Vučić threatens to change the course of the Ibër, experts divided over the risk to Kosovo

A statement by Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić has revived concerns about Kosovo’s water and energy security. He announced that Serbian authorities are considering the possibility of changing the course of the Ibër River within Serbian territory.

Vučić justified a possible move with his claims about how Serbs are treated by Kosovo’s institutions, turning the issue of cross-border waters into a direct instrument of political debate.

The statement has sparked discussions over whether Serbia could exploit its control over, or intervene in, the course of the Ibër as a means of putting pressure on Kosovo, as well as over the consequences such a situation would have for drinking water, energy, agriculture, the environment and national security.

The sensitivity of this issue is linked to the strategic importance of the Ibër River and, particularly, the Ujman–Ibër-Lepenc system. A change in the volume or flow of water could have consequences in several vital areas of Kosovo’s state functioning.

In the face of this situation, the question remains open as to whether the Serbian president’s statement is merely part of political rhetoric and hybrid warfare, or whether Kosovo should immediately treat it as a concrete threat to national security and raise it in the international arena.

The response of Kosovo’s institutions and its partners, including the European Union, the United States, NATO and other international organizations, is also expected to be equally important in the face of any attempt to turn water resources into a tool of political pressure.

Security expert Arben Dashevci described Vučić’s statement as propaganda and another element of Serbia’s hybrid warfare.

According to Dashevci, changing the course of the Ibër cannot be carried out legally, as international conventions on cross-border waters do not allow such an intervention.

“The President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, has spoken about considering the ‘possibility’ of changing the course of the Ibër River on Serbian territory, linking this claim to the treatment of Serbs by the authorities in Pristina. But this possibility is impossible because international conventions on water do not allow it,” he said.

The expert assessed that the Serbian president’s claims do not correspond to the reality in Kosovo and that their aim is to create political pressure while diverting attention from Serbia’s domestic problems.

“Vučić’s statement is pure propaganda for his domestic political needs. It aims to divert attention from the many problems he has with his own people in that country and is a continuation of his hybrid warfare. This is the second time such propaganda without practical effect and absolutely impossible to implement has been mentioned,” Dashevci said.

He stressed that using a change in the course of the Ibër as an instrument of pressure against Kosovo is practically impossible because of the restrictions imposed by international law.

“I do not consider this threat serious at all. Under international law on cross-border waters, the risk that Serbia could use a change in the course of the Ibër as a means of pressure against Kosovo is zero. There can be no consequences from an action that an international convention strictly prohibits, equally for the entire world,” he said.

Although he considers the implementation of such a scenario impossible, Dashevci called on Kosovo to respond actively through diplomacy.

He said the issue should be raised without delay at the international level and discussed in cooperation with Kosovo’s main allies.

“Kosovo must alert the international community using all its diplomatic capacity. The issue must immediately be raised at the international level through a coordinated response with the EU, the United Kingdom and, above all, the US, as well as with other international institutions,” Dashevci concluded.

Another assessment was provided by Prof. Dr. Muhamet Racaj, a retired Major General, who believes the statement should not be viewed merely as political rhetoric or as a technical discussion about water.

Racaj described the issue as directly linked to national security, human security and hybrid warfare.

“The statement by Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić that Serbia is considering changing the course of the Ibër River and that he links this to claims about the treatment of Serbs in Kosovo must be taken very seriously. This is not merely a political statement or a hydrotechnical debate. It must be analyzed as an issue of national security, human security and hybrid warfare.

“One principle is becoming increasingly evident in international relations: the 21st century is the century of competition and the struggle for energy, while the 22nd century could become the century of fierce clashes over water and other vital resources. For this reason, water should no longer be viewed only as a natural asset, but also as a strategic resource.

“In Kosovo’s case, the importance of the Ibër and, in particular, the Ujman–Ibër-Lepenc system is far greater than it may appear. A report by the American Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), published in 2021, assesses Lake Gazivoda/Ujman as an important part of Kosovo’s water and energy security. According to the report, water from the lake provides around one-third of Kosovo’s drinking water and is used to cool two coal-fired power plants, which at the time produced around 95 percent of Kosovo’s electricity.

“This significantly increases the seriousness of the situation. If a state manages to deliberately influence the quantity, quality or flow of water, the consequences could spread through drinking water, agriculture, industry, energy, public health and social stability,” Racaj told Bota sot.

His concerns are also linked to previous events affecting Kosovo’s water infrastructure, particularly the attack on the Ibër-Lepenc canal in November 2024.

“Vučić’s statement should be viewed in light of what happened in November 2024, when an explosion damaged the Ibër-Lepenc canal in northern Kosovo. As a result, the water supply was interrupted and the country’s energy system was placed at risk. Following the incident, security measures were increased, while KFOR took measures to protect critical infrastructure. Responsibility for the attack remained the subject of accusations and investigations, while Belgrade denied involvement.

“This is precisely why the Serbian president’s latest statement is concerning: it removes water from the sphere of technical cooperation and places it within the framework of political and potentially security-related pressure.

“From a technical perspective, as hydrotechnical engineer Mumin Morina has also argued, the course of a river can be changed through hydrotechnical works. But technical capability does not give a state the right to undertake such action at its own discretion. This is precisely where international law applies.

“The UNECE Convention on cross-border waters is based on three main principles: preventing transboundary harm, the equitable and reasonable use of water, and cooperation between states that share the same water system. UNECE emphasizes that any intervention in the flow that could reduce or alter water discharge in the downstream state must be addressed within these obligations and through consultations between the parties.

“Consequently, water cannot be turned into a political weapon or used as a means of punishing a population,” Racaj said.

According to him, Kosovo’s response must be swift and coordinated and must simultaneously include diplomatic and security measures, as well as strategic planning.

“In my professional assessment, this threat must be addressed on three levels.

“The first is the diplomatic level. Kosovo must immediately document the statement and officially send it to the EU, the US, NATO, the United Nations, the OSCE and the relevant international institutions dealing with cross-border waters. We must not wait for the threat to turn into action before responding.

“The second level is security. Water infrastructure must be considered critical national infrastructure. This includes Ujman, the Ibër-Lepenc canal, water-supply facilities and the parts of the system connected to energy production. Their security must be physical, cyber, technological and informational.

“The third level is the strategic one. Kosovo must create alternatives and reserves, because a state is less exposed to blackmail when it does not depend on a single source. This requires diversifying water sources, reservoirs, supply networks, emergency capacities and energy connections,” Racaj said.

Prof. Dr. Racaj also placed the situation within the framework of hybrid warfare, in which vital resources and critical infrastructure can be used to exert pressure without necessarily being accompanied by a direct military confrontation.

“We must consider the dimension of hybrid warfare. Modern conflict does not necessarily begin with tanks and aircraft. It can take the form of a political statement, a disinformation campaign, economic pressure, a cyberattack, infrastructure sabotage or the manipulation of a vital resource. In this sense, using water as an instrument of pressure would constitute a typical example of hybrid warfare against a state and society.

“Nevertheless, a distinction must be made between two things: a political statement is not the same as the technical implementation of a project. Panic must not be caused, but given the scale of the potential consequences, the state must be guided by the principle of prevention.

“Kosovo should ask its international partners to establish a permanent monitoring and cooperation mechanism for the Ibër’s cross-border waters. This mechanism should guarantee transparency regarding any new hydrotechnical project that could affect the flow of water.

“The message must be unequivocal: the Ibër cannot be used as a political instrument, and Ujman cannot be turned into a tool of pressure against Kosovo,” Prof. Dr. Muhamet Racaj told Bota sot.