The Fracture Line: Russia’s Hybrid Strategy in the Western Balkans
EARLY WARNING REPORT Series: Mapping Vulnerabilities, Proxy Actors, and Emerging Risks in the Western Balkans (2025–2026)
FULL REPORT LINK

Russia’s strategy in the Western Balkans is no longer about territorial ambitions or military coercion. Instead, the Kremlin has refined a multidimensional hybrid campaign designed to fracture societies, weaken institutions, and obstruct Euro-Atlantic integration without firing a single shot. The region’s historical vulnerabilities — contested identities, unresolved conflicts, fragile institutions, and polarized media landscapes — provide fertile ground for such influence.

At the core of Moscow’s approach is a networked system of proxies and narratives that exploit local grievances while promoting a strategic worldview aligned with Russian interests. This influence is rarely direct. Instead, Russia operates through layers of political allies, clerical structures, business interests, media channels, and grey-zone actors who embed the Kremlin’s messages into domestic debates.

Serbia sits at the center of this system. The country functions as the main distribution hub for Russian political narratives, energy influence, and media operations. Through Serbia’s state-aligned outlets, pro-government tabloids, and the Serbian Orthodox Church, Kremlin themes such as “sovereignty,” “neutrality,” and “traditional values” flow seamlessly into the wider region. Aleksandar Vučić’s strategic ambiguity reinforces this dynamic, allowing Serbia to act as both a regional stabilizer and a Russia-aligned disruptor depending on the moment.

Bosnia and Herzegovina — and particularly Republika Srpska — represents the most exposed point in this fractured landscape. Milorad Dodik’s constant threats of secession, attacks on state institutions, and open alignment with Moscow create a persistent state of institutional paralysis. These escalations do not aim to break the country apart in a single stroke; rather, they slowly erode Bosnia’s cohesion and credibility, keeping it vulnerable to external manipulation.

Kosovo, meanwhile, functions as a pressure valve. Russia does not operate directly within Kosovo, but it weaponizes Belgrade’s influence. Parallel structures in the north, well-established media channels, and gray networks can transform misinformation into street-level tension within hours. Each flare-up reinforces the image of Kosovo as unstable, distracting the EU and NATO while empowering both Belgrade and Moscow.

Montenegro presents another critical front. Its deep identity divisions, fragile institutions, and enduring clerical influence create an environment where Russian-aligned actors can disrupt political processes and challenge Montenegro’s Euro-Atlantic trajectory. The Serbian Orthodox Church remains a potent mobilizing force, shaping public sentiment in ways that intersect with Kremlin narratives.

Albania, though more resilient in its institutions and foreign-policy orientation, is not immune. Its vulnerabilities lie in the informational space, where narratives generated elsewhere in the region often spill over and become tools for political manipulation. Coordinated disinformation campaigns can amplify divisions or undermine Albania’s strategic goals, especially during periods of regional tension.

North Macedonia represents a different kind of proxy environment. Instead of a single dominant actor, influence manifests through a constellation of political parties, media channels, and online networks that echo Kremlin-aligned narratives. Anti-NATO messaging, identity politics, sovereignist rhetoric, and interethnic tensions are frequently manipulated to fuel polarization and weaken the country’s institutional cohesion.

Across the Western Balkans, these interconnected dynamics are not accidental — they form a deliberate strategy. Russia’s goal is to ensure that the region remains a semi-stable periphery: too divided to integrate fully into the EU and NATO, too vulnerable to resist external pressure, and too distracted by internal crises to function coherently. In this sense, the Western Balkans operate as a testing ground for hybrid tactics that can later be deployed across Europe.

Looking ahead to the next six months, the region faces a volatile period marked by synchronized propaganda waves, manufactured micro-crises, and escalating political tensions. Bosnia and Herzegovina may face renewed secessionist threats; Kosovo could experience tactical crises; Montenegro’s political balance may further erode; Albania could become a target for narrative manipulation; and North Macedonia is likely to endure intense disinformation attacks ahead of key political milestones. Serbia will continue to calibrate its position — not necessarily causing crises, but capitalizing on them whenever advantageous.

The article concludes by noting that the Western Balkans are more than just a region shaped by old conflicts. They are the frontline of a modern hybrid confrontation — a laboratory where Russia tests the narratives, alliances, and destabilizing tactics later used elsewhere in Europe. The stakes, therefore, extend far beyond the region itself. If Europe fails to understand and counter this hybrid playbook, the fractures engineered in the Balkans may spread to the very core of the European project.

The Report and this summary were prepared by Jabir Deralla and the CIVIL Hybrid Threats Monitoring Team, in cooperation with partners within the Defending Democracy Global Initiative