CSS on the conclusions of Serbia's National Security Council: Vučić stokes crisis in BiH

(Patria) - Faced with a colour revolution, instigated by external and internal actors, as representatives of the authorities in Serbia like to point out, we are witnessing that the political leadership led by Vučić finds time to stoke the crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and the region, states an analysis by the Center for Security Studies, headed by Denis Hadžović.

"This can be read from the conclusions of the National Security Council of the Republic of Serbia, from the session held on 2 August 2025, in which as many as six agenda items were dedicated to the situation in BiH and regional stability. Sessions of this body are convened at times when the state faces serious challenges and needs to make important decisions to protect the interests of the state or its citizens. This highest institutional form of protecting state interests has never taken root in BiH due to a lack of political will. Thus, BiH is deprived of this form of response to emergency situations and geopolitical developments that may threaten its interests. Therefore, we are witnessing spontaneous individual comments on threats to BiH's sovereignty, which lack the necessary and essential institutional capacity expected of a democratically and modernly organised state structure.

Probably due to the lack of a serious and expert analysis by a joint body in BiH, the alarming messages, as well as the untruths stated in the aforementioned conclusions of the Serbian political-security leadership, have been treated below the radar or only partially populistically.

In the introductory part of the Conclusion, it is stated that Milorad Dodik was convicted for the criminal offence of a verbal delict, which is classic disinformation. This qualification does not exist in the Criminal Code of BiH (CC BiH) and, consequently, the verdict cannot be based on a non-existent act. The President of the RS was convicted for signing a Decree on the promulgation of a law that the High Representative for BiH had previously annulled, i.e., based on Article 203a, paragraph 1 of the CC BiH in conjunction with Article 54 of the same law. Point 1 of the Conclusions derogates the decisions of legitimate courts in BiH, presenting them as anti-civilisational, undemocratic and immoral. Certain Serbian officials have used similar qualifications towards some other court decisions in BiH, but here it is implied that the verdict is contrary to the constitutional order and represents a blow against the Serbian people. This factually deviates from the merits of the verdict, which convicted an individual, i.e., Milorad Dodik, for a committed criminal offence. An even more dangerous assertion is made further on, that these verdicts also represent a security-destabilising factor, which may imply a kind of call by this body for the radicalisation of the situation in BiH.

Point 2 of the mentioned Conclusion, although it calls for calm and rational consideration of matters at the end, states that the political and security situation in the region is seriously disrupted, which is in total collision with the efforts of officials of the Republika Srpska (RS) to present the existing crisis exclusively as political, not security-related. An even more ominous forecast of this Serbian body is the assessment of tendencies for further deterioration of the security environment and incitement of inter-ethnic conflicts directly aimed against the Serbian people. Manifestations of such a prediction can perhaps already be observed in the support of certain groups for Milorad Dodik, such as the association of veterans of the RS Army or local communities," states the CSS.

Point 3 deals with the alleged erosion of the constitutional order and provisions of the Dayton Agreement and, among other things, respect for the democratic will of the citizens of the RS.

"As in the case of interference in the work of judicial institutions in BiH, which is improper in diplomatic relations and a conscious undermining of the sovereignty of another state, here too the fact is ignored that, after the end of the mandate of the current President of the RS, elections are called to fill the vacant position. This act creates official preconditions to truly assess the current democratic will of the inhabitants of the RS, as in the previous case when the Central Election Commission called elections in which Mr. Dodik was elected.

Point 4 once again puts forward the cliché that Serbia is a signatory and guarantor of the Dayton Agreement. Serbia's guarantee is reflected, as in the case of Croatia and BiH, in that they will respect what their presidents, Izetbegović, Tuđman and Milošević, signed in that document. The guarantors, i.e., witnesses to the signature, are members of the greatest powers of that time, who mostly fulfil this obligation through the Peace Implementation Council (PIC). As is known, Croatia and Serbia are not members of this body that implements international policy in BiH.

The final points of the Conclusion state the commitment and goal of the Serbian authorities to undertake all diplomatic, political and legal means to provide support to the RS on the international level. Yet another obvious and unambiguous example of one state's interference in the internal affairs of another state, which represents a flagrant violation of international law and the good neighbourly relations that are declaratively insisted upon. As in previous statements and declarations, no part mentions respect for the sovereignty of BiH, and this time, consciously or unconsciously, the usual phrase about respect for and recognition of the territorial integrity of BiH and the RS has also been omitted.

To what extent such positions of the highest political-security body of Serbia represent a challenge to regional stability and security, and especially to BiH, should certainly be the subject of serious consideration by domestic and international institutions. It was predicted that the finality of the Dodik verdict would lead to certain turbulence within BiH, but it was not expected that Serbia would react institutionally in such an inflammatory manner. Therefore, the said Conclusion must be treated with serious attention and all consequences that may possibly have an impact on the potential radicalisation of the situation, both in BiH and in the region, must be prevented.

All key indicators of the early warning system for danger in a society have long been activated. Adopted strategic documents, such as the National Security Strategy of Serbia during 2019, where the preservation of the RS was presented as one of the most significant foreign policy priorities of Serbia, were too easily accepted at both the local and international levels. The Declaration of the 'All-Serbian World', from June 2024, adopted within the official bodies of Serbia and the RS, was certainly one of the foundations for such strongly intoned conclusions of the National Security Council. This document of comprehensive trans-Drina cooperation also remained very mildly covered and inadequately communicated on the local and international scene.

Perhaps, in conclusion, it is most appropriate to refer to one of the conclusions of the National Security Strategy of Serbia, which states that the risks of outbreak of wars and armed conflicts in the area of Southeast Europe are reduced, but not eliminated. As a reminder, BiH adopted its last strategic document, the Security Policy of BiH, back in 2006, but since then there has been no political will to inform the public and BiH society about the challenges and threats that may have implications for their security.

Dialogue has no alternative. This is something that all actors must finally realise and show courage and wisdom to take responsibility for future developments. The historical maxim that it is better to talk for years than to wage war for a single day must be a guiding principle for all political and social actors. All those who dwell in the public space must refrain from inflammatory and improper statements in these challenging times. Citizens must have confidence in strong institutions, because only they are a guarantee of social stability," the analysis concludes.