Mnemonic diplomacy in Russian-Serbian relations: The limits of the possible

The Balkan region has traditionally been of particular importance for Russia, and currently Serbia remains one of the few European countries potentially exposed, due to ideological affinity, to the influence of Russia’s soft power. Memory policy is an important tool in creating and maintaining this affinity because it enables formulation of unifying historical narratives and shared vision of the key events in the common history, thereby providing underpinning for assessments of current developments and for creating an image of the desired future. However, it has its limits and boundaries, and this paper aims at assessing the strength of the Russian-Serbian mnemonic union. The research builds on the concept of ‘mnemonic diplomacy’, which refers to a set of techniques and methods for the affirmation, coordination and dissemination of certain historical narratives designed to support the state’s foreign policy activities. The author argues that the Russian-Serbian memory alliance is based primarily on common assessments of the events of World War II. The paper examines the key stages, internal and external drivers of this mnemonic union development, as well as identifies contradictions and conflicts inherent to this process. The author emphasizes that within the framework of the Russian-Serbian memory alliance both parties have always pursued their own goals. For instance, Serbia sought to use it to increase its weight in the Balkan and, more broadly, European politics, as well as to strengthen relations with its traditional geopolitical ally. For Russia, this mnemonic alliance acquired particular significance when the country’s leaders set a course for transforming the post-Cold War world order. However, it was exactly this new turn of Russia’s foreign policy whose most visible manifestation was the launch of the special military operation in Ukraine that dramatically complicated Serbia’s position, including that in the field of memory politics. At the same time it has revealed the limits of the Russian-Serbian mnemonic union. The author concludes that the effectiveness of mnemonic diplomacy and, more broadly, the very possibility of forming and maintaining mnemonic alliances, ultimately depend on a combination of objective factors, including close economic ties and mutual geopolitical interest. Pushed outside this comfort zone, complementary historical narratives built solely on the appeal to the common heritage quickly lose their power of attraction. 

1. Volkogonov D.A., Ioksimovich S. (eds.). 1990. Belgradskaya operatsiya [The Belgrade offensive]. Moscow, Voenizdat Publ. (In Russ.)

2. Belov S.I. 2021. Transformatsii politiki pamyati v otnoshenii Vtoroi mirovoi voiny v 2008–2018 gg. [Transformations of the politics of memory in relation to the Second World War in 2008–2018]. Abstract of Doctor of Science thesis. Moscow. Available at: https://iphras.ru/uplfile/diss/belov/avtoreferat_belov.pdf (accessed: 23.01.2023). (In Russ.)

3. Gorel’skii I.E., Mironyuk M.G. 2019. Vzbirayas’ po ‘statusnoi lestnitse’: opyt empiricheskogo issledovaniya svyazi statusa gosudarstva v sisteme mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii i gosudarstvennoi sostoyatel’nosti [Climbing the status ladder: An experiment in empirical research of relation between status of a state in the system of international relations and state capacity]. Politicheskaya nauka, no. 3, pp. 140–174. DOI: 10.31249/poln/2019.03.06. (In Russ.)

4. Dzhureinovich E., Popovich M. 2020. ‘Raboty malochislennoi gruppy istorikov-revizionistov poluchayut ogromnyi rezonans v media, poskol’ku oni vystupayut agentami sanktsionirovannoi gosudarstvom politiki pamyati’. Interv’yu s E. Dzhureinovich [‘Serbian revisionist historians are actually fewer than five people. However, their work resonates widely because they receive media attention’. Interview with Jelena Đureinović]. The Historical Expertise, no. 4 (25), pp. 61–76. Available at: https://ac1e3a6f-914c-4de9-ab23-1dac1208aaf7. usrfiles.com/ugd/2fab34_b9c88769b1584a7198e36a7d46c60868.pdf (accessed: 23.01.2023). (In Russ.)

5. Efremenko D.V. 2005. Drama evropeiskoi identichnosti [The drama of European identity]. Politicheskaya nauka, no. 3, pp. 157–169. (In Russ.)

6. Efremenko D.V. 2022. Miroporyadok Z. Neobratimost’ izmenenii i perspektivy vyzhivaniya [World order Z: The irreversibility of change and prospects for survival]. Russia in the Global Affairs, vol. 20, no. 3 (115), pp. 12–30. DOI: 10.31278/1810-6439-2022-20-3-12-30. (In Russ.)

7. Efremenko D.V. 2021. ‘Skelety v slavyanskom shkafu’. Kontroverzy istoricheskoi pamyati i natsiestroitel’stvo v Serbii i Khorvatii posle raspada SFRYu [Skeletons in a Slavic closet. Controversies of historical memory and nationbuilding in Serbia and Croatia after the collapse of the SFRY]. Polis. Political Studies, no. 5, pp. 127–145. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2021.05.09. (In Russ.)

8. Efremenko D.V., Sevast’yanova Ya.V. 2020. Sek’yuritizatsiya pamyati i dilemma mnemonicheskoi bezopasnosti [Securitization of memory and dilemma of mnemonic security]. Politicheskaya nauka, no. 2, pp. 66–86. DOI: 10.31249/ poln/2020.02.03. (In Russ.)

9. Malinova O.Yu. 2018. Politika pamyati kak oblast’ simvolicheskoi politiki [Politics of memory as a branch of symbolic politics]. In: Miller A.I., Efremenko D.V. (eds.). Metodologicheskie voprosy izucheniya politiki pamyati: sbornik nauchnykh trudov [Methodological issues of studying the politics of memory]. Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, Nestor-Istoriya Publ., pp. 27–54. (In Russ.)

10. Malinova O.Yu. 2010. Simvolicheskaya politika i konstruirovanie makropoliticheskoi identichnosti v postsovetskoi Rossii [Symbolic politics and construction of macro-political identity in post-soviet Russia]. Polis. Political Studies, no. 2, pp. 90–105. (In Russ.)

11. Meleshkina E.Yu. 2018. Pamyat’ o sotsialisticheskoi Yugoslavii v publichnom prostranstve byvshikh respublik SFRYu [Memory of socialist Yugoslavia in public sphere of the former SFRY republics]. Politicheskaya nauka, no. 3, pp. 217–237. DOI: 10.31249/poln/2018.03.11. (In Russ.)

12. Miller A.I. 2012. Istoricheskaya politika v Vostochnoi Evrope nachala XXI v. [History politics in Eastern Europe at the beginning of the 21st century]. In: Miller A.I., Lipman M. (eds.). Istoricheskaya politika v XXI veke [History politics in the 21st century]. Moscow, Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie Publ., pp. 7–32. (In Russ.)

13. Miller A.I. 2016. Politika pamyati v postkommunisticheskoi Evrope i ee vozdeistvie na evropeiskuyu kul’turu pamyati [The politics of memory in postcommunist Europe and its impact on the European memory culture]. Politeia, no. 1 (80), pp. 111–121. DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2016-80-1-111-121. (In Russ.)

14. Nagornaya O.S. 2020. Reprezentatsii proshlogo v mezhdunarodnykh publichnykh prostranstvakh: praktiki i granitsy memorial’noi diplomatii [Representations of the past in the international public spaces: Practices and limitations of memorial diplomacy]. The New Past, no. 2, pp. 90–100. DOI: 10.18522/25003224-2020-2-90-100. (In Russ.)

15. Neumann I. 1998. Uses of the Other: ‘The East in the European identity formation. University of Minnesota Press [Russ. ed.: Noimann I. 2004. Ispol’zovanie ‘Drugogo’: obrazy Vostoka v formirovanii evropeiskoi identichnosti. Moscow, Novoe izdatel’stvo Publ.].

16. Ponamareva A.M. 2020. Ogosudarstvlenie grazhdanskikh initsiativ v praktike politicheskogo ispol’zovaniya proshlogo (na primere dvizheniya ‘Bessmertnyi polk’) [Nationalization of civil initiatives in the political instrumentalization of the past (The case of the movement ‘Immortal Regiment’)]. In: Miller A.I., Efremenko D.V. (eds.). Politika pamyati v sovremennoi Rossii i stranakh Vostochnoi Evropy. Aktory, instituty, narrativy [The politics of memory in contemporary Russia and in countries of Eastern Europe. Actors, institutions, narratives]. Saint Petersburg, Evropeiskii universitet v Sankt-Peterburge Publ., pp. 188–201. (In Russ.)

17. Prokhorenko I.L. 2017. Vneshnepoliticheskaya identichnost’ [Foreign policy identity]. In: Semenenko I.S. (ed.). Identichnost’: lichnost’, obshchestvo, politika. Entsiklopedicheskoe izdanie [Identity: Personality, society, politics. Encyclopedic edition]. Moscow, Ves’ mir Publ., pp. 465–469. (In Russ.)

18. Semenenko I.S. 2011a. Politika identichnosti [Identity politics]. In: Semenenko I.S. (ed.). Politicheskaya identichnost’ i politika identichnosti: V 2 t. T. 1: Identichnost’ kak kategoriya politicheskoi nauki: slovar’ terminov i ponyatii [Political identity and identity politics: In 2 vols. Vol. 1: Identity as a category of political science: Dictionary of terms and concepts]. Moscow, ROSSPEN Publ., pp. 162–168. (In Russ.)

19. Semenenko I.S. 2016. Politicheskaya identichnost’ v kontekste politiki identichnosti: etnonatsional’nye rakursy, evropeiskii kontekst [Identity politics and identity in politics: Ethno-national perspectives, European context]. Polis. Political Studies, no. 4, pp. 8–28. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2016.04.03. (In Russ.)

20. Semenenko I.S. 2011b. Politicheskaya identichnost’ v kontekste politiki identichnosti [Political identity and identity politics]. Political Expertise: POLITEX, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 5–24. (In Russ.)

21. Timofeev A.Yu. 2020. Metamorfozy pamyati o boevom bratstve russkikh i serbov v gody Vtoroi mirovoi voiny v sovremennoi Serbii [Metamorphoses of memory of the Russian-Serbian brotherhood of war in modern Serbia]. MGIMO Review of International Relations, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 142–156. DOI: 10.24833/20718160-2020-4-73-142-156. (In Russ.)

22. Fadeeva L.A. 2012. Politika identichnosti: aktory, strategii, diskursy [Identity politics: Actors, strategies, discourses]. In: Semenenko I.S. (ed.). Politicheskaya identichnost’ i politika identichnosti: V 2 t. T. 2: Identichnost’ i sotsial’no-politicheskie izmeneniya v XXI veke [Political identity and identity politics: In 2 vols. Vol. 2: Identity and socio-political changes in the 21st century]. Moscow, ROSSPEN Publ., pp. 72–98. (In Russ.)

23. Fenenko A.V. 2020. Anti-myagkaya sila v politicheskoi teorii i praktike [Anti-soft power in political theory and practice]. International Trends, vol. 18, no. 1 (60), pp. 40–71. DOI: 10.17994/IT.2020.18.1.60.3. (In Russ.)

24. Tsumarova E.Yu. 2012. Politika identichnosti: politics ili policy? [Identity politics: politics or policy]. Bulletin of Perm University. Political Science, no. 2 (18), pp. 5–16. (In Russ.)

25. Entina E.G., Smirnova A.S. 2018. Rol’ diaspory v formirovanii i razvitii ‘myagkoi sily’ Rossii v sovremennoi Serbii [The role of the diaspora in the formation and the development of Russia’s ‘soft power’ in modern Serbia]. Contemporary Europe, no. 5 (84), pp. 49–59. DOI: 10.15211/soveurope520184959. (In Russ.)

26. Edele M. 2017. Fighting Russia’s history wars: Vladimir Putin and the codification of World War II. History and Memory, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 90–124. DOI: 10.2979/histmemo.29.2.05.

27. François E., Serrier T. (eds.). 2017. Europa: Notre histoire. Paris, Éditions des Arènes.

28. Hay C. 2010. Structure and agency. In: Marsh D., Stoker G. (eds.). Theory and methods in political science. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 189–206.

29. Krickovic А., Weber Y. 2018. What сan Russia teach us about change? Status seeking as a catalyst for transformation in international politics. International Studies Review, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 292–300. DOI: 10.1093/isr/viy024.

30. Larson D.W., Shevchenko A. 2019. Quest for status: Chinese and Russian foreign policy. New Haven, Yale University Press.

31. Larson D.W., Shevchenko A. 2010. Status seekers: Chinese and Russian responses to US primacy. International Security, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 63–95. DOI: 10.1162/isec.2010.34.4.63.

32. Larson D.W., Wohlforth W.C. 2014. Status and world order. In: Paul T.V., Larson D.W., Wohlforth W.C. (eds.). Status in world politics. New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–29.

33. Manojlović P.O. 2010. Nevidljiva mesta sećanja: Spomenici crvenoarmejcima u Srbiji. Oslobođenje Beograda 1944, pp. 545–553.

34. McGlynn J., Đureinović H. 2022. The alliance of victory: Russo-Serbian memory diplomacy. Memory Studies, pp. 1–16. DOI: 10.1177/17506980211073108.

35. Šćepanović J. 2022. Russia, the Western Balkans, and the question of status. East European Politics and Societies, pp. 1–25. DOI: 10.1177/08883254221130366.

36. Stojanović D. 2011. Revisions of Second World War history in contemporary Serbia. In: Ramet S.P., Listhaug O. (eds.). Serbia and the Serbs in World War Two. London, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 247–264.

37. Tajfel H. 1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1–39. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245.

38. Walker S. 2018. The long hangover: Putin’s Russia and the ghosts of the past. Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press.

39. Živanović M. 2020. Politika sećanja u Jugoslaviji na oslobodilačke operacije 1944: i ulogu Crvene armije. Tokovi Istorije, no. 2, pp. 139–160. DOI: 10.31212/ tokovi.2020.2.ziv.139-160.