After His Death, Mladić Returns as a Serbian Nationalist Symbol; Experts: His Glorification Risks Distorting History

The death of Ratko Mladić has brought the figure of the former commander of the Army of Republika Srpska back into the debate, while statements by Serbian officials have fueled efforts to portray him as a national hero. This is despite the fact that Mladić was sentenced to life imprisonment for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

The positions expressed following his death have sparked fresh discussions about how Serbia is dealing with Mladić’s legacy and about efforts to absolve him of responsibility for the crimes committed during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The question being raised is whether his death is being used to strengthen nationalist narratives and shift Mladić from the position of a criminally convicted person to that of a political and national myth. Experts warn that honoring a figure convicted of genocide is not only connected to the past, but could also affect the future, particularly younger generations.

Security expert Drizan Shala and former investigator Agim Rexhepi gave their assessments on the issue to the newspaper “Bota sot.”

Shala: Belgrade is trying to link Mladić to Serbia’s military tradition

Drizan Shala says the statements by Serbian officials should not be viewed as isolated personal positions. According to the security expert, they reflect the way Belgrade is trying to position Mladić’s figure in relation to the Serbian state.

Shala refers to a statement by Serbia’s Justice Minister, Nenad Vujić, who called Mladić a “general” and mentioned the protocols associated with that status. According to him, such a position once again draws attention to the links between Mladić, the Army of Republika Srpska and Serbia’s state structures.

“The fact that Serbia’s justice minister calls Mladić a general and speaks about the relevant protocols should not be treated as a merely ceremonial matter. It shows an effort to place him once again within Serbia’s military origins and portray him as part of its military history. For a long time, whenever responsibility for the war in Bosnia was linked to Belgrade, a distinction was maintained between the Army of Republika Srpska and the Serbian Army. Mladić commanded the former, while Serbia tried not to identify itself with its actions. But when it comes to honoring him and his prestige, that distinction is fading,” Shala told “Bota sot.”

He assesses that this situation represents a paradox that must be analyzed, since Mladić’s responsibility cannot be separated from the crimes for which he was convicted by international justice.

“Mladić’s history is inseparable from the genocide in Srebrenica, the terror inflicted on civilians in Sarajevo, the persecution and other crimes for which he was convicted. The forces he commanded committed crimes documented and confirmed by international courts. For this reason, the rebranding of him by a senior Serbian official as a ‘general,’ accompanied by references to state protocols, cannot be considered merely a ceremonial act. It raises questions about how Serbia is dealing with his legacy,” he emphasizes.

According to Shala, the case should be viewed within the broader framework of nationalist narratives that continue to influence the region.

“The issue is not only about how a person is being treated after death, but also about the message being conveyed to society. If a man convicted of genocide is presented as a figure who should be honored, then there is an attempt to change the perception of his crimes. Individual responsibility risks being replaced by the myth of the national hero. This is a major danger in a region where the wounds of war have not fully healed and where nationalist narratives continue to carry weight,” Shala says.

Rexhepi: Honoring Mladić legitimizes the ideology that led to genocide

Former investigator Agim Rexhepi stresses that Ratko Mladić’s death affects neither his criminal responsibility nor the facts established by international justice. For him, the main concern lies in the effort to turn a person convicted of genocide into a symbol of Serbian nationalism.

“Ratko Mladić’s death changes neither history nor the court’s verdict. On the contrary, placing his figure once again at the center of nationalist narratives shows that the struggle for historical truth and the memory of the victims continues. Mladić was not merely a military commander in a past conflict. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for genocide in Srebrenica, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Therefore, the attempt to turn him from a person convicted of genocide into a ‘national hero’ is not simply an alternative viewpoint, but an attempt to overturn the meaning of history,” Rexhepi told “Bota sot.”

Rexhepi says such a narrative diverts attention from the concrete crimes and shifts it toward claims of “defending the nation.”

“When a war criminal is presented as a hero, the victims are treated as an obstacle to the historical narrative. This is an extremely dangerous development. The glorification of Ratko Mladić implies the glorification of the ideology that produced genocide. Mass killings, expulsions, terror and crimes are being relativized by presenting them as part of a war to defend the nation. But a nation is not defended by killing civilians, and patriotism cannot be used as a justification for crimes against humanity,” he says.

According to the former investigator, the greatest consequences may emerge among younger generations, who could be influenced by the repetition of these messages.

“The risk is not limited to extremist groups that may honor such a figure. The main concern is that continuously repeated propaganda could lead a new generation to see Mladić not as the perpetrator of documented crimes, but as a defender of the nation. The falsification of history often does not occur through the immediate denial of everything, but through gradual relativization. If young people are taught to perceive a person convicted of genocide as a hero, then the issue is no longer confined to the past, but also affects how conflicts and violence may be understood in the future,” Rexhepi says.

In conclusion, Rexhepi emphasizes that Serbia and the societies of the region must confront the past without romanticization and without applying double standards.

“Sustainable reconciliation cannot be built without the truth, while lasting peace requires justice. Likewise, a European future cannot be built by honoring people convicted of genocide. Mladić is dead, but the ideology that placed him on a pedestal does not disappear on its own. It can be defeated only through truth, education, justice, remembrance and the rejection of every attempt to portray genocide as heroism,” Rexhepi concludes to “Bota sot.”