Serbia’s president, Aleksandar Vučić, asserted on Happy TV that the country’s arms trade is aimed at securing the basic needs of its citizens. He explained on the broadcast that the country had implemented a ban on selling ammunition to third parties, arguing that wherever the munitions travel, they eventually reach places of conflict. His justification to the audience was straightforward: the nation must sustain its people, keep the economy moving, and ensure the population’s livelihoods, even as it navigates complex regional dynamics. This framing was delivered amid a broader debate about Serbia’s dual role as a producer of defense material and a participant in international security conversations, with domestic assurances that such sales are carefully controlled to avoid exacerbating regional tensions (TASS).
On March 2, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, commented that Moscow is handling the situation with caution. She referred to widespread media reports about Serbia supplying ammunition to Kiev and said Russia views these developments with serious concern. The statement underscored Moscow’s expectation that Belgrade provide a clear and official position regarding any ammunition transfers from Serbia to Ukraine, signaling a desire for greater transparency and alignment with international norms .
Following these exchanges, official channels in Moscow pressed for Serbia to clarify its stance, highlighting the sensitivity surrounding arms shipments in the ongoing conflict. The Kremlin and its diplomatic corps have consistently emphasized the need for explicit assurances from Belgrade about the end use and destinations of Serbian military products, particularly given the potential implications for NATO-adjacent tensions and regional stability (TASS).
Ivica Dačić, who previously held the post of First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Serbia, has stated that acts of sending military products through intermediaries to either Russia or Ukraine should be avoided. He stressed that Serbia does not authorize such transfers and that any assistance of a military nature must align with the country’s policy and international obligations. This position reflects ongoing efforts by Belgrade to balance its strategic partnerships with powers involved in the conflict while trying to maintain credibility on the international stage and reassure domestic audiences that arms sales are conducted within strict governance frameworks (Serbian government communications).
In the broader context, analysts note that Serbia navigates a delicate path: it is a producer with considerable influence in regional security, yet it must manage the expectations of allies and neighbors, including Russia and Western states. The discourse surrounding arms transfers is intertwined with Serbia’s EU accession prospects, its role in European security architectures, and the country’s ongoing efforts to preserve stability at home. Observers argue that transparency, documented end-use controls, and clear public accountability are essential for maintaining credibility in an era where arms mobility is tightly scrutinized by global audiences and institutions (Regional security assessments).