How does Operation Allied Force continue to shape Serbia’s stance on military neutrality and influence its current security and foreign policy strategy?
Operation Allied Force, conducted by NATO in 1999 against the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, remains one of the key events shaping modern Serbia. Although the goal of the operation was to stop violence in Kosovo, the trauma caused by airstrikes still resonates within Serbian society. This event caused a major change in Serbia’s security and foreign policy, leading to its official decision to stay militarily neutral in 2007. Serbia’s military neutrality highlights its focus on protecting sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence. This policy is a key part of Serbia’s security strategy and is strongly supported by the public. Studies show that most people in Serbia are against the idea of joining NATO and prefer to stay neutral.
In the context of current geopolitical tensions, particularly following Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, Serbia’s neutrality gains even greater significance. The country seeks to balance cooperation with Russia, the European Union, the United States and China as part of its broader foreign policy framework, often referred to as the „four pillars strategy“. This strategy helps Serbia protect its national interests while staying independent and not fully siding with any major global power.
This analysis explores how Operation Allied Force continues to shape Serbia’s military neutrality and influence its security and foreign policy. The main focus is to understand how this event still affects Serbia’s decisions today. It examines the historical, political, and social impacts of these events, including effects on regional stability and international relations.
The Path to War: Kosovo, NATO Strikes, and Serbia’s Turning Point
The breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s triggered a series of ethnic and territorial conflicts that destabilized the region. Serbia, under the leadership of Slobodan Milošević, played a central role in these conflicts and was strongly criticized for war crimes and human rights abuses. One of the most intense conflicts emerged in Kosovo, where tensions between ethnic Albanians and Serbian forces grew throughout the decade. The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) began fighting for independence, and violence escalated after the killing of four Serbian police officers by the KLA in February 1998. Serbian forces responded with military action, leading to civilian casualties and mass protests. More than 200,000 people were forced to leave their homes. The international community, including the Contact Group, tried to address the situation, but due to Russia’s opposition, it only resulted in economic sanctions. After failed peace talks, particularly at Rambouillet, where no agreement was reached, NATO decided to intervene militarily. This move was a response to the ongoing violence and the growing threat of regional destabilization.
NATO launched Operation Allied Force on March 24, 1999, which lasted for 78 days, after diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis in Kosovo failed. The goal of the operation was to stop the violence against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and protect civilians from the ongoing ethnic cleansing. Although the primary targets of the airstrikes were military and strategic objects in Yugoslavia, the extensive bombing led to serious civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure. According to some estimates, approximately 500 to 2,500 civilians were killed as a result of the bombing, particularly during attacks on residential buildings, bridges, and energy networks. Although NATO argued that the intervention was necessary to protect civilians, its execution without approval from the United Nations Security Council sparked legal and political debates about its legitimacy. For Serbia, this intervention was a key moment that led to a significant deterioration in relations with NATO and the West, and it fueled widespread skepticism towards NATO.
Long-term Consequences of NATO Bombing: Environmental, Health, and Psychological Impacts on Serbia
In addition to the casualties and destroyed infrastructure, NATO’s bombing in 1999 has had serious ecological and health consequences for Serbia. There was pollution of water, air, and soil, especially in the Danube River area, due to the bombing of refineries and chemical factories. The destruction of natural reserves, such as the Kopaonik National Park, had a negative impact on biodiversity. Health consequences included an increased incidence of cancer and other diseases, which experts attribute to exposure to toxic substances and heavy metals. There was also a long-term impact on the public mind. Studies showed that after the bombing, there was a significant increase in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among the population, especially among children and adolescents, highlighting the long-lasting social impact of the war.
Nation in Reflection: The Lasting Impact on Identity and Public Opinion
The 1999 bombing of Serbia is an important part of the country’s collective memory and a key moment in its modern history. Every year, Serbia remembers this event as a symbol of injustice and foreign aggression. Both the media and political leaders often talk about how the attacks were not legal and how they harmed many civilians. This message strengthens a strong feeling of historical injustice, which has become an important part of Serbian national identity. This shared trauma brings Serbian society together through feelings of suffering and strength. Memories of the bombing still affect how the nation sees its past. They also shape national discussions and increase the sense of unfair treatment and resistance against outside threats. One big result of this history is that many Serbians still do not trust the West, even more than 20 years later. This feeling has helped build a close partnership between Serbia and Russia. Many Serbians see Russia as an important ally that protects their national interests, especially on the issue of Kosovo. This history has created long-lasting tensions in public opinion and still influences Serbia’s foreign policy today.
The negative experience with NATO airstrikes in 1999 strengthened the strong opposition to NATO membership, which persists to this day. Since the start of the democratic transition, support for joining NATO has never even come close to half of the population. According to a survey done in 2009 by the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy (BCBP), two-thirds of people (66.3%) were against joining NATO, 18.1% were unsure, and only 15.6% supported membership. An interesting result of the survey was that women were more uncertain (23.9%) compared to men (12.2%) about NATO membership. When looking at national minorities, opinions were divided. About 41% of them supported joining NATO, while 43% were against it. However, ethnic Serbs had a much stronger negative opinion, with 69.4% opposing NATO membership.
This opinion has not changed much over the years. Right before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in January and February 2022, only 9% of people in Serbia had a positive view of NATO. After the war in Ukraine started, this negative opinion continued, even among the younger generation born after 1999. This generation knows about the events of 1999 mainly from stories told by their parents and grandparents and from what they learn in school, where NATO’s attack on Yugoslavia is discussed in history lessons. The most recent public opinion survey, done in September 2023 by the Institute for European Affairs in Belgrade, shows that 84.2% of people in Serbia are against NATO membership. This opposition is especially strong among young people aged 18 to 29, who often show their opinion through protests and public criticism.
While the alliance remains unpopular, Serbia’s views on international partners reveal a different trend. Serbia’s foreign policy opinions are strongly shaped by history and cultural factors. Russia, especially because of its support for Serbia regarding Kosovo after the NATO intervention, is seen as a friendly country. Most people in Serbia believe that Russia is their closest international partner. This opinion is common in all age groups, with strong support for Russia from both older and younger generations. China is also considered an important partner, but its influence is stronger among middle-aged people, while both the younger and older generations see it as less important. The European Union is the third most recognized partner, with many young people seeing it as an important ally, while older people tend to be more skeptical about the EU. At the same time, public opinion on the EU is different from views on NATO
Data from 2023 shows that although negative views of NATO remain strong, this does not have the same effect on how people in Serbia see the European Union. A majority of Serbs (43%) support joining the EU, while 32% are against it. This suggests that even though Operation Allied Force had a big impact on Serbia’s opinion about NATO, it does not have the same influence on how people view the EU. Instead, what matters most to the Serbian public is the hope of a better future through the economic and political changes that could come with EU membership.
Serbia’s Cooperation with NATO Through Partnership for Peace
Despite the negative public opinion toward NATO and the strong memories of the 1999 bombing, Serbia chose to join the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program. This decision was an important step in creating cooperation between NATO and countries that are not members. The PfP program, which started in 1994, aims to improve security cooperation and build trust among participating countries. Serbia’s entry into the program in December 2006 was a key moment in improving its relationship with NATO after the democratic changes of 2000. Through PfP, Serbia takes part in activities that focus on both regional and global security. These activities include sharing information, training, and receiving support to modernize its armed forces. Serbia is also involved in peacekeeping missions, which help maintain international stability while allowing the country to continue emphasizing its neutral status. By joining the program, Serbia shows its commitment to improving security cooperation and playing an active role in the international community, all while keeping its policy of neutrality. Serbia’s cooperation with NATO through the PfP program is also connected to its observer status in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO – a military alliance led by Russia, established in 2002, that includes several post-Soviet states). This dual approach is part of the country’s national security strategy. The Serbian government promotes a balanced approach to international relations. This means strengthening relationships with important global powers, such as the United States, Russia, the EU and China.
Serbia’s Balancing Act: The Four Pillars of Foreign Policy
Serbia has developed a foreign policy known as the „Four Pillars Strategy,“ which combines military neutrality with balancing relations between key global actors. The European Union is Serbia’s biggest trading partner and an important supporter of its economic and political reforms. Serbia became an EU candidate country in 2012, which led to investments in infrastructure, legal reforms, and economic development. However, Serbia’s path to EU membership has been slow due to the unresolved Kosovo issue and EU expectations that Serbia aligns its foreign policy with its stance on Russia. At the same time, Russia is seen as Serbia’s historical ally, mainly because of its support for Serbia on Kosovo. Cultural, religious, and historical ties make this relationship strong, while Serbia’s reliance on Russian gas supplies adds to its strategic importance. Many Serbians see Russia as a protector of national interests, but Serbia still tries to balance its position between East and West
The United States is another key partner, especially in security and economic cooperation. Despite tensions related to the 1999 NATO bombing, the U.S. has supported peace and stability in the Balkans, which remains important for Serbia. However, public opinion in Serbia remains skeptical about the USA, which limits how closely the two countries cooperate. Meanwhile, China has become an important economic partner, investing in infrastructure, industry, and energy. Through the Belt and Road Initiative, China provides alternative funding sources, reducing Serbia’s dependence on Western financial institutions. However, Serbia’s growing ties with China have raised concerns in the EU and the U.S., who see China’s increasing influence in the region as a potential challenge. The Four Pillars Strategy allows Serbia to navigate a complex geopolitical environment while keeping control over its foreign policy. However, this approach requires careful balancing as Serbia faces increasing pressure from the West to follow its policies. Despite these challenges, Serbia continues to use this strategy as an important tool to protect its national interests while engaging with different global powers.
Serbia’s Future: Challenges and Opportunities
Over the past two decades, Serbia has focused on maintaining its military neutrality and balancing relations between global powers. The events related to Operation Allied Force had a significant impact on shaping Serbia’s foreign policy, which combines pragmatism and caution in the geopolitical environment. The Four Pillars strategy has proven to be an effective tool for maneuvering between key partners while maintaining the autonomy of Serbia’s foreign policy.
In the future, Serbia will face a number of challenges. One of them is the pressure from the West to align with the policies of the European Union and NATO, especially in the context of the war in Ukraine and the growing influence of China in the region. Serbia will need to find a balance between these pressures and its need to protect national interests, including the unresolved status of Kosovo. This issue continues to be one of the main points of incompatibility with the EU’s integration requirements and significantly impacts Serbia’s accession negotiations with the EU. A key question is whether Serbia can maintain its neutrality and independence while ensuring economic prosperity and regional stability. Despite these challenges, Serbia demonstrates the ability to adapt to dynamic changes in the international environment. Its role as a bridge between the East and the West may be crucial for maintaining peace and cooperation in the Balkans.
Operation Allied Force not only influenced Serbia’s decision to stay militarily neutral but also changed its relationship with the West. The memory of the 1999 bombing is still strong in Serbian society and continues to affect political decisions and public opinion. This event remains a key part of Serbia’s history, shaping its views on security, alliances, and its place in the world.
Sources
Avedissian K. (2019). Fact Sheet: What is the Collective Security Treaty Organization?. EVN. 6.10.2019. (https://evnreport.com/understanding-the-region/fact-sheet-what-is-the-collective-security-treaty-organization/, 20.1.2025)
Bakrač, S. T., Klem, E.,& Milanović, M. (2018). Ekološke posledice NATO bombardovanja Republike Srbije 1999. godine. in Vojno delo
Ministarstvo odbrane Srbije – Vojnoizdavački zavod, Beograd., 70(7), pp. 475-492. https://doi.org/10.5937/vojdelo1807475B
Belloni, R. (2023). Serbia between East and West: ontological security, vicarious identity and the problem of sanctions against Russia. European Security, 33(2), pp. 284–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2023.2290048
Danas (2023). Istraživanje za Vladu Srbije: Članstvo Srbije u EU podržava 43 odsto građana, protiv 32 odsto. Danas. 26.1.2023. ( https://www.danas.rs/vesti/politika/istrazivanje-za-vladu-srbije-clanstvo-srbije-u-eu-podrzava-43-odsto-gradjana-protiv-32-odsto/, 6.1.2025)
Ejdus, F. (2011): Kognitivna disonanca i bezbednosna politika Srbije. Bezbednost Zapadnog Balkana, 6(20), pp. 13–30.
Fridman, O. (2016). Memories of the 1999 NATO Bombing in Belgrade, Serbia. Comparative Southeast European Studies, 64(4), pp. 438-459. https://doi.org/10.1515/soeu-2016-0041
Government of the Republic of Serbia (2023). Serbia best example of infrastructure development as part of Belt and Road Initiative. 26.1.2023. (https://www.srbija.gov.rs/vest/en/223438/serbia-best-example-of-infrastructure-development-as-part-of-belt-and-road-initiative.php, 6.1.2025)
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (n.d.). Final report to the prosecutor by the committee established to review the NATO bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. (https://www.icty.org/en/press/final-report-prosecutor-committee-established-review-nato-bombing-campaign-against-federal, 5.1.2025)
Jozić, J. ,& Barić R. (2023). War in Ukraine and Russian goals in the Western Balkans. Vojenské rozhledy, 32 (3),
Kaufman, J. P. (1999). NATO and the Former Yugoslavia: Crisis, Conflict and the Atlantic Alliance. Journal of Conflict Studies, 19(2), pp. 5–38.
Ministarstvo odbrane Republike Srbije (2019). Predlog Strategije nacionalne Bezbednosti Republike Srbije. (http://www.parlament.gov.rs/upload/archive/files/lat/pdf/akta_procedura/2019/2206-19%20-%20Lat..pdf, 6.1.2025)
Ministarstvo odbrane Republike Srbije. (n.d.). Partnerstvo za mir. (https://www.mod.gov.rs/lat/4358/partnerstvo-za-mir-4358, 6.1.2025)
NATOAKTUAL.CZ (2013). OPERACE ALLIED FORCE (1999) Letecký zásah NATO proti bývalé Svazové republice Jugoslávii. Factbox. 2013(01). (https://data.idnes.cz/soubory/na_knihovna/A150217_M02_020_FB1301_KOSOVO.PDF, 5.1.2025)
Radoman, J. (2012). Serbia and NATO: From Enemies to (Almost) Partners. Belgrade Centre for Security Policy.
U.S. Mission to the OSCE. (2024). 25th anniversary of NATO response to the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo. 21.3.2024. https://osce.usmission.gov/25th-anniversary-of-nato-response-to-the-humanitarian-crisis-in-kosovo/, 5.1.2025)
Velebit, V., & Cvejanov, A. (2024). Four pillars strategy & the future of Serbia’s foreign policy. Pupin Initiative. 6.12.2024. (https://pupin.org/analysis/four-pillars-strategy-the-future-of-serbia-s-foreign-policy, 5.1.2025)
Vuksanovic, V., Steric, L., & Bjelos, M. (2022). Public perception of Serbian foreign policy in the midst of the war in Ukraine. Kosovar Center for Security Studies. pp. 1-15.
Thompson, B., & Sabarre, M. (2023). Perspectives on NATO from the outside. International Republican Institute. 21.7.2023. (https://www.iri.org/news/perspectives-on-nato-from-the-outside/, 6.1.2025)
Živanović, M. (2024). Memory vs oblivion: On the 25th anniversary of the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia. Valdai Club. 22.3.2024. (https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/memory-vs-oblivion-on-the-25th-anniversary/, 5.1.2025)
Zotović, M. (2005). PTSP i depresivnost posle NATO bombardovanja – činioci individualnih razlika u reagovanju na stres. Psihologija, 38(1), pp. 93-109. https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI0501093Z
Source of the picture: https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/
Written by Ondřej Honeger
42