Fault Lines and Forecasts: A Risk-Based Assessment of the Kosovo–Serbia Conflict

Written by Elisa Garbil – 17.11.2025

---

Conflict between Kosovo and Serbia remains one of Europe’s most persistent and complex security dilemmas. More than two decades after NATO’s intervention in 1999, the region continues to balance precariously between tense coexistence and renewed confrontation. Listen to Serbeze Haxhiaj‘s episode to find out more!

Historical Context

What we are witnessing today has a long historical background. The Kosovo conflict of the late 1990s, arose from the disintegration of Yugoslavia and Serbia’s attempt to suppress Kosovo Albanian autonomy movements. Serbian military operations and ethnic cleansing campaigns produced extensive civilian casualties, prompting NATO’s 1999 air campaign. You might have heard of the dramatic standoff at Pristina Airport, where Russian and NATO troops faced each other, symbolising the global dimensions of a local war.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 established an interim international administration under UNMIK and authorised a NATO-led force, KFOR, to maintain security. While the resolution preserved Serbia’s nominal sovereignty, it placed Kosovo under de facto international trusteeship. Over the next decade, Kosovo built independent institutions, culminating in its unilateral declaration of independence in 2008. Serbia’s refusal to recognise that act left the region suspended between statehood and dispute. This “unfinished status” entrenched dual structures: Belgrade continued to fund parallel institutions in Serb-majority northern municipalities, while Pristina sought to extend control over its entire territory.

The Brussels Dialogue, launched under EU auspices in 2011, was designed to normalise relations, yet Clingendael observes that negotiations stalled as both governments used the process to reinforce domestic legitimacy rather than genuine compromise. The result is an uneasy equilibrium that can absorb shocks only up to a point.

Contemporary Dynamics

Today’s Kosovo is defined by assertion and constraint. Prime Minister Albin Kurti’s government has pursued integrationist policies, thus closing Serb-run postal and tax offices and insisting that all citizens operate under Kosovo’s legal framework. These measures, though aimed at consolidating sovereignty, alienate northern Serb communities that still rely on Belgrade for services and identity. The European Union, having sanctioned Kosovo in 2023 for unilateral actions, began easing restrictions in 2025 on condition of de-escalation. Yet trust between Pristina and Brussels remains low.

Serbia, for its part, oscillates between diplomacy and defiance. Backed by nationalist currents and strategic links with Russia, Belgrade sustains influence in northern Kosovo through political, financial, and informational channels. The Michigan FPC’s recent commentary highlights how this interference, short of direct military intervention, effectively maintains a frozen conflict that can thaw under stress.

The region’s atmosphere essentially feels like the 1990s again. This is a reminder that unresolved grievances, demographic divides, and geopolitical competition make the Balkans uniquely susceptible to cyclical unrest. Global Guardian’s 2025 Risk Map lists Kosovo–Serbia tensions among Europe’s highest conflict risks, citing weak governance and external manipulation as primary accelerants.

Triggers of Renewed Instability

The most immediate hazards stem from political provocations, communal mobilisation, and external interference. Each has the potential to ignite broader escalation:

1. Political Shocks: Administrative takeovers, think of attempts by Kosovo authorities to install mayors or police chiefs in Serb-majority municipalities, have repeatedly sparked protests and violent clashes. Every act of state assertion is perceived by local Serbs as existential encroachment, amplifying hostility.
2. Ethnic Mobilisation: The dual legitimacy crisis fuels rapid radicalisation on both sides. When community leaders call for resistance, even small demonstrations can escalate into barricades and armed standoffs, as observed in northern Mitrovica in past years. The psychological residue of the 1998–99 war ensures that grievances mobilise quickly and intensely.
3. External Interference: Serbia’s intelligence and security ties with local Serb networks, coupled with Russian information support, deepen Kosovo’s perception of hybrid aggression. Conversely, perceived Western bias toward Pristina encourages Belgrade’s defiance. The hazard here is not conventional invasion but the accumulation of covert disruptions and nationalist signalling that degrade stability.
4. Institutional Breakdown: Clingendael’s 2024 report warns of governance inertia: Kosovo’s fragmented parliament, weak opposition, and limited administrative capacity restrict its ability to absorb shocks. Political paralysis can turn minor crises into systemic ones.

Structural Weaknesses

Vulnerability magnifies hazard impact. Kosovo’s vulnerabilities are rooted in its demographic mosaic, institutional fragility, and uncertain international standing. Ethnic segregation remains the primary structural fault. Northern municipalities function as semi-autonomous enclaves with economic and social linkages to Serbia. Integration efforts face enduring mistrust; therefore, each policy measure, even as simple as license-plate enforcement, property regulation, or policing, becomes a flashpoint.

Institutional fragility compounds the problem. Two decades of international tutelage have created dependence without full sovereignty. Administrative and judicial capacities are uneven, and corruption erodes public faith. Meanwhile, Serbia’s political system, dominated by central authority, leaves little space for conciliatory narratives toward Kosovo, maintaining a constituency for hardline positions.

Externally, both states are vulnerable to the fatigue of their patrons. The European Union’s attention is fragmented by crises in Ukraine and the Middle East, while the United States prioritises other theatres. Reduced oversight increases the chance that local actors miscalculate, believing escalation can yield short-term advantage.

Exposure and Impact

The immediate exposures include the Serb-majority municipalities, such as Leposavić, Zvečan, Zubin Potok, and North Mitrovica, where overlapping jurisdictions make governance contested. Critical infrastructure such as the Ibar-Lepenac canal, targeted by a 2024 explosive attack, highlights the vulnerability of shared utilities. Civilian populations along ethnic lines remain highly exposed, particularly minorities in mixed areas who can become targets during unrest.

International exposure is also significant. Around 3,700 KFOR troops and hundreds of EULEX officials operate in Kosovo. Any deterioration threatens their safety and the credibility of NATO’s deterrence posture, which is highly analysed now, with the current threats from Russia. Economically, instability deters investment and impedes EU accession trajectories for both countries, creating a feedback loop between insecurity and underdevelopment.

Scenario Outlook: Probable Pathways of Escalation

Scenario	Description	Estimated Likelihood (2025-2028)	Impact Severity
Managed Tension	Continued friction and localised clashes under EU mediation; no sustained violence.	50 %	Moderate – economic stagnation, diplomatic fatigue.
Regional Escalation	Multi-municipality unrest with paramilitary incidents; KFOR intervention required.	30 %	High – casualties, displacement, and reputational costs for EU/NATO.
Frozen Partition	De facto territorial division consolidates; no open war but institutional paralysis.	20 %	High-Long Term – permanent fragmentation and loss of EU leverage.

These probabilities synthesise the evaluations found across Crisis Group, Clingendael, and Global Guardian reporting. The managed-tension scenario remains most probable, yet the cumulative risk of slippage into regional escalation is far from negligible.

Regional and Global Implications

From a policy standpoint, the Kosovo-Serbia standoff carries disproportionate strategic weight. For the European Union, it tests the credibility of enlargement and neighbourhood-stability doctrines. Failure to manage the dispute signals that EU conditionality lacks coercive power. NATO’s KFOR mission, though relatively small, symbolises collective-security commitment in Europe’s periphery, where any serious incident involving its forces would reverberate through alliance politics.

In addition, international patience is thinning. While Western governments have historically supported Kosovo’s sovereignty, they now emphasise de-escalation and dialogue even at the cost of postponing full recognition. Serbia exploits this ambivalence, cultivating a dual foreign policy that engages Brussels economically while aligning rhetorically with Moscow and Beijing on sovereignty norms. The Fabian Society’s “Next War” analysis warns that unresolved Balkan disputes could become proxies in broader great-power competition if Russia seeks to distract NATO through peripheral crises. Moreover, persistent uncertainty constrains both economies. Kosovo’s youth unemployment exceeds 25 percent, and foreign investment lags behind regional averages. Serbia faces EU accession fatigue, with reform momentum fading amid nationalist pressures. The absence of a definitive settlement thus translates directly into developmental risk.

Risk Mitigation and Strategic Outlook

Effective risk reduction requires simultaneous management of hazard, vulnerability, and exposure. For Kosovo, restraint in asserting authority and renewed dialogue on the Association of Serb Municipalities are essential. Integration must be gradual and consensual, supported by economic incentives rather than police operations. Governance reforms, particularly judicial independence and anti-corruption measures, would strengthen institutional legitimacy and reduce vulnerability.

On the other hand, Serbia must recognise that strategic ambiguity erodes its long-term European prospects. While domestic politics reward defiance, tangible progress toward EU accession and regional leadership depends on constructive engagement. Normalisation need not mean formal recognition in the immediate term, but it does require acceptance of Kosovo’s functional autonomy.

Finally, for external actors, policy coherence is critical. The EU should calibrate conditionality, combining sanctions relief with measurable benchmarks on dialogue implementation. NATO must maintain a credible deterrent while avoiding entrapment in local politics. The United States, though less directly involved, remains indispensable as a guarantor of last-resort stability. Multilateral coordination could align diplomatic, economic, and security instruments to manage risk systematically.

Managing Uncertainty in a Precarious Equilibrium

A generation after NATO’s intervention, Kosovo and Serbia remain bound by an unfinished war. The conflict has evolved from armed confrontation to chronic political risk: a condition sustained by mutual denial of legitimacy and by international ambivalence. The hazard of escalation persists not because actors desire war but because institutional weakness and historical grievance continually transform minor incidents into systemic threats.

Risk analysis underscores that stability is contingent, not guaranteed. The managed-tension scenario will prevail only if local and international stakeholders maintain coordinated vigilance. Inaction or incoherence could shift the equilibrium toward renewed violence or entrenched partition. For the European Union and NATO, this is less about territorial control than about credibility, as it asks whether multilateral institutions can still prevent regression on the continent they once stabilised.

The task, therefore, is not to eliminate risk, which is an impossible goal in such a fractured environment, but to contain it through predictable dialogue, resilient institutions, and sustained external engagement. Only by addressing vulnerability and exposure alongside immediate hazards can the Kosovo–Serbia relationship transition from a perpetual flashpoint to a durable peace. Until then, as the data and history alike demonstrate, the Balkans will remain Europe’s most delicate fault line.