Born in 1967, former Governor of the National Bank of Serbia (2010-2012), Dejan Šoškić is today Full Professor at the Faculty of Economics (EFB) of the University of Belgrade and Member of the Serbian Academy of Economic Sciences.
Guillaume de Sardes: Once elected, President Donald Trump immediately committed himself to resolving the conflict that has opposing Russia against Ukraine since 2014. An initial lengthy telephone call between the President of the United States and the President of the Russian Federation was followed by a high-level meeting in Riyadh between Marco Rubio and Sergei Lavrov. Since then, negotiations have continued, and it seems that the American position has moved much closer to the Russian one. On which points do you think the Russians will be able to win their case, and on which others might they have to give away?
Dejan Šoškić: I’m glad that chances for peace in Ukraine are starting to emerge. In my point of view the most important thing is to stop killing and destruction as soon as possible. This war, in my belief, was a preventable one, and should not have happened at all. Neutrality was a good concept of choice for several countries in Europe (Switzerland, Austria, Finland…) in the decades of cold war, and it seems that it has served those nations well. If the same thing had been offered to Ukraine (and Georgia…), war, in my view, would have been prevented. On the other hand, if NATO’s expansion to the East is of outmost importance for collective security in the West, then Russia should have been among the first to join, and again any war in that way would, in my view, be prevented. However, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin in their interviews given to the western media, all claim that in their time they had asked to join NATO but were rejected by the US. As things stand now, I believe peace could be possible if Ukraine stays neutral indefinitely, and if four Oblasts and Crimea remain a part of Russia. What Russia could offer would be not to incorporate Odessa and Kharkiv and to keep Ukraine’s access to the Black sea.
These negotiations have a strong economic dimension. Russia is calling for sanctions to be lifted, from which the United States itself could benefit. ExxonMobil, for example, had invested in a Russian oil project in Sakhalin, an investment that the American major had to abandon because of the Russian invasion. How could economic exchanges between the two countries – which have never been completely interrupted – be revived? Which sectors would benefit most?
In my opinion, Western Europe and Russia are best placed to cooperate. The United States and Russia share certain similarities in that they both have natural resources, immense territory, nuclear, space and military technologies. Nevertheless, there are opportunities for cooperation between the USA and Russia. I don’t think Russia is willing to allow Western companies to exploit its natural resources. Nevertheless, cooperation in certain aspects of high technology (telecommunications, space, biotechnology…), agriculture, trade in metals, uranium, rare earth minerals, potential cooperation in the Far North, are valuable areas of potential cooperation between Russia and the United States. Not to mention nuclear arms treaties and potential disarmament, which we also hope to see.
Do you think this kind of economic rapprochement could have a geopolitical impact? In particular, by Russia distancing itself from China? Do you think this is part of the problem Donald Trump has in mind?
It’s possible that Trump has this in mind, but I find it hard to believe that after the experience Russia has gained in international relations over the last ten years or so, it would forgo developing relations with China, India and the whole of the Global South, in favor of what could potentially come from the United States or the West as a whole. Global industrial, technological and financial power has shifted, and new realities have been established.
Could you remind us what Serbia’s position has been and is today in relation to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, supported by the West and its allies?
The official position of Serbia was to support Ukraine’s territorial integrity but not to impose sanctions on Russia.
What are the main problems that the American and European sanctions have posed for Serbia?
Western sanctions against Russia have had more of an internal debate on Western policies than a significant negative economic effect on Serbia, since we have decided not to follow the West’s sanctions policy. Serbia has historically had relatively good relations with Russia, but also – or so we thought until the 1990s – with France, the UK and the USA. However, most Serbian citizens cannot forget the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999. And most people see clearly that when Serbia fought its separatists in Kosovo and Metohia in 1998 and 1999, to preserve its territorial integrity, it was heavily punished by bombing, sanctions and the separation of Kosovo from the rest of Serbia by the West. At the same time, today’s Serbs realize that when Ukraine fights its separatists in the Donbas, it is massively supported by the same West. Most of our fellow citizens consider this to be a double standard on the part of the West, to which our country should not subscribe, and that we should therefore refrain from sanctioning Russia.
What economic advantages could Serbia derive from a future lifting of sanctions?
The lifting of Western sanctions against Russia would enable our national oil company (Naftna industrija Srbije) to operate normally, given that its owners are predominantly Russian (entities linked to Gazprom), and would help stabilize our overall energy supplies. As far as other exports and imports are concerned, Serbia is mainly linked to the EU and has not made any significant investments in Russia, nor has it exported much to the Russian market. The lifting of sanctions against Russia would have a greater economic effect on countries with investments and exports to Russia.
