The Peace after: Results and Lessons of Dayton Accords

What was the significance of the Dayton Accords? Could a different, more effective model for resolving the crisis have been proposed? What does the future hold for Bosnia and Herzegovina? To discuss these matters, Comparative Politics Russia sat down with one of Russia's leading experts on political processes in Central and Eastern Europe, Professor Elena G. Ponomareva, Doctor of Political Science, Department of Comparative Politics, MGIMO University.

The interview focuses on an analysis of the 30th anniversary of the Dayton Accords, which ended the Bosnian War of 1992–1995. Dr. Elena Ponomareva views Dayton as a symbol of the establishment of a new world order in the post-socialist space, associated with the strengthening of the influence of Western institutions and the loss of sovereignty of nation states. The expert highlights three key lessons of the Dayton: the priority of force in Western politics, the destructiveness of Russia's unprincipled foreign policy in the 1990s, and the emergence of a new form of international protectionism, expressed in the external administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to the professor, the state structure created under the terms of the agreement can be characterized as a “phantom state” — an entity that formally possesses the attributes of sovereignty but is in fact controlled from outside. Three possible scenarios for Bosnia and Herzegovina are discussed: maintaining the status quo, the absorption of the Republika Srpska into the Federation of BiH, and the separation of the entities.

Special attention is paid to Russia's role as guarantor of the Agreements and its current discrepancies with the West over the issue of international presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The interview concludes with an analysis of the problem of history falsification using the example of the Bosnian war, including the UN General Assembly resolution on the “genocide in Srebrenica.” As a countermeasure to such practices, the active dissemination of historical truth using the tools of culture, education, and the media is proposed.

1. Entina E.G. (ed.) (2025) 30 let Dejtonu: kak pozhivaesh', Bosniya? [30 years of Dayton: how are you doing, Bosnia?]. Moscow: Zebra E. 392 p. (In Russian).

2. Hasanović J. (2021) Mirroring Europeanization: Balkanization and auto-colonial narrative in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In: The Unwanted Europeanness? Understanding Division and Inclusion in Contemporary Europe. Berlin: De Gruyter. P. 79–106.

3. Ilyinsky I.M. (2015) Mif o bezmernyh poteryah SSSR v Velikoj Otechestvennoj vojne [The myth of the immense losses of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War]. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie [Knowledge. Understanding. Skill] 1: 5-17. DOI: 10.17805/zpu.2015.1.1. (In Russian).

4. Krivosheev G.F. (ed.) (2010) Velikaya Otechestvennaya bez grifa sekretnosti. Kniga poter' [The Great Patriotic War without secrecy. Book of Losses]. Moscow: Veche. 384 p. (In Russian).

5. Ponomareva E.G. (2009) Bosniya I Gercegovina: gosudarstvo-fantom [Bosnia and Herzegovina: A Phantom State ]. Svobodnaya mysl' [Free Thought] 1: 69-84. (In Russian).

6. Ponomareva E.G. (2011) Parametry gosudarstvennoj sostoyatel'nosti: Bosniya i Gercegovina [Parameters of State Solvency: Bosnia and Herzegovina]. Sravnitel'naya politika [Comparative Politics]. 2(3(5)): 86-95. DOI: 10.18611/2221-3279-2011-2-3(5)-86-95. (In Russian).

7. Uzly i modeli balkanskih etnopoliticheskih konfliktov [Knots and models of Balkan ethnopolitical conflicts]. Puti k miru i bezopasnosti [Paths to Peace and Security] 1(42): 60-75. (In Russian).