in the article that Serbs have historically been part of the same front with Russia, linking medieval events, such as crusader campaigns and Byzantine conflicts, to modern geopolitical situations. He states: “It was known from the start of the wars in which the Yugoslav state was broken that we had to account for the hostility of the most influential Western elites, precisely because they see us Serbs as little Russians. To that end, they strengthened Croatian and Albanian chauvinists, as well as Muslim fundamentalists.” These statements represent a combination of historical facts and inaccurate interpretations. It is true that the Balkans were a theater of conflict and influence by major powers, but the idea that the West intentionally strengthens “Albanian chauvinists” or “Muslim fundamentalists” against Serbia today has no basis in evidence and is a construct designed to produce a sense of constant threat.
The way the article portrays American-Albanian cooperation is particularly problematic. The text implies that the U.S. uses Albania to destabilize the region and attack Serbia, which is unfounded. In reality, U.S.-Albanian relations concern regional stability, economic, and infrastructural issues, with no evidence of any intent to “threaten” Serbia militarily. Such a portrayal creates a disturbing narrative of a possible war in the Balkans and instills fear among readers.
Ković further claims: “The only great power currently standing behind Serbia and the Serbian people is Russia.” This statement, while partially based on the fact that Serbia has a good relationship with Russia, ignores Serbia’s multilateral international relations and its ties with the EU, NATO, and other international actors. Over-reliance on Russia as a “savior” for Serbia can create a false sense of security and a narrative of dependency, which does not align with real geopolitics.
The historical continuity and “historical destiny” of the Balkans, as allegedly presented, are used to justify fear and skepticism toward the West. Although Balkan history is indeed complex, directly linking past crusades to modern political events is a method of manipulating readers, interpreting complex events through the lens of Sputnik’s contemporary political narrative.
Critically, it is important to emphasize that the Sputnik text combines facts with inaccurate or unfounded claims to create the impression of a constant Western threat and Russo-Serbian solidarity against NATO. Such a narrative not only spreads fear but can influence public perception of Serbia as permanently threatened and dependent on Russia. The reality is far more complex: Serbia maintains balanced relations with both the West and Russia, and the idea of an imminent war in the region has no real basis.
Author: Nataša Stanojević
