Historically, Yugoslav leadership, particularly under Marshal Josip Broz Tito, downplayed the Soviet Union’s role in the liberation of Yugoslavia. Tito’s narrative prioritised the contributions of Yugoslav partisans, aligning with his broader stance of maintaining independence from both Soviet and Western blocs. In contrast, Vučić’s Serbia has increasingly highlighted the role of the Red Army in World War II, a shift that aligns with his government’s efforts to maintain a close relationship with Moscow. This rhetorical shift mirrors the approach of former Serbian leader Slobodan Milošević, who also emphasised Serbia’s ties with Russia as a means of strengthening domestic legitimacy and securing external support.
Vučić’s conversation with Putin can be seen as part of a broader effort to maintain Serbia’s non-aligned stance, particularly with regards to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Despite Serbia’s status as an EU candidate country and its participation in European forums, Vučić has consistently refused to join Western sanctions against Russia. This call serves as a reminder that, despite the formal trajectory towards European integration, Belgrade seeks to preserve its strategic partnership with Moscow. For Vučić, maintaining this dual-track foreign policy is essential for navigating Serbia’s internal political landscape, which remains deeply divided between pro-European and pro-Russian factions.
The call also signals a potential recalibration of Vučić’s approach towards Russia. Since the start of the war in Ukraine, European leaders have made clear their expectations that countries aspiring to EU membership align themselves with the bloc’s foreign policy, particularly regarding sanctions against Russia. Vučić’s decision to openly engage with Putin indicates a growing confidence that Serbia can maintain its relationship with Russia without facing immediate political or economic consequences from Brussels. This reflects a broader shift in the region, where the geopolitical landscape is increasingly influenced by the actions of other European leaders, notably Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
Orbán, who has positioned himself as a key ally of both Serbia and Russia, provides Vučić with additional political cover. As the current holder of the EU Council presidency, Orbán has advocated for Serbia’s accelerated integration into the EU, while simultaneously maintaining his own ties with Moscow. His recent meeting with Putin underscores Hungary’s willingness to balance its EU membership with its geopolitical interests in Russia. This creates a more favourable environment for Vučić to pursue a similar strategy, allowing him to deepen ties with Putin without fear of alienating his supporters in Brussels.
From a geopolitical perspective, Vučić’s engagement with Putin raises concerns about the stability of the Western Balkans. Russia’s role in the region has long been a source of tension, with Moscow accused of fomenting instability in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as between Serbia and Kosovo. Milorad Dodik, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs, remains a key ally of Russia in the region and has often acted in ways that undermine peace agreements and fuel ethnic tensions. By maintaining close ties with Russia, Vučić risks exacerbating these tensions, particularly as Moscow continues to view the Balkans as a strategic theatre for undermining European unity.
Russia’s influence in the Balkans has historical roots, dating back to the 19th century, when the region’s nationalist movements provided Moscow with opportunities to extend its influence in Southeastern Europe. The Balkan conflicts of the 1990s further solidified Russia’s role as a key external actor, and Moscow has since sought to maintain its leverage by exploiting nationalist sentiment and supporting local leaders sympathetic to its interests. Today, the Kremlin’s objectives in the Balkans remain consistent: to destabilise the region and prevent its full integration into the EU and NATO.
For Vučić, the challenge lies in balancing these external pressures with domestic political realities. Serbia’s historical ties to Russia, coupled with its reliance on Russian energy, make it difficult for any Serbian leader to fully break with Moscow. At the same time, Vučić must navigate Serbia’s EU aspirations, which require demonstrating a commitment to European values and foreign policy alignment. This balancing act is becoming increasingly delicate, particularly as the war in Ukraine drags on and the EU intensifies its efforts to isolate Russia diplomatically and economically.
One of the key factors influencing Vučić’s confidence in pursuing this dual-track policy is the broader European context. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s recent remarks on the need for dialogue with Putin, for example, provide Vučić with political cover. If major European leaders are willing to engage with Moscow, Serbia’s ongoing relationship with Russia becomes less of an outlier. Moreover, the fact that Orbán has openly met with Putin while holding the EU Council presidency suggests that there is still space for EU member states to pursue independent foreign policies vis-à-vis Russia.
However, the long-term viability of Vučić’s strategy is uncertain. As the war in Ukraine continues, the pressure on EU candidate countries to align with Brussels on foreign policy will only increase. Serbia’s refusal to impose sanctions on Russia already complicates its EU accession process, and continued engagement with Putin could further strain relations with key European partners. Additionally, the risk of further instability in the Balkans, particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, remains high, with Russia likely to exploit any opportunity to weaken EU influence in the region.
In conclusion, Vučić’s phone call with Putin is emblematic of Serbia’s broader strategic balancing act between East and West. While the formal occasion for the call was the commemoration of a historical event, its underlying significance lies in the broader geopolitical context. For Vučić, maintaining a relationship with Putin is not only a matter of historical ties but also a calculated political decision aimed at preserving Serbia’s autonomy in a complex and rapidly changing international landscape. The question remains, however, whether Serbia can continue to walk this tightrope without facing greater political and economic repercussions from the West.