According to Ms. Anna Orosz, we have witnessed a very turbulent period in recent months, partly influenced by the elections in the region and the European Union. Alongside this, there is rigidity and inflexibility in the systems of alliances and communication channels. Mr. Bošković‘s view was that the last six months have brought an increase in instability. This is partly the result of the deterioration of the Belgrade–Pristina Dialogue and the internal political tensions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The entrenched positions and extremely low level of trust between the parties have made rapprochement increasingly difficult to achieve, and this is particularly true in the case of the establishment of the Association of Serb-majority Municipalities and in the case of the fragile situation in the Northern region of Kosovo. Concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina, the country is still a victim of the political fault lines that have been conserved since 1995. In all cases, the parties involved are acting tactically.

The moderator questioned whether the region has received enough focus recently from the international community, namely from the European Union. According to Mr Bošković, emerging geopolitical challenges such as the war in Ukraine and the war in Israel have somewhat distracted the attention from the Western Balkans, but the identity politics that are still articulated by the Yugoslav wars are dominant. According to Ms Orosz, it is precisely because of this loss of focus that Western countries are adopting a sort-out-your-problems attitude towards the states in the region.

Responding to the question of whether Serbia has enough room for manoeuvre in the current power balance, Mr Bošković highlighted Serbia’s multi-vectoral foreign policy ambitions. Although not particularly at the political level, the development of Belgrade-Washington relations is very promising in the military sense, but at the same time Serbia does not want to diminish its relations with China and Russia. According to Ms Orosz, there is an asymmetry between pragmatic action and loud rhetoric.

Having been inquired about the perception of the EU, the USA and the Eastern partners in Serbian society, Mr Bošković answered that the experience of the ‘90s is still valid, especially as far as the United States is concerned. The criticism that the EU remains relatively invisible in the region has been voiced by Ms Orosz, therefore the judgement on the EU’s activity in the region is highly ambivalent. The emerging role of partners from the Middle East was also discussed, with both panellists remaining relatively sceptical.

Concerning the expectation of the Hungarian EU Presidency, Ms Orosz said that although not much information is available on the agenda at the moment, it is safe to say that the Western Balkans’ enlargement will be a top priority and that the Ukraine-centred foreign policy approach that has prevailed so far may be somewhat pushed into the background. Mr Bošković, somewhat counterintuitively thought that on the substance little would change despite this. According to his expectation, the concept of gradual integration will continue to prevail, and more and more homework will be assigned by the EU to the Western Balkan states.