Vučić’s Threat over the Ibar River Alarms Kosovo, Experts Divided on Level of Risk

The possibility that Serbia could interfere with the flow of the Ibar River has renewed concerns about Kosovo’s security, water supply and stability. The debate was sparked by Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, who said that the authorities in Belgrade were considering altering the river’s course within Serbian territory.

Vučić linked this scenario to his claims about the way Kosovo’s authorities treat Serbs. In doing so, he shifted the issue of transboundary waters from the technical to the political sphere.

The statement has raised questions about whether Serbia could use control of or interference with the Ibar’s flow as an instrument of pressure against Kosovo. Such an action could affect the country’s water supply, energy production, agriculture, environment and security.

The sensitivity of the issue is linked to the strategic importance of the Ibar River and the Ujman–Ibar-Lepenc system to Kosovo. A change in the volume or flow of water could have consequences for several sectors vital to the functioning of the state, not only the water supply.

At the heart of the debate is the question of whether the Serbian president’s warning is merely political rhetoric and part of hybrid warfare, or whether Kosovo should treat it as a concrete national security threat and address it without delay in the international arena.

Attention has also focused on the response of Kosovo’s institutions and international partners, particularly the European Union, the United States, NATO and other international institutions, in the event of any attempt to turn water resources into a tool of political pressure.

Security expert Arben Dashevci, speaking to “Bota sot,” interpreted Vučić’s statement as propaganda and a continuation of Serbia’s hybrid warfare.

According to Dashevci, the idea of altering the Ibar’s course cannot be implemented because of the rules of international law. He stressed that conventions governing transboundary waters do not permit interventions of this nature.

He said Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić had stated that the Serbian authorities were analyzing a “possibility” that, in his view, was unfeasible. Dashevci emphasized that international water conventions prohibit such an action, despite Vučić presenting it as a possible alteration of the Ibar’s course within Serbian territory and linking it to the treatment of Serbs by the authorities in Pristina.

In the expert’s assessment, the Serbian president’s claims do not correspond with the actual situation in Kosovo. He believes the aim is to create pressure and divert attention from the domestic problems Serbia is facing.

Dashevci described the statement as pure propaganda serving Vučić’s domestic political needs and as an attempt to shift the focus away from the many problems he has with his own people in Serbia. According to him, this is part of hybrid warfare and marks the second time Vučić has made a propagandistic claim with no practical effect that is absolutely impossible to implement.

For this reason, Dashevci believes the possibility of Serbia actually using an alteration of the Ibar’s course as a means of pressure against Kosovo is extremely remote.

He said he did not consider this scenario serious and that, in terms of international law on transboundary waters, the risk was zero. According to Dashevci, there can be no consequences from an action that cannot be implemented, as the international convention strictly prohibits it and is applied uniformly worldwide.

Nevertheless, the expert urged Kosovo not to remain passive diplomatically, even though he considers the threat impossible to carry out.

According to him, the Kosovo authorities should immediately raise the issue at the international level and coordinate their response with their main allies.

Dashevci called on Kosovo to alert the international community by using its full diplomatic capacity. He said the issue should be raised without delay through a response coordinated with the EU, the United Kingdom, the US and other international institutions.

Prof. Dr. Muhamet Racaj, a retired Major General, took a different view. He argued that Vučić’s words should not be reduced to political rhetoric or a technical discussion, as the issue affects national security, human security and hybrid warfare.

Racaj told “Bota sot” that the Serbian president’s warning that he was considering the possibility of altering the Ibar’s course, linked to claims about the treatment of Serbs in Kosovo, should be taken very seriously. In his view, this is not merely a political statement or a hydrotechnical debate, but an issue that must be analyzed within the framework of national and human security, as well as hybrid warfare.

He emphasized that one principle is becoming increasingly clear in international relations: the 21st century is an era of competition and conflict over energy, while the 22nd century may be characterized by fierce competition for water and other vital resources. For this reason, according to Racaj, water is no longer merely a natural resource, but also a strategic one.

In Kosovo’s case, he considers the importance of the Ibar and, in particular, the Ujman–Ibar-Lepenc system to be far greater than it may appear. Racaj referred to a report by the US-based Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), published in 2021, which assessed Lake Gazivoda/Ujman as 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. They are also used to cool two coal-fired power plants, which at the time supplied about 95 percent of the country’s electricity production.

Racaj warned that deliberate interference by a state actor with the volume, quality or flow of water could trigger a chain of consequences for the drinking water supply, agriculture, industry, energy, public health and social stability. According to him, it is precisely this interdependence that makes the situation far more serious.

He also linked his concerns to previous events affecting Kosovo’s water infrastructure, singling out the attack on the Ibar-Lepenc canal in November 2024.

Racaj recalled that an explosion in northern Kosovo damaged the Ibar-Lepenc canal in November 2024. The attack disrupted the water supply and put the country’s energy system at risk. Security measures were strengthened after the incident, while KFOR took steps to protect critical infrastructure.

Responsibility for that attack remained the subject of accusations and investigations, while Belgrade denied any involvement. According to Racaj, this context makes Vučić’s latest statement even more troubling, as it removes water from the sphere of technical cooperation and places it in the realm of political and potentially security-related pressure.

From a technical perspective, Racaj referred to hydrotechnical engineer Mumin Morina, who has emphasized that a river’s course can technically be altered through hydrotechnical works. However, technical feasibility does not mean that a state has the right to act as it wishes, because international legal norms apply in such cases.

He explained that the UNECE Convention on transboundary waters is based on three main principles: preventing harm across borders, the equitable and reasonable use of waters, and cooperation among states that share the same water system.

UNECE also stipulates that interventions that could reduce or alter water flows into a downstream state must be handled in accordance with these obligations and through consultations between the parties. For Racaj, this means that water cannot be used as a political weapon or as a mechanism for punishing a population.

Regarding Kosovo’s response, Racaj called for immediate and coordinated diplomatic, security and strategic action. In his professional assessment, the threat should be addressed on three levels.

At the first, diplomatic level, Kosovo should immediately document the statement and officially submit it to the EU, the US, NATO, the United Nations, the OSCE and the relevant international institutions dealing with transboundary waters. Racaj stressed that a response should not be postponed until the threat turns into concrete action.

The second level concerns security. According to him, water infrastructure should be classified and protected as critical national infrastructure. This includes Ujman, the Ibar-Lepenc canal, water supply facilities and parts of the system linked to energy production.

Racaj added that the protection of these assets cannot be limited to physical security alone. It must also encompass the cyber, technological and information dimensions.

The third level is strategic, where Kosovo, according to him, should establish reserves and alternatives. A state is less vulnerable to blackmail when its supplies do not depend on a single source. For this reason, he called for the diversification of water sources, reservoirs, supply systems, emergency capacities and energy connections.

The retired Major General stressed that developments should also be analyzed through the lens of hybrid warfare, because vital resources and critical infrastructure can be used to exert pressure even without a direct military confrontation.

According to Racaj, modern conflicts do not necessarily begin with aircraft and tanks. They may begin with a political statement, a disinformation campaign, economic pressure, a cyberattack, infrastructure sabotage or the manipulation of a vital resource. In this sense, the use of water as an instrument of pressure would constitute a typical case of hybrid warfare against a state and society.

Nevertheless, he urged against creating panic, noting that a political statement is not the same as the technical implementation of a project. Precisely because of the potential scale of the consequences, Racaj said the state should be guided by the principle of prevention.

He proposed that Kosovo ask its international partners to establish a permanent mechanism for monitoring and cooperation regarding the Ibar’s transboundary waters. According to him, this mechanism should ensure transparency for every new hydrotechnical project that could affect the flow of water.

Concluding his comments to “Bota sot,” Prof. Dr. Muhamet Racaj said the message must be unequivocal: the Ibar cannot be used as a political instrument, and Ujman cannot be turned into a weapon of pressure against Kosovo.