Russia's war against Ukraine: Consequences for South East Europe

On December 3 2024, the European Studies Centre hosted an insightful seminar on the repercussions of Russia's ongoing war against Ukraine on Southeast Europe. The discussion brought together a panel of experts, including Julie Newton, Research Fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford, Maxim Samorukov, Fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Centre, Kyril Drezov, Lecturer in Politics at Keele University, and Vuk Vuksanovic, Senior Researcher at Belgrade Centre for Security Policy. The seminar was chaired by Othon Anastasakis, the Director of the European Studies Centre and Southeast European Studies at the University of Oxford. Their presentations explored how Russia's geopolitical strategies and the ongoing conflict ripple across the Balkans and Southeast Europe, affecting energy security, political alliances, and regional stability.

Newton opened the seminar by contextualising Southeast Europe’s role in Russia’s broader confrontation with the West. She emphasised that the region represents a "grey zone" in European security, where external interventions by both Russia and the West remain possible. This grey zone is of strategic importance to Russia, as it seeks to undermine Western cohesion while preserving its influence through populist and illiberal allies in countries like Serbia and Hungary. At the same time, the region presents challenges for the West, as vulnerabilities in governance and societal frustration make it fertile ground for populism and external manipulation.

Newton highlighted Russia’s mid-term goals, including neutralising threats emanating from Ukraine, reshaping European security to deter NATO, and shifting the global balance of power away from Western dominance toward a Russia-China-led alternative. She argued that the Southeast region will remain a dynamic battleground in this larger geopolitical conflict.Maxim Samorukov expanded on the role of the Balkans in Russia's strategies. He noted that pre-war dependencies on Russia, such as those in Bulgaria, have shifted post-2022. Russia’s war in Ukraine has amplified its focus on the Balkans as a critical theatre for diluting Western cohesion, particularly through Serbia.

Samorukov highlighted Serbia’s balancing act: maintaining economic ties with the EU while leveraging its relationships with Russia and China to preserve autonomy. He observed that Serbia benefits significantly from cheap Russian energy and legitimacy while paying little in return. Despite this, the war has complicated Serbia’s position, with increased reliance on the West for military cooperation and subtle shifts in its diplomatic stance.

Drezov addressed the broader post-2022 changes in Southeast Europe. He likened Russia's current isolation to its ostracism during the 1917–1933 period, noting the dramatic mistrust and isolation it faces. In terms of energy, Drezov highlighted that Russia’s network in the region, aside from TurkStream, has weakened, leaving countries like Romania in a precarious state.

Migration was another focus, with Drezov pointing out the profound demographic shifts spurred by the war. Countries like Bulgaria have experienced significant Ukrainian inflows, creating cultural and logistical challenges. Meanwhile, Turkey has emerged as a pivotal player in the region, both politically and economically, with its influence growing post-2022.

Vuksanovic offered insights into the sustainability of alliances in the region, arguing that these depend on two factors: the balance of power and the elites in control. He underscored Russia’s ability to use Serbia as a bargaining chip against the West, highlighting how disputes over Kosovo and Russia’s gas supply give it leverage.

However, Vuksanovic also noted that Russia’s soft power appeal in the Balkans is more about what it symbolises—an alternative to the West—than any real economic or military clout. Despite setbacks in its ability to provide advanced weaponry, Russia’s normative challenge to Western values continues to resonate in parts of the region.

One question addressed the roots of populism in Southeast Europe. Julie Newton responded by linking it to economic corruption, weak governance, and a lack of civil society engagement. These factors, exacerbated by energy crises tied to Russia, create fertile ground for populist narratives to thrive.

Another question examined the potential impact of a Trump return to the U.S. presidency. Panellists noted that Trump’s unpredictability could exacerbate divisions within the Western alliance, particularly between countries like France and Germany. They speculated that a second Trump administration might compel Southeast European countries to hedge their bets between the U.S., China, and Russia, complicating regional stability.

The influence of Russian immigration to countries like Serbia was also discussed. While the influx of Russian migrants has led to economic effects, such as rising real estate prices in Belgrade, their political influence remains limited due to their relative isolation.

Questions about the EU’s role in the region revealed mixed reactions. While the EU has reconsidered its framework for engaging Southeast Europe since the war began, its actions often appear accidental rather than strategic. This lack of a cohesive strategy leaves the region vulnerable to external influence.

Finally, the potential end of the war and its regional implications were considered. Panellists agreed that a negotiated settlement would not necessarily resolve underlying tensions, as Ukraine’s NATO aspirations remain a contentious issue. The panel emphasised that the region’s geopolitical significance will continue to grow, particularly as global powers like China and India seek to expand their influence.

As the war continues to shape the global political landscape, Southeast Europe remains a dynamic and unpredictable battleground, where local actors, international powers, and historical grievances intersect.

by Yangyang Zhao (ESC Research Assistant)