Mladic's death highlights the Balkans' unfinished confrontation with war crimes

Tirana Times

Burning candles and torches lit up the Olympic Park as several thousand people gathered to pay their respects to Ratko Mladic, chanting his name and singing songs that portrayed the former Bosnian Serb military commander as a hero. The day before, hundreds had gathered in Istočno Novo Sarajevo, in the Republika Srpska entity, where a memorial ceremony was held, and a banner was unfurled in Mladic’s honor. The rallies, which should not be confused with events in central Sarajevo, drew hundreds of people in Istočno Novo Sarajevo and several thousand in Pale.

The images were significant: more than three decades after the end of the Bosnian war, large crowds were honoring a man who died while serving a life sentence for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Mladić commanded the Army of Republika Srpska during the 1992-1995 war. He was convicted of the Srebrenica genocide, in which more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were killed, as well as other crimes, including a campaign of terror against civilians during the siege of Sarajevo. The life sentence was upheld on appeal.

His death on August 27 highlighted how far parts of the Western Balkans remain from a shared understanding of the wars of the 1990s — and how the refusal to confront the past increasingly clashes with the region's stated ambition to join the European Union.

The clearest example came from Belgrade. Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić criticized the UN war crimes tribunal for refusing to allow Mladić, in critical condition, to return to Serbia and said the state would help organize a dignified funeral if the family decided to bury him there. Justice Minister Nenad Vučić went further, saying that Mladić would be buried with “the highest state and military honors.” These statements move the issue beyond private mourning. Senior Serbian officials are signaling that a person convicted of genocide can still receive the symbolism usually reserved for national service and honor. Serbia eventually cooperated with international justice, and Mladić was arrested there in 2011 after more than 15 years on the run. But judicial cooperation did not fully translate into a political and social confrontation with the crimes determined by the courts. For important parts of the Serbian political establishment, Mladic continues to be seen primarily through the prism of Serbian suffering and national defense, rather than through the crimes for which he was convicted.

This position is not shared by all Serbs nor by all Serbian parties.

The Green Left Front said that Mladic's death does not close the issue of responsibility for war crimes and warned against glorifying a convicted war criminal. The Democratic Party said that death cannot change the facts established by international courts nor erase responsibility. Other opposition forces held similar positions, while the nationalist Novi DSS praised Mladić as a defender of the Serbian people.

However, the message from senior state officials remains particularly important, because similar language has been repeated across the Drina River, in Republika Srpska.

Bosnia and Herzegovina practically spoke with two voices after Mladić's death.

Denis Bećirović, the chairman of the country's tripartite Presidency, said that Mladić will remain "written in black letters" in the history of Bosnia, Europe and the world, and that court decisions and facts will survive even after him.

The Prime Minister of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Nermin Nikšić, said that Mladić's death does not change the truth and does not diminish the responsibility determined by international courts, recalling the thousands killed, deported and imprisoned, the genocide in Srebrenica and the years of terror against the civilian population of Sarajevo.

The Serb member of the Bosnian Presidency, Željka Cvijanović, reacted almost in the opposite way. She said she had received the news of his death with “sincere sadness” and that Serbs would remember him as the commander of the “glorious Army of Republika Srpska,” which had defended their people.

Staša Košarac, deputy chairman of the Bosnian Council of Ministers, called Mladić a “patriot” and said he “was, is and will remain my commander.” Other senior leaders of Republika Srpska also praised his role during the war.

Therefore, the ceremonies in Pale and East Sarajevo were not simply isolated expressions of mourning. They reflected a political narrative deeply rooted in the institutions and public life of Republika Srpska.

Three decades after the Dayton Agreement that ended the war, Bosnia's top officials still cannot agree on the historical and moral meaning of one of the war's key figures, even though international courts have determined the legal facts.

The controversy has also reached Montenegro, where it is directly related to the country's efforts for EU membership.

Parliament Speaker Andrija Mandić announced that he had sent condolences to Darko Mladić, the son of Ratko Mladić, both personally and on behalf of his party, New Serbian Democracy. His political ally Milan Knežević posted a photo of Mladić with the message: “Every Serbian home has a Ratko.”

Mandić is not a peripheral nationalist figure. He leads the parliament of a country negotiating membership in the European Union.

The president and government of Montenegro quickly distanced themselves.

The office of President Jakov Milatović said that Mladić's convictions for genocide and serious war crimes are legally facts and that sympathy for his family cannot justify relativizing these crimes.

Foreign Minister Ervin Ibrahimović stated that a finally convicted war criminal, “dead or alive,” deserves only contempt.

Prime Minister Milojko Spajić's Europe Now movement said that Mandić's condolences represented his and his party's position, not the government's policy, and that there can be no relativization of final decisions on genocide and war crimes.

But the case raises a broader question: can a country convincingly claim to embrace European values ​​while one of its highest officials honors a convicted war criminal?

Croatia, an EU member and Montenegro's neighbor, said Mandić's condolences were unacceptable and contrary to European values. Zagreb also reminded Podgorica that bilateral disputes and political elections remain important for Montenegro's progress towards membership.

A much harsher personal judgment came from retired Croatian general Rahim Ademi, who fought against forces under Mladić's command during the war in Croatia.

“I can say that he was not a soldier at all,” Ademi said in comments distributed by Daily Croatia after Mladic’s death. “He never showed his military skills in war; he only showed his ‘courage’ towards innocent civilians, killing civilians and unarmed people.”

The post stated that in September 1991, Ademi and his units defeated Serbian forces under the command of Mladić near Šibenik.

Adem's statements show how deeply Mladic's legacy differs across the former Yugoslavia. While some Serbian nationalists portray him as a capable commander, Adem described his military activity as characterized by violence against civilians rather than battlefield prowess.

The contradiction is particularly relevant for Montenegro. The country may close negotiation chapters and harmonize legislation with Brussels, but EU integration is not just a technical exercise. The European project is also based on the rejection of ethnic wars, genocide, and the glorification of persons convicted of such crimes.

Honoring Mladić as a hero and simultaneously claiming respect for these values ​​are two positions that are increasingly difficult to reconcile.

North Macedonia has also faced a similar test.

Dalibor Kitanović, director of the state-run Agency for the Realization of Community Rights, caused a backlash after publicly glorifying Mladić. At the same time, the Democratic Party of Serbs, led by Minister of Local Self-Government Ivan Stoilković, published a tribute describing Mladić as a soldier and general who had given his life in the service of his people.

The government responded by saying that Mladić had been definitively convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and called Kitanović’s stance “personal and unacceptable.” It said he should retract the statement or, if he could not accept the government’s policy, step down.

The ruling Albanian coalition VLEN condemned the glorification, while the opposition DUI and Social Democrats demanded political accountability. The case showed that unresolved interpretations of the Yugoslav wars continue to permeate today's governing coalitions.

In Kosovo, reactions were mainly focused on Serbia.

Acting Minister Andin Hoti said that in 2026 there is still a European state that has not completed the process of dealing with the past and where war criminals continue to be glorified. He questioned how such a thing can be reconciled with Serbia's status as an EU candidate country.

Vjosa Osmani similarly argued that Serbia's reaction showed that the political establishment there had not fundamentally changed, while criticizing Brussels for continuing to support a candidate country that glorifies war criminals and denies genocide and other war crimes.

The European Commission has set the clearest line.

He stated that any glorification of war criminals contradicts the most fundamental European values ​​and has no place in either the European Union or the candidate countries.

This warning applies not only to Serbia, but also to the contradictions that have emerged in Montenegro and North Macedonia.

Albert Rakipi, president of the Albanian Institute for International Studies, AIIS, and former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Albania, said that the reactions following Mladić's death constitute a deeply worrying development for Balkan societies, especially for countries aiming for membership in the European Union.

“It is deeply disappointing that, more than three decades after the wars, significant parts of Balkan societies are still not ready to part with the criminal legacy of the wars of the 1990s,” Rakipi said. “For countries aspiring to become members of the European Union, this is particularly critical. European integration cannot be reduced only to closing negotiation chapters and adopting legislation. It also requires a clear political and moral separation from the glorification of war crimes and those convicted of committing them.”

The European Parliament rapporteur for Serbia, Tonino Picula, said that the participation of Serbian government representatives at Mladić's funeral would show the extent to which the authorities in Belgrade identify with his crimes and called for an appropriate EU response. The question is whether Brussels will treat the latest wave of glorification as simply offensive rhetoric or as a political test with consequences for the enlargement process.

The wars ended more than three decades ago, but the battle over their meaning did not. Mladic’s death showed that the question is no longer simply whether governments cooperate with international courts or formally recognize their decisions. The deeper test is whether political elites are willing to accept what these decisions mean when the perpetrators of crimes belong to their national community.

Many Serbian politicians, officials and citizens in Serbia and elsewhere have clearly condemned the glorification of war criminals. Therefore, the issue should not be presented as if an entire nation refuses to face the past.

But the institutional weight of the reactions that followed Mladić’s death is hard to ignore. A Serbian justice minister promises the highest state and military honors. The speaker of Montenegro’s parliament sends condolences. A minister’s party in North Macedonia publishes a tribute. Senior Bosnian Serb officials continue to present Mladić as a revered commander. Thousands gather in Pale and chant his name. These are not memories locked away in history books. They show that the politics of the 1990s continue to permeate governments, parliaments and ruling coalitions across the Western Balkans.

Ratko Mladic is dead. The political mythology built around him is not.

And as long as convicted war criminals can be honored by officials who simultaneously talk about a European future, confronting the past will remain not only a matter of history and reconciliation, but also a test of what European integration in the Balkans really means.