The AnewZ Opinion section provides a platform for independent voices to share expert perspectives on global and regional issues. The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not represent the official position of AnewZ
Aleksandar Vučić's visit to Kyiv on 15 July appeared to send a geopolitical signal. But the significance of the trip lies less in the journey itself than in the limits Serbia carefully observed.
The Serbian president attended the fifth Ukraine–Southeast Europe Summit, reaffirmed support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, backed its European Union ambitions, and promised further humanitarian, financial and energy assistance. Yet he refused to sign the summit's joint declaration, which called for continued political, military, financial and security support for Ukraine and stronger pressure on Russia.
That is not a clean pivot. It is a recalibration.
Serbia is strengthening relations with Kyiv while preserving the core elements of its relationship with Moscow. Russia may dislike that shift. But a forceful response could push Belgrade further towards the West and erode much of the influence the Kremlin still retains.
The Kyiv trip was the first by a Serbian leader to the Ukrainian capital in more than a decade. It was not, however, Vučić's first visit to Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion. He attended the same regional summit in Odesa in June 2025 and has met President Volodymyr Zelenskyy several times.
The sequence surrounding the latest visit was nevertheless revealing. Vučić met Russia's ambassador to Serbia, Aleksandr Botsan-Kharchenko, on 9 July and again on 17 July, two days after returning from Kyiv. The official record does not show whether the Ukraine visit was discussed. Still, the choreography reflects the method that has defined Serbian foreign policy under Vučić: engage one side, then reassure the other.
In Kyiv, Serbia gave Ukraine enough to demonstrate political movement, but not enough to constitute alignment with the Western campaign against Moscow. Vučić's refusal to sign the declaration was therefore as significant as his presence at the summit. One image spoke to Brussels and Kyiv. The other spoke to Moscow and to voters at home.
Since 2022, Belgrade has repeatedly supported Ukraine's territorial integrity and voted for United Nations resolutions condemning Russia's actions. Serbia has also provided around €60 million in non-lethal and non-military assistance, according to figures reported during the Kyiv summit.
At the same time, Serbia remains one of the few EU candidate countries that has not joined sanctions against Russia. Moscow also continues to matter as an energy supplier and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council that rejects Kosovo's independence.
The question of Serbian-made ammunition illustrates the ambiguity. Russian officials have accused Serbian defence manufacturers of supplying Ukraine through intermediaries. Belgrade denies directly arming Ukraine while acknowledging that its weapons are sold to customers around the world and may subsequently be resold. The result is a policy that gives Kyiv material benefit without Belgrade formally accepting the status of an arms supplier to Ukraine.
This is not neutrality in the strict sense. It is selective alignment, calibrated issue by issue.
Ukraine offers Vučić something that many Western partners cannot: a pro-European relationship that does not require Serbia to abandon its position on Kosovo.
Kyiv has not recognised Kosovo's 2008 declaration of independence. Belgrade, in turn, recognises Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders, including territories occupied or annexed by Russia. Vučić highlighted this reciprocal support in Kyiv, presenting the relationship through the language of sovereignty rather than bloc politics.
That distinction matters domestically. Cooperation with Ukraine can be presented as support for international law and for another Slavic state, rather than as an anti-Russian act. It allows Vučić to signal movement towards Europe while arguing that Serbia has surrendered neither its territorial claims nor its strategic autonomy.
Vučić has said he will resign the presidency and pave the way for early presidential and parliamentary elections after more than a year of mass anti-government protests. That makes the timing of the Kyiv visit politically significant, but it does not make the electoral outcome predictable.
Russia retains deep cultural and political appeal among parts of Serbian society. The European Union, meanwhile, is Serbia's largest economic and institutional partner. Vučić's political model depends on keeping both realities in play: he must show Western partners that Serbia can move while assuring conservative and pro-Russian voters that it has not crossed into open confrontation with Moscow.
The Kyiv summit gave him both messages. He stood alongside Zelenskyy and European leaders, but declined to sign their declaration. That may be politically astute. It is not without risk. Serbia's protest movement has exposed substantial domestic anger over corruption, governance and media freedom, and foreign policy choreography cannot erase those pressures.
Russia still has instruments of influence in Serbia, but fewer than it once did. Energy remains important, although even that relationship is changing. NIS, Serbia's only oil refiner, is majority-owned by Gazprom Neft and Gazprom, but the Russian companies are in a provisional process of selling their combined stake to Hungary's MOL under pressure from U.S. sanctions. At the time of writing, the transaction had not been completed.
Moscow also provides diplomatic support over Kosovo and maintains strong political, religious and media links. Russian officials have previously echoed the Serbian government's claim that anti-government protests could represent a Western-backed "colour revolution". Such messaging helps Vučić present Russia as a defender of the existing order.
But influence works only while the partner remains willing to receive it. If Moscow responds to every Serbian contact with Kyiv as an act of betrayal, it risks turning a difficult ally into an adversary. Serbia is geographically surrounded by EU and NATO states, economically tied to Europe and formally committed to EU membership. Russia cannot offer an equivalent path.
The Kremlin's rational option is therefore to distinguish between gestures it dislikes and red lines it cannot accept. Serbia's refusal to impose sanctions, its continued ties with Russian institutions and its avoidance of a formal anti-Russian military position still matter more to Moscow than a summit photograph in Kyiv.
There are limits to how far this tolerance can stretch. A Serbian decision to impose sanctions, openly supply weapons to Ukraine or align itself with NATO policy would produce a much sharper confrontation. None of those steps occurred in Kyiv.
For now, Belgrade is trying to expand its room for manoeuvre. Ukraine is useful because it provides a bridge to the wider European political community while continuing to respect Serbia's territorial position on Kosovo.
Russia may not welcome that development. Yet it may have to tolerate it. The alternative would be to punish Serbia for balancing and, in doing so, accelerate the very Western drift Moscow wants to prevent.
Vučić has not chosen between Russia and Ukraine. He has chosen to keep the choice open. In the Balkans, that ambiguity is not a temporary flaw in Serbian foreign policy. It is the strategy itself.
An agreement between Iran and the U.S. to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is expected "soon," a U.S. official has said. The deal would result in the resum...
A state of emergency was declared in the district of Summerland, British Columbia, early on Saturday as a fast-moving wildfire swept through western C...
Typhoon Dolphin lashed Japan’s southern Okinawa prefecture on Saturday, injuring six people, disrupting flights and leaving more than 50,000 buildin...
An agreement between Iran and the U.S. to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is expected "soon," a U.S. official has said. The deal would result in the resumption of commercial shipping through the sea passage and the lifting of an American naval blockade on Iranian ports.
Start your day informed with AnewZ Morning Brief. Here are the top news stories for the 8th of August, covering the latest developments.
U.S. President Donald Trump said negotiations to reopen the Strait of Hormuz are progressing and suggested an agreement with Iran could be reached “soon”.
U.S. President Donald Trump may have to accept concessions he previously opposed if he wants to secure a deal with Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, according to analysts, as negotiators move closer to a temporary agreement.
A U.S. judge has ordered Meta to pay an additional $567 million over claims that its platforms failed to protect children from online harm.
Europe's political centre is under growing pressure as migration, living costs and declining trust in mainstream parties reshape the continent. Berlin's 20 September state election may offer another indication that Germany's political landscape is entering a new phase.
The next political shock in Georgia may not weaken the ruling system. It may strengthen it.
Djibouti is a tiny country on the Horn of Africa with no significant natural resources, but it hosts multiple major foreign military bases located in close proximity. Why is that?
Oil shaped the geopolitics of the 20th century. People may shape much of the geopolitics of the 21st.
Azerbaijan's entry into the regional consultative format gives Central Asia reach across the Caspian. But turning geography into power will require more than summits and corridors.
You can download the AnewZ application from Play Store and the App Store.
What is your opinion on this topic?
Leave the first comment