Nawar Samad

On May 29, 2025, Russia sparked a diplomatic crisis with Serbia by accusing it of supplying Ukraine with weapons; an unprecedented move between the two traditional allies. This step came at an extremely sensitive time, amid increasing Western pressure on Belgrade and close European scrutiny of its positions. Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić’s announced that Serbia and Russia would conduct a joint investigation to determine how Serbian-made ammunition reached Ukraine. He also strives to maintain stable relations between the two countries. However, this crisis raises serious questions about the future of the Serbian-Russian alliance considering rapidly shifting geopolitical changes.Russian MotivesThrough these accusations, Moscow seeks to achieve a range of political and strategic objectives that go beyond merely responding to the arms supply allegations. These include:1- Enforcing strategic alignment on Serbia in the Ukrainian conflict: Russia is attempting to push Serbia toward a clearer alignment in the ongoing conflict between Russia and the West, especially as Serbia has become one of the most prominent candidates for EU membership. Moscow recognizes that Belgrade’s strategic location and its increasingly ambivalent foreign policy pose a potential vulnerability to Russia’s broader efforts to assert influence in the Balkans. Thus, this public escalation cannot be seen as an isolated move but rather an attempt to cement a security vision based on rallying traditional allies within what Moscow calls the "Russian world". Through this pressure, Moscow aims to pull its gray-zone allies out of neutrality and into full political and security alignment with its positions, arguing that this moment does not tolerate dual or conciliatory stances.2- Deterring Belgrade’s Growing European Orientation: This Russian escalation is also linked to the Kremlin’s desire to curb the expansion of European influence in the Slavic sphere. The accusations came after European signals about accelerating Serbia’s accession to the European Union. Statements by some European officials regarding the need to strategically integrate Serbia into the European security framework have caused significant Russian unease. Moreover, this accusation serves as a means to undermine the legitimacy of Belgrade’s official discourse, which promotes moderation and "active neutrality" as a balancing strategy. Moscow understands that tarnishing Belgrade’s reputation could temporarily reel it back into the Russian sphere of influence.3- Recalibrating Relations with Serbia Around Demands for Unquestioned Loyalty: Shifting from the logic of "spiritual and historical partnership" to one of "loyalty and political commitment, Russia attempts to redefine its bilateral relationship with Belgrade. Statements from Russian foreign intelligence have reflected a qualitative shift in rhetoric, employing phrases like "a stab in the back" and "profiting from Slavic blood". This discourse is not only aimed at political institutions in Belgrade but also targets Russian and Serbian public opinion to reshape collective perceptions about the nature of the relationship. The Kremlin now believes that relations with Serbia must be based on direct political alignment, not just Orthodox symbolism or Slavic solidarity; an approach that narrows Belgrade’s margin for pursuing a multi-track policy.4- Signaling to Other Ambivalent Russian Allies: Moscow’s accusations also serve as a deterrent to other countries oscillating between the Russian and European camps, such as Armenia, Belarus, and potentially Kazakhstan. Through its rhetoric toward Belgrade, Moscow presents a clear example of what nations attempting to maintain neutrality or play both sides might face. In this sense, Russia’s recent escalation toward Serbia should be understood not only as a bilateral dispute but also as a strategic message to other allies showing signs of inconsistent loyalties. It serves as a symbolic act of punishment designed to deter similar shifts by warning of the consequences of deviating from Moscow’s position. This reflects a broader Russian strategy aimed at preventing what could become a "contagion of balancing" among its traditional partners. At the same time, the move underscores a shift in Russia’s approach to international diplomacy, one that favors firm action over negotiation and compromise. This considers a policy shift consistent with Moscow’s post-Ukraine war policies, which have pushed Russia to restructure its alliance network along stricter lines.5- Domestic Exploitation of the Crisis for Russian Mobilization: On the Russian domestic front, this campaign serves as a distraction from the military setbacks in Ukraine by stoking nationalist sentiments against "treason". The use of terms like "treachery" and "profiting from the blood of Slavic brothers" reflects a propaganda effort to provide a psychological explanation for successive defeats, shifting blame away from Russian leadership. By accusing Serbia of supplying weapons to Ukraine, the Kremlin reinforces its domestic and international narrative of being isolated and targeted by a coordinated Western campaign. In this sense, Serbia has transformed from a partner in the discourse of "Slavic unity" into a case study for reconstructing Russia’s internal narrative—one that links the collapse of traditional relations to "historical betrayal".A Complex FutureThis crisis will have direct repercussions on the trajectory of bilateral relations, potentially reshaping Serbia’s positioning between East and West:1- Erosion of Trust Between Moscow and Belgrade: The Russian accusations have caused a shock in bilateral relations between Belgrade and Moscow, effectively breaching the wall of trust built over decades of Slavic alliance. The Russian rhetoric did not come from a marginal media outlet but from an official intelligence agency, lending it an official and strategic weight. This shift from strategic silence to public accusations places the relationship on a new path defined by suspicion and wariness rather than trust and understanding. Even if a joint investigative committee is formed, returning to the pre-crisis atmosphere appears difficult, especially given Moscow’s reluctance to present conclusive evidence. It seems that the moral and symbolic foundation of the bilateral relationship has begun to erode, with interactions now governed by a logic of accountability rather than partnership.2- Belgrade Forced to Abandon Its Policy of Active Neutrality: This crisis has placed Belgrade in an awkward position both domestically and internationally, making it increasingly difficult to maintain its previous balanced stance between Moscow and Brussels. While Russia demands proof of loyalty, EU institutions are closely monitoring Serbia to assess its sincerity as a membership candidate. Faced with this dual pressure, Serbia is now compelled to clearly define its strategic alignment. This could potentially undermine President Aleksandar Vučić’s policy of "active neutrality," that he pursued since 2017. These tensions between Moscow and Belgrade are expected to impact Serbia’s EU accession process, as Brussels will likely demand positions more aligned with European political lines. This may force Belgrade to reassess its defense and trade relations with Moscow, or at least introduce a degree of differentiation in its foreign policy.3- Growing Risks of Frozen Cooperation in Vital Areas: The recent Russian statements jeopardize several existing economic and military agreements between Moscow and Belgrade, particularly in energy and defense industries. Russia remains Serbia’s primary gas supplier, and companies like Gazprom hold stakes in Serbian refineries, giving Moscow an additional leverage. Ironically, this confrontation also highlights Serbia’s economic dependence on arms exports, including to long-standing clients with historical ties to Russia, underscoring the complexity of disentangling economic interests from political alignments. If these accusations persist without clear resolution, Moscow may impose unofficial restrictions on technical cooperation or delay gas supplies, creating internal economic pressure on the Serbian government. Additionally, Russia might withdraw support for Belgrade on sensitive issues like Kosovo, further weakening Serbia’s international standing.4- Strengthening the Discourse Favoring Disengagement from Moscow Within Serbia: On the domestic political front, this crisis is expected to fuel anti-Moscow rhetoric, particularly among civil society and pro-European liberal factions. Some independent Serbian media outlets have framed the Russian accusations as "diplomatic blackmail" aimed at subjugating Belgrade's sovereign decision-making. Academic figures predict this crisis could lead to a new political polarization within Serbia between factions advocating gradual disengagement from Moscow and nationalist groups viewing Russia as an indispensable ally. This divide may manifest in parliamentary debates or upcoming electoral campaigns, potentially reshaping Serbia’s domestic political alliances long-term and forcing the government to balance internal and external pressures in its strategic decisions.5- Serbian President’s Attempt to Preserve Ties with Moscow: Despite the awkward position created by Russia’s accusations, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić has sought to de-escalate tensions. He publicly stated that Serbia and Russia would conduct a joint investigation into how Serbian-made ammunition reached Ukraine, following Moscow’s allegations of arms supplies to Kyiv. Vučić noted he had discussed Ukrainian arms exports with Russian President Vladimir Putin during his visit to Moscow in May, while denying some claims made by Russian foreign intelligence.6- Potential Strategic Shift in Serbia’s Foreign Policy: In the medium term, this crisis could lead to a strategic shift in Serbia’s foreign policy, especially if Russia insists on escalation or punitive measures. Should energy supplies be reduced or joint projects disrupted, Belgrade may find itself compelled to strengthen partnerships with the EU and the U.S., including in military and diplomatic spheres. European pressure, which ties continued support to Serbia’s adherence to Western standards, could push the Serbian government toward previously avoided choices, such as reducing reliance on Russian gas or diversifying arms suppliers. In this sense, the crisis could evolve from a situational dispute into a turning point for Serbia’s strategic realignment.In conclusion, Russia’s accusations against Serbia mark a striking shift in their bilateral relationship, moving beyond temporary disagreements to a erosion of mutual trust. While Belgrade struggles to balance its ties with Moscow and Brussels, the current crisis forces more decisive choices. If repercussions are not managed carefully, this moment could become a breaking point in a decades-long alliance. The future of Russo-Serbian relations now hinges on both sides’ ability to recalibrate their rhetoric and move beyond coercion—toward either careful repair or gradual estrangement.

The Repercussions of Russia's Accusations Against Serbia for Supplying Ukraine with Weapons