Markovic: A return to the symbols of May 9 would mark a new beginning for Europe

Political scientist from Skopje, Nenad Markovic, stated that although Europe Day and Victory Day merely coincide in time, their symbolism should be unifying and serve as a new beginning for the European continent.

“The symbolism of both commemorations was meant to be positive and unifying. Victory Day symbolizes the capitulation of Nazi Germany before the Soviet Union and coincides with Europe Day, which was established shortly after World War II, sometime in the 1960s. In principle, both dates were intended to symbolize a new beginning for Europe,” Markovic said in an interview with Kosovo Online.

He explained that for Russia, May 9 represents the liberation from the greatest evil of the 20th century—Nazism.

“At the same time, Europe Day is meant to symbolize the core values championed by Europe—tolerance, peaceful conflict resolution, unity, and solidarity. These are all increasingly associated with what has become a rather vague notion of ‘European values.’ In that sense, the shared date was symbolic and deliberate, as both occasions relate to the end of the Second World War,” he noted.

Markovic pointed out that although many people conflate the two holidays—one marking Germany’s surrender in 1945, and the other celebrating the Schuman Declaration of 1950, seen as the foundation of the EU—they are, in fact, compatible. However, growing tensions between Europe and Russia have deepened symbolic rifts.

“They do diverge to an extent, symbolically. I wouldn’t say they are incompatible, nor is the date itself the issue. But people on both sides of today’s geopolitical divide—particularly between Russia and the EU—perceive them differently. This fuels misunderstanding and disdain rather than unity, especially now, when relations between the two are arguably at their lowest point in centuries,” Markovic explained.

He argued that historical dates, in themselves, neither unite nor divide, and that in the decades ahead, it will be essential to find a new, constructive goal to revitalize the core values of both commemorations, which have been eroded by the war in Ukraine.

“Whether the date can regain its unifying symbolism remains to be seen. It is not the date itself, or what it marks, that divides us or causes war. Rather, it is current geopolitical realities that obscure and diminish the date’s symbolic value. Perhaps one day, if tensions ease, it might once again serve as a symbol of unity. But for now, a resolution is nowhere in sight,” he said.

Turning to the Western Balkans, Markovic observed that the region is also grappling with disillusionment over Europe Day and the broader EU integration process, particularly in Belgrade, Pristina, and Skopje.

“Neither Belgrade nor Pristina mark this date meaningfully, nor is there any movement in their bilateral relations. In North Macedonia, the public takes an increasingly cynical view of Europe Day. There is deep disappointment with the prolonged EU integration process and the bilateral disputes that have been built into the negotiation framework,” Markovic noted.

This is reflected in Macedonian public opinion, which he described as “tired and cynical.”

“There’s also a level of resentment—an understandable result of everything that has happened over the past 20 to 30 years. Especially since we became a candidate country and signed the Stabilization and Association Agreement around 2001. Europe Day no longer carries the same significance it once did. While public support for EU integration remains high, it is mostly declarative. North Macedonia is no longer willing to make concessions,” he asserted.

The greatest resistance, he added, stems from issues tied to national identity.

“Whether some X-factor or contributing element will emerge to shift public perception remains to be seen. I don’t currently see such a development on the horizon, which also dampens the political will to push forward a serious reform agenda. Without external incentives, internal momentum will be slow, if it materializes at all,” Markovic said.

Commenting on the Belgrade–Pristina dialogue, he noted a status quo with no signs of progress, largely for political reasons.

“There is no real incentive for either side to resolve the issue, since such a resolution could spell the end of many political careers. This kind of conflict is fertile ground for building endless political capital,” he argued.

As for possible gradual improvements in relations, he was skeptical, though he did express hope that the security situation could at least remain under control.

“There’s always a risk of new provocations, but perhaps, if we’re fortunate, things can be managed more calmly. That’s my hope, though I’m not sure whether it’s realistic or just wishful thinking,” he added.

Markovic also underscored that “geostrategic realities are clouding perceptions.”

“From North Macedonia’s perspective, it’s disheartening to see that after 20 years of dedicated efforts to join the EU, countries like Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia are being prioritized. This confirms that geopolitics drives trends, and that we are often powerless to influence outcomes. All our efforts—including painful bilateral compromises—are being overshadowed,” he said.

He warned that heightened emotional rhetoric across Europe is further dimming the prospects for peace and prosperity.

“Russian aggression against Ukraine has created a new geopolitical reality in which all parties seem somewhat lost. Europe has come to realize just how divided it is and how lacking it can be in the capacity for unified action. The EU now faces its most serious internal reform challenge yet if it hopes to respond more effectively in the future. I’m not advocating war—on the contrary—but I fear that Europe may become increasingly militarized in the coming period,” he remarked.

He attributed this to shifting EU priorities toward security and defense.

“Europe feels unsafe. The continent is uncertain. Resources that could be invested in progress, innovation, education, or social services are being redirected. If the Russia–Ukraine conflict deescalates, perhaps Europe will return to its previous model of disarmament. But it’s unclear whether we’re on a reversible or irreversible path—possibly toward a new low-intensity, latent cold war that clouds judgment,” Markovic said.

He remained doubtful that any major changes will occur soon, particularly given today’s tense global dynamics.

“The India–Pakistan situation is deteriorating. The crisis in Palestine is worsening. All of this could trigger domino effects across other fragile regions. These interconnected macro-conflicts are impeding our ability to assess where we’re heading. Ending the war in Ukraine is crucial. Let’s be pragmatic—perhaps the U.S. can help, perhaps Europe can take wiser steps and extend a hand. But for now, neither side seems ready for peace—not even those indirectly involved,” Markovic concluded.

He remains unconvinced that the war will end soon, but still holds out hope.

“Let’s hope efforts will be made to achieve peace. Ukraine is showing determination. Russia has at times sent signals of willingness to compromise, though that may have changed. One thing is certain: it’s time for all sides to make the difficult but necessary concessions needed to bring this conflict to an end,” Markovic said.