Arben Fetoshi, the director of the Octopus Institute, wrote on the 26th anniversary of NATO’s intervention against Serbia’s barbarity towards the people of Kosovo, stating that based on NATO’s determination and the new alliances against the Serbian-Russian threat in the Balkans, Serbia in 2025 is more of a political hyena than an open enemy – an actor that pretends to be a victim, howling in international forums for “justice,” but secretly threatening, inciting tension, and preparing to strike if it smells weakness in its opponents.
Fetoshi emphasized that Serbia’s “howls” against the defense agreement between Kosovo, Albania, and Croatia (March 18, 2025) show its fear, not from an attack that it knows won’t come, but from the failure of its “predatory” plans.
The Full Opinion: When the Aggressor Masks as the Victim
What’s Behind Serbia’s Anti-NATO Narrative?
Even on the 26th anniversary of NATO’s intervention against barbarity, as Tony Blair described it in his “Doctrine of International Community” speech on April 22, 1999, in Chicago, Serbia continues to refuse to apologize for its genocide and camouflages itself as a political hyena aligned with Russia’s goals. Using a victim narrative, it tries to hide the ethnic cleansing and massacres in Kosovo, which, according to human rights organizations, left no alternative to NATO’s intervention (“Under Orders: War Crimes in Kosovo,” HRW, 2001). By condemning Kosovo, Albania, and Croatia’s defensive alliance as a threat and violation of the arms control agreement (1996), Vučić “forgets” Serbia’s recent armament while feeding the “sense of injustice” among Serbian citizens about the consequences of NATO’s bombing.
Serbia as Russia’s Extension
Due to its campaign of crimes and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, NATO began bombing the FRY’s military targets on March 24, 1999. The consequences of its aggression in Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina had convinced the international community of the necessity of a strong response against Milošević. The monstrous crimes in Kosovo, with over 13,000 civilians killed or massacred, nearly one million forcibly displaced, and thousands of women and girls raped, legitimized “the use of force in response to mass human rights violations,” as UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated at the time. Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright emphasized in her memoirs that they could not allow ethnic cleansing in the heart of Europe (Albright, M. (2003). Madam Secretary, Miramax Books). NATO spokesman Jamie Shea at the time noted that the intervention preceded the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine, highlighting the importance of the alliance’s rapid and strong reaction. However, despite the truth, Serbia continues to complain about the “aggression” and “historical injustice,” using it as a strategic narrative to deny its crimes in Kosovo and portray NATO as the “enemy” of the Serbian people. This point is also attacked by the current reaction of Milorad Dodik – sanctioned by the U.S. and sought by Bosnian justice for his actions against the constitutional order – who emotionally denounces NATO as a “criminal alliance that dropped bombs on children.” Such rhetoric and manipulative narratives, spread even by the church, have been continuously used by Serbia to deepen the enmity between its citizens and the West, while strengthening its ties with Russia. Considering any NATO or EU enlargement as a provocation and threat, Serbia shows fear of democracy and the extension of Russian geopolitical interests in the Balkans. Although it camouflages itself as moderate, it continues its aggression against Kosovo, arms itself, and intervenes in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro. This means that its rhetoric against NATO is not just historical anger but preparation for new scenarios of violence and destabilization. Through victim propaganda, Serbia is reloading its weapon for old expansionist goals. Therefore, the battle for truth is inseparable from the battle for peace in the region: neutralizing this propaganda is not just a task for historical truth, but an imperative for a bloodless future.
Serbia in the Role of the Hyena
Based on NATO’s determination and new alliances against the Serbian-Russian threat in the Balkans, Serbia in 2025 is more of a political hyena than an open enemy – an actor that pretends to be a victim, howling in international forums for “justice,” but secretly threatening, inciting tension, and preparing to strike if it smells weakness in its opponents. Serbia’s “howls” against the defense agreement between Kosovo, Albania, and Croatia (March 18, 2025) reflect its fear, not of an attack, which it knows won’t come, but from the failure of its “predatory” plans. After the agreement, which includes cooperation in the defense industry, joint education, training, and exercises, increased resilience against hybrid threats, and support for Euro-Atlantic integration, signed by the defense ministers of the three countries in Tirana, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić accused Albania and Croatia of starting an “arms race” in the region by collaborating with Kosovo’s institutions. Serbian Defense Minister Branislav Gashić called the agreement a “provocation” that contradicts regional security efforts. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs demanded explanations from Tirana and Zagreb regarding Kosovo’s involvement, stating that the agreement undermines regional stability. However, these noises from Belgrade were quickly and clearly responded to by Croatia and Kosovo, through Croatian Defense Minister Ivan Anušić and Kosovo President Vjosa Osmani, who emphasized that “the time for asking Serbia is over.” Vučić’s complaints about the agreement between NATO countries and Kosovo, which is within its orbit through KFOR, were not even entertained by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte during the meeting in Brussels. Serbia knows that the agreement poses no threat to it, but its strategy is to play the victim, pretending to be a hyena, while preparing the ground for a new attack in the name of defense. Continuing its deceptive propaganda against NATO while camouflaging itself as “innocent” and aggressively arming itself while pretending to be a “victim,” Serbia’s role, coordinated with Russia, becomes clear: advancing its geopolitical appetites. For this reason, the anniversary of NATO’s intervention is a date to remember its necessity. Narratives that aim to turn the aggressor into a victim are not only manipulation—they are a threat to the future. Full stop.
