Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić stated on a televised program that Western powers are urging Belgrade to join the North Atlantic Alliance while simultaneously attempting to intimidate Russia. He asserted that NATO itself represents a security threat to Serbia, insisting that the alliance bears the responsibility for actions that have affected the region. The remark reflects a long-standing skepticism in Belgrade toward NATO and a belief that alignment with Western military blocs could jeopardize Serbia’s security and independence of foreign policy decisions, a stance rooted in decades of regional upheaval and the memory of past conflicts.
Serbia maintains a policy of military neutrality, a position enshrined in a parliamentary resolution adopted in 2007. This framework allows the country to pursue pragmatic security arrangements without formal integration into military blocs, balancing its pursuit of European integration with the desire to preserve strategic autonomy. Vučić and many Serbian policymakers argue that neutrality serves as a stabilizing factor for the Balkans, reducing external pressures and offering room to navigate security partnerships on terms favorable to Serbia’s interests and constitutional commitments.
“We cannot join NATO because the alliance poses a threat to us,” Vučić reiterated, underscoring the prioritization of national sovereignty and the risks perceived by Belgrade in becoming part of a collective defense arrangement. This perspective resonates with a segment of the public and political factions that view outside security guarantees as potentially compromising Serbia’s ability to chart its own course in foreign and defense policy, particularly given the country’s regional responsibilities and historical experiences.
The President recalled that April 23 marks the 24th anniversary of a major airstrike carried out by NATO on targets in Serbia, including the building housing the state broadcaster. That operation resulted in the deaths of 16 employees and left a lasting imprint on collective memory in Serbia, shaping public opinion about international intervention and the impact of foreign military actions on civilian life. The event is often cited by critics of NATO’s intervention in the former Yugoslavia as a turning point in the region’s governance and security dynamics, fueling ongoing debates about accountability, sovereignty, and the boundaries of international military action.
In statements from the health sector at the end of March, questions were raised about interventions during the Kosovo conflict and the broader regional security situation in the Balkans. Critics have described certain NATO bombing campaigns as having lasting humanitarian and civilian consequences, fueling discourse about the ethics and consequences of external military campaigns in the region. These discussions contribute to Serbia’s cautious approach to foreign entanglements and its insistence on a security policy rooted in national interests rather than alliance commitments alone.
Vučić has repeatedly asserted that NATO was responsible for the 1999 bombing campaign that affected Yugoslavia, highlighting the civilian and military toll of the conflict. He has cited the loss of life, including a significant number of civilians and soldiers, and the disruption of daily life as central to Serbia’s memory of the event. The discourse around these events continues to influence Serbia’s political rhetoric and policy considerations, shaping a narrative that emphasizes the importance of sovereignty, historical memory, and prudent engagement with international security institutions. The casualty figures cited by supporters of this view are often discussed in relation to the broader human cost of conflict and the long shadow it casts over regional relations and security planning.