A new wave of concern has swept across Kosovo following Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić’s statement that Belgrade is considering the possibility of diverting the course of the Ibar River in the Serbian sector. The statement has brought the security of the water supply and the country’s overall stability into focus.
Të lidhura
None found
The Serbian head of state justified the initiative by referring to what he calls the unfair treatment of the Serbian community by Kosovo’s institutions, thus turning the issue of water resources into an entirely political matter.
These claims have sparked a broad debate over the level of risk posed by using control over the Ibar as leverage against Kosovo, as well as the potential effects on the water supply, energy production, the agricultural sector, the ecosystem and national security.
The strategic position of the Ibar River, and particularly the Ujman–Ibar-Lepenc system, makes this an extremely sensitive issue for Kosovo. Any action that affected the volume or direction of the water flow could have far-reaching consequences, impacting both the drinking water supply and other sectors vital to the state.
Against this backdrop, the question is whether Vučić’s words are merely a rhetorical exercise and an element of hybrid warfare, or whether the authorities in Pristina should view them as a concrete threat to national security and urgently raise the issue at the international level.
Also crucial will be the position taken by Kosovo’s institutions and allies such as the European Union, the United States, NATO and other global bodies in response to any attempt to turn water reserves into a weapon of pressure.
Dashevci: Propaganda statement, no practical risk
Speaking to the “Bota sot” news portal, security expert Arben Dashevci described Vučić’s claims as mere propaganda and part of Serbia’s hybrid arsenal.
According to him, changing the course of the Ibar is an impossible scenario from the standpoint of international law, since treaties governing transboundary rivers do not authorize interventions of this nature.
“Yes, the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, has stated that the Serbian authorities are considering the impossible ‘possibility’—because it is impossible, as international water conventions do not permit such a thing—and that, supposedly, according to him, he wants to change the course of the Ibar River within Serbian territory, linking such an action to the treatment of Serbs by the authorities in Pristina,” he said.
Dashevci added that the Serbian leader’s claims do not reflect the reality in Kosovo and that the entire maneuver is intended to generate pressure and divert attention from domestic turmoil in Serbia.
“Vučić’s statement is pure propaganda for his domestic political needs, aimed at shifting attention away from the many problems he has there with his own people in that country and, of course, it is a continuation of his hybrid warfare, because this is the second time he has repeated propaganda that has no practical effect and is absolutely impossible,” he stressed.
He believes the probability of the Ibar’s diversion being used as a tool of blackmail is almost zero, precisely because of the barriers imposed by international law.
“Therefore, I do not think it is serious at all. From the standpoint of international law governing transboundary waters, the risk of Serbia using a change in the Ibar’s course as a means of pressure against Kosovo is zero. There can be no consequence when something cannot be carried out because it is prohibited by an international convention that applies equally and strictly throughout the world,” he said.
Nevertheless, the expert emphasized that despite its technical and legal impossibility, Kosovo should be proactive diplomatically and immediately raise the concern with its strategic partners.
“Kosovo should alert the international community using all of its diplomatic capacity. I believe it should immediately raise the issue at the international level through a coordinated response with the EU, the United Kingdom and, certainly, the US, as well as other international institutions,” Dashevci concluded.
Racaj: Water as a strategic asset, statement demands an immediate response
In contrast to this position, Prof. Dr. Muhamet Racaj, a reserve Major General, believes Vučić’s statement cannot be treated as a simple rhetorical episode or a hydrotechnical debate, but as a challenge that affects national security, human security and the sphere of hybrid warfare.
“The statement by Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić that Serbia is considering the possibility of changing the course of the Ibar River, linking 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. In my view, it should be analyzed as an issue of national security, human security and hybrid warfare.
There is a principle that is becoming increasingly clear in international relations: the 21st century is the century of competition and conflict over energy, while the 22nd century may be the century of fierce competition over water and other vital resources. For this reason, water can no longer be treated solely as a natural resource; it is also a strategic resource.
In Kosovo’s case, the importance of the Ibar, and particularly the Ujman–Ibar-Lepenc system, is far greater than it appears at first glance. A report by the American Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), published in 2021, considers Gazivoda/Ujman Lake an important component of Kosovo’s water and energy security. According to the report, the lake’s waters provide about one-third of Kosovo’s drinking water and are used to cool two coal-fired power plants, which at the time accounted for about 95 percent of Kosovo’s electricity production.
This makes the issue much more serious. If a state actor manages to deliberately influence the quantity, quality or flow of the water, it can trigger cascading consequences affecting drinking water, agriculture, industry, energy, public health and social stability,” Racaj said.
He linked this warning to previous events that affected the country’s water infrastructure, recalling the explosion that struck the Ibar-Lepenc canal in November 2024.
“Therefore, Vučić’s statement should also be viewed in the context of what happened in November 2024, when an explosion damaged the Ibar-Lepenc canal in northern Kosovo. The attack caused disruptions to the water supply and threatened the country’s energy system; following the incident, security measures were increased and KFOR took steps to protect critical infrastructure. Responsibility for the attack remained the subject of accusations and investigations, while Belgrade denied involvement.
In this sense, the Serbian president’s latest statement is concerning because it moves water from the sphere of technical cooperation into that of political and potentially security-related pressure.
From a technical standpoint, as hydrotechnical engineer Mumin Morina has also pointed out, interventions in a river’s course can technically be carried out through hydrotechnical works. But this does not mean that a state has the right to do so at will. This is precisely where international law comes into play.
The UNECE Convention on Transboundary Waters establishes three fundamental principles: the prevention of transboundary harm, the equitable and reasonable use of waters, and cooperation between states that share the same water system. UNECE also emphasizes that even interventions in watercourses that could reduce or alter flows to a downstream state must be addressed within the framework of these obligations and consultations between the parties.
Therefore, water cannot be used as a political weapon or as a means of punishing a population,” he added.
Regarding the steps Pristina should take, Racaj insisted on a swift and coordinated response on several fronts.
“In my professional view, the threat should be addressed at three levels.
First, the diplomatic level. Kosovo should immediately document the statement and formally submit it to the EU, the US, NATO, the United Nations, the OSCE and the relevant international institutions dealing with transboundary waters. There should be no waiting for a threat to become concrete action before responding.
Second, the security level. Water infrastructure should be treated as critical national infrastructure. This includes Ujman, the Ibar-Lepenc canal, water supply facilities and components linked to energy production. Protection should not only be physical, but also cyber, technological and informational.
Third, the strategic level. Kosovo should develop alternatives and reserves. A state is better protected from blackmail when it does not depend on a single source. Therefore, the diversification of water sources, reservoirs, supply systems, emergency capacities and energy links is required,” Racaj said, listing the measures.
He warned that the situation should also be analyzed through the prism of hybrid warfare, because essential resources and vital infrastructure can be turned into instruments of blackmail without the need for an open military conflict.
“We must also bear in mind the hybrid warfare dimension. Modern warfare does not necessarily begin with tanks and aircraft. It can begin with 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 be a typical example of hybrid warfare against a state and society.
However, we must also make an important distinction: panic should not be created. A political statement is not the same as the technical implementation of a project. But precisely because the potential consequences are so significant, the state must act according to the principle of prevention.
Kosovo should ask its international partners to establish a permanent mechanism for monitoring and cooperation regarding the Ibar’s transboundary waters, with transparency concerning any new hydrotechnical project that could affect the water flow.
The message must be clear: the Ibar cannot be used as a political tool, and Ujman cannot be turned into a weapon of pressure against Kosovo,” Prof. Dr. Muhamet Racaj said in closing his interview with “Bota sot.”
