Shatterbelt Case Studies 2025

Balkanization is a term used to describe the division or fragmentation of a larger sovereign state or region into smaller, often ethnically similar, regions or states. First coined in the early 19th century, the term comes from the breakup of the Balkan Peninsula, which was ruled almost entirely by the Ottoman Empire, into several smaller states between 1817 and 1912. It came into more common use in the immediate aftermath of World War I, about the many new states that arose from the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire. While typically caused by differences in ethnicity, culture, and religion, such breaking up may also coincide with other regional political movements such as nationalism, independence, imperialism, and anti-colonialism.

History and Origins

One of the most powerful and longest-lasting dynasties in world history, the Islamic-run Ottoman Empire ruled large areas of the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and North Africa for more than 600 years. Throughout history, the Ottoman territories were politically and economically linked with Europe. The Ottomans were known for their achievements in art, science, and medicine. The Ottoman Empire was a mosaic of languages and religions, and its dramatic modernization process influenced not just the Turkish part of the Empire but Muslim societies elsewhere. For centuries the Ottoman-ruled Balkan Peninsula was almost the only region of Europe with a tradition of tolerance toward people of different religions, ethnic origins, and cultures. While Western Europeans generally viewed it as a threat, many historians regard the Ottoman Empire as a source of stability and security within the region.

The fragmentation of the Ottoman Empire began centuries before the term balkanization was even coined. Following the start of the Russo-Turkish Wars in the 1580s, the Ottoman Empire began to deteriorate rapidly. Fought from 1853 to 1856, the Crimean War further weakened the empire. Though the Congress of Paris recognized the independence of the Ottoman Empire in 1856, it was still losing its influence as a European power.

Due to several rebellions in the late 1800s, the Ottoman Empire continued to lose territory. Uprisings by Turkish nationalists along with the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913, further reduced the empire's territory and increased instability, and created international negativity toward the empire. The Ottoman Empire officially ended at the end of World War I, when the Treaty of Sevres ceded large parts of the Ottoman territory to France, the United Kingdom, Greece, and Italy, as well as creating large occupation zones within the Ottoman Empire.

When sponsored or encouraged by a third-party sovereign state, breakups such as that of the Ottoman Empire are often negatively called balkanization as an accusation of aggressive political “meddling” or interventionism on the part of the third-party state. The term is also often used by third-party states interested in maintaining the status quo as a condemnation of belligerent or uncontrolled regionalism. Geopolitical scientist and author Michel Foucher has defined balkanization as “the constant involvement of foreign powers (Russia, Austro-Hungary, Germany, France, and Great Britain) directed at the protection or establishment of their spheres of interests.” During the 1990s, for example, Russia and Yugoslavia used force in attempts to quash independence movements in their then constituent components of Chechnya and the ethnically Albanian province of Kosovo.

Today, the Balkans and the term balkanization are often used as an eponym for the disintegration of multiethnic states and their eventual decay into dictatorship, ethnic cleansing, and civil war. However, this practice has proven to be fraught with the potential for biased misinterpretation. As many historians have pointed out, balkanization is a term often used by imperialistic foreign powers to divert international attention away from their own ethnically divisive policies of control.

In portraying the historical and sociological image of Europe, some pundits have pejoratively used “the Balkan” in defining “other” cultures as “Oriental, unpredictable, dangerous, chaotic, dirty, lazy, primitive, cruel, selfish, and uncooperative.” However, historical evidence attests instead to the presence of tolerance, cooperation, and hard work among the region’s peoples.

Balkanization vs. Devolution

Another problem with the blanket use of the term balkanization is the fact that it is often incorrectly used to describe the more orderly process of devolution—the voluntary transfer of power from a central government to state, regional, or local authorities. During the late 20th century, groups in both federal and unitary systems of government increasingly sought to reduce the power of central governments by devolving power to local or regional governments. For example, supporters of states’ rights in the United States favored diffusing power away from Washington, D.C., toward state governments. The most recent notable instance of devolution occurred in the United Kingdom in 1998 when Parliament enacted the Scotland Act, the Government of Wales Act, and the Northern Ireland Act.

Both balkanization and devolution can result from ethnic differences and an overall feeling of political fragmentation. Devolution, however, usually occurring through conventionally enacted laws, has proven to be far less likely to lead to sub-regional dictatorships or acts of ethnic cleansing.

Examples Around the World

Since the Ottoman Empire, notable examples of “balkanization” have taken place, particularly in Eastern Europe. Since the early 1990s alone, the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the collapse of the Soviet Union led to the emergence of several new states—many of which were unstable and ethnically mixed—and then to violence between them.

Former Soviet Union

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, countries such as Ukraine, Lithuania, Armenia, Estonia, Latvia, and Belarus have established or re-established their independence. The far too commonplace practice of saying that these countries were “created” by the Soviet collapse is a misrepresentation of the historical record that merely contributes to the erasure of their individual histories.

For example, when Russian President Vladimir Putin launched an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine on February 23, 2022, he justified the act with the false narrative that Ukraine is not a real country. That it “belongs” to Russia as part of a “Great Russia” and the “Russian World,” and that there is, according to Putin, no Ukrainian people, no Ukrainian language, and no separate Ukrainian history — all of which contradicts reality.

Yugoslavia

After World War II, the former country of Yugoslavia was established as a federation of six republics—Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia—with borders drawn along ethnic and historical lines. In addition, the autonomous provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina were established within Serbia. The restructured Yugoslavia experienced a period of strong economic growth and relative political stability up to the 1980s, under Josip Broz Tito. After he died in 1980, the weakened system of the federal government was left unable to cope with rising economic and political challenges.

Beginning with sometimes violent protests in 1981, Albanians in Kosovo started to demand that their autonomous province be granted the status of a constituent republic. Over the entire decade, tensions between Albanians and Kosovo Serbs remained high over the whole decade, resulting in the growth of Serbian opposition to the autonomy of provinces and the ineffective consensus federal system across Yugoslavia, which was seen as an obstacle to Serbian interests.

Video Transcription.

The Middle East is one of the most complex regions in the world: Currently there are 4 failing states and 3 wars, with major powers increasingly taking opposite sides. Countless armed militias and terrorist groups are spreading violence across borders. The region has seen conflict after conflict going back well into the 20th century. But among all the uprisings, civil wars, and insurgencies, two countries always seem to be involved: Saudi Arabia and Iran. They’re bitter rivals, and their feud is the key to understanding conflicts in the Middle East. The Saudis and Iranians have never actually declared war on each other. Instead, they fight indirectly by supporting opposing sides in other countries and inciting conflicts. This is known as proxy warfare. And it’s had a devastating effect on the region. Countries, especially poor ones, can’t function if there are larger countries pulling strings within their borders. Both the Saudis and the Iranians, see these civil wars as both tremendous threats, and also potentially enormous opportunities. The Saudi-Iranian rivalry has become a fight over influence, and the whole region is a battlefield. It’s why the rivalry is being called: a Cold War. The most famous cold war was fought for 40 years between the United States and Soviet Union. Looking forward to the day when their flag would fly over the entire world. They never declared war on each other, but clashed in proxy wars around the world. Each side supported dictators, rebel groups, and intervened in civil wars to contain the other. Like the US and Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia and Iran are two powerful rivals - but instead of fighting for world dominance, they’re fighting over control of the Middle East. In order to understand the Saudi-Iranian rivalry, let’s go back to the origins of each country. In the early 1900s, the Arabian peninsula was a patchwork of tribes under the control of the Ottoman Empire. After World War I, the empire collapsed, leaving these tribes to fight each other for power. One tribe from the interior, the al-Saud, eventually conquered most of the peninsula. In 1932, they were recognized as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 6 years later, massive oil reserves were discovered in Saudi Arabia, and, in an instant, the Saudi monarchy was rich. That oil money built roads and cities all around the desert country - and it helped forge an alliance with the US. On the eastern side of the Persian Gulf, another country was emerging, but having a much harder time. Iran also had massive oil reserves and an even bigger Muslim population. But constant foreign intervention was creating chaos. Since the 18th century, Iran had been invaded by the Russians and British twice. In 1953, the US secretly staged a coup, removing the popular prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddegh. In his place, they propped up a monarch, Reza Shah, who was aggressively reforming Iran into a secular, westernized country. But he harbored corruption and terrorized the population with his secret police, the Savak. By the 1970s, both Saudi Arabia and Iran had oil-based economies and had governments heavily backed by the US, but the feelings among each population were very different: Ultimately at the end of the day, the Shah of Iran, powerful as he was, simply did not have the same control over his people or ultimately the same legitimacy and affection that the Saudi people felt towards their monarchy at that point in time. That’s because Iran’s Muslims felt stifled by the Shah’s reformations and by the end of the decade, they finally fought back. Iran's Islamic revolution overthrew a powerful regime, that boasted military might. It’s really in 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic revolution overthrow the Shah, that the real tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran begins. Ayatollah Khomeini was a Muslim clergyman, who preached against Western-backed secular monarchies. He advocated for a government that popular, Islamic, and led by the clergy. And In 1979, he led a revolution to establish just that. It was a massive international event that prompted reactions around the world especially in Saudi Arabia. The Iranian Revolution terrified the government of Saudi Arabia. They were fearful that Ayatollah Khomeini would inspire their populations to rise up against them, exactly the way he had caused the Iranian population to rise up against the Shah. There was a religious threat too. Up until now, the Saudis had claimed to be the leaders of the Muslim world. Largely because Islam’s two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina are in Saudi Arabia. But Khomeini claimed his popular revolution made Iran the legitimate Muslim state. There was another divide; Saudi Arabia’s population is mostly Sunni, the majority sect of Islam, while Khomeini and Iran are mostly Shia. Westerners always make a mistake by drawing an analogy between the Sunni-Shia split and the Protestant-Catholic split within Christianity. The Sunni-Shia split was never as violent. And in much of the Islamic world, when Sunnis and Shia were living in close proximity, they got along famously well. So, while the Sunni-Shia split was not a reason for the rivalry, it was an important division. After the revolution, the Saudi’s fears came to life when Iran began “exporting its revolution”. This CIA report from 1980 details how the Iranian started helping groups, mostly Shia, trying to overthrow governments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia. And they prompted the Saudis to redouble their efforts, to fight against Iran. They bolstered their alliance with the US and formed the GCC, an alliance with other gulf monarchies. The stage was set for conflict. War in the gulf. Iraq invaded Iran in seven areas. With a 5:1 superiority, Iraqi forces moved quickly The rise of Iran as a regional power threatened other neighboring countries as well. In September 1980, Iraq, under the rule of dictator Saddam Hussein, invaded Iran. He was hoping to stop the Iranian revolution, gain power, and annex some of Iran’s oil reserves. But they didn’t get far. The war bogged down into stalemate complete with trench warfare, chemical weapons and heavy civilian casualties. When Iran started winning, the Saudis panicked, and came to Iraq’s rescue. They provided money, weapons, and logistical help. So it becomes critical to the Saudis that they build up Iraq, and build it up into a wall that can hold back the Iranian torrent that they have unleashed. The Saudi help allowed Iraq to fight until 1988. By then, nearly a million people had died. Iranians largely blamed the Saudis for the war and the feud escalated. Fast forward 15 years and Iraq again became the scene of a proxy war. In 2003 the US invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein. Neither Saudi Arabia or Iran wanted this to happen, since Iraq had been acting as a buffer between them. But problems arose when the US struggled to replace Saddam. The United States has no idea what it is doing in Iraq after 2003. And it makes one mistake after another, that creates a security vacuum, and a failed state, and drives Iraq into all-out civil war. Without a government, armed militias took control of Iraq, splintering the population. Sunni and Shia militias suddenly sprang up all over the country. Many were radical Islamist groups who saw an opportunity to gain power amidst the chaos. These militias were readymade proxies for Saudi Arabia and Iran, and they both seized the opportunity to try and gain power. The Saudis started sending money and weapons to the Sunni militias, and Iran; the Shia. Iraq was suddenly a proxy war with Saudi Arabia and Iran supporting opposing sides. That trend continued into the Arab Spring, a series of anti-monarchy, pro-democracy protests that swept through the Middle East in 2011. This had very different consequences for Saudi Arabia and Iran: That is terrifying to the Saudis who are the ultimate status quo power. They want the region stable, and they don't want anybody rising up and overthrowing a sclerotic, autocratic government, for fear that it might inspire their own people to do the same. The Iranians are the ultimate anti status quo power, they have been trying for decades to overturn the regional order. Each country threw their weight behind different groups, all over the Middle East. Just like in Iraq, the Saudis began supporting Sunni groups and governments while Iran helps Shia groups rise up against them. In Tunisia, the Saudi’s backed a dictator while the Iranians stoked protests. In Bahrain, Iran supported Shia leaders seeking to overthrow the government. Saudi Arabia, in turn, sent troops to help quash the unrest. Both got involved in Libya, Lebanon and Morocco. As Saudi Arabia and Iran put more and more pressure on these countries… they began to collapse. Now the feud has gone a step further, with both countries deploying their own militaries. In Yemen, the Saudi military is on the ground helping the central government. They are fighting the rebels, called the Houthis, who are an Iranian proxy group. The reverse is happening in Syria. The Iranian military is fighting side by side with militias, some of them extremists groups like Hezbollah, in support of dictator Bashar al-Assad. They are fighting rebel Sunni groups, who are Saudi proxies. The more civil wars that broke out in the Middle East, the more Saudi Arabia and Iran became involved. Neither the government of Saudi Arabia nor the government of Iran are looking for a fight. But the problem is these civil wars create circumstances that no one could have predicted. Both the Iranians and the Saudis feel that their vital national interests, are threatened, are in jeopardy, because of different things happening in these civil wars, things they blame each other for. Now the cold war is drawing in other countries. The Saudi government is threatening Qatar, a tiny Gulf state that was developing ties with Iran. Meanwhile in Syria and Iraq, the terrorist group, ISIS is nearing defeat and both the Saudis and Iranians are angling to take control of that territory. It’s a Cold war that's becoming incredibly unpredictable. As the Middle East continues to destabilize, its hard to say how far these countries will go.

Video Transcript

It's been a year since Russia first occupied Crimea and nearly a year since a full-blown separatist conflict broke out in eastern Ukraine. We in the West tend to look at this conflict solely through the lens Russian aggression but there's so much more to understand. You need to understand Ukraine's history and in particular how that history has left the country with deep political linguistic, economic, just fundamental national divisions. So we can see this first of all by just looking at a pretty basic political map of Ukraine. If you look at the result in the election that brought Yanukovych to power, you can see that the eastern regions of the country were far more likely to support Yanukovych, and the western regions were far more likely to support Tymochenko. And the interesting thing about that is the that political divide that you see comes up in a ton of different aspects of Ukrainian's history and geography. So one area is the linguistic divide. The divides the different regions of the country that are predominately Russian-speaking as opposed to predominantly Ukranian speaking really closely mirrored that political divide. Russia went through a series of policies to do what they called "Russification" in the 1700s under Catherine the Great, so this goes back hundreds and hundreds of years those policies involved everything from settling ethnic Russians in those regions to forbidding people from speaking the Ukrainian language. It continued well into the 20th century. Stalin essentially orchestrated this massive famine that killed millions of people in Ukraine. After that, they increase the resettlement of Russians into Ukraine. You were left with a Ukraine that looked different. Parts of the country were much more likely to speak Russian, be culturally Russian, be ethnically Russian, and it's had a lasting impact on the country as a whole. Fast-forward to modern Ukraine. When Yanukovych was elected, he was negotiating with the EU about a deal that would have brought closer EU ties. So then when he abandoned that and took a bailout from Russia instead, that was perceived as him really kind of turning away from the west and turning towards Russia. And that was very controversial. It prompted protests that were largely clustered in the western part of the country and the capital city Kiev. And eventually it forced Yanukovych out of office. Point is that this is not just Russia invading Ukraine The point is that there are Ukrainian separatists who are actively trying to achieved independence from Kiev. Different parts of ukraine have a very different idea what kind of country Ukraine should be. And that doesn't make it OK--that doesn't make it acceptable as the matter of international law. It certainly doesn't justify what Russia has been doing, but it also shouldn't be something that you ignore.