Serbian leader Vucic defies EU with Russia visit
Russian state TV showed footage of Vucic in the capital, where the Kremlin said he will also have a meeting with President Vladimir Putin after Friday's parade.
"After many years, back in Moscow," Vucic wrote on Instagram, sharing a photo of him at Moscow airport.
The European Union has repeatedly warned it would not look favourably upon such actions by member states or candidate countries, which Serbia has been since 2012.
"Relations with Russia cannot be business as usual," European Commission spokesman Markus Lammert said last week, referring to Moscow's invasion of Ukraine.
But he declined to speculate on any consequences.
That has left room for manoeuvre for Vucic, whom Putin honoured with a top award in 2019 for promoting ties between the countries.
In a sign of the tightrope he is walking, Vucic, who has been in power since 2012, received the Russian ambassador Wednesday before his departure for Moscow, swiftly followed by the British ambassador, just days after a visit to the United States.
The Balkan country has long held close ties with Russia and a shared aversion to NATO since the 1999 Kosovo war bombings.
Delicate balance
Since Russian troops invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Belgrade has maintained relations with Moscow and imposed no sanctions, yet supported UN resolutions against it.
Maintaining good relations with Putin without alienating EU favour is "one of the pillars" of Vucic's foreign policy, even if "he has been more careful in recent years", said Florian Bieber, of the University of Graz.
It is also about "calibrating the intensity of Serbia's relationship with Europe", said Eric Gordy, a Balkans specialist at University College London, who compared Vucic's approach to that of former Yugoslav president Josip Broz Tito.
From the Russian side, having "the biggest country and the largest economy in the middle of the Balkans is a very significant lever -- not to directly influence but simply to be present, to provoke... instrumentalise (or even) undermine EU projects," said Nemanja Todorovic Stiplija, from the Belgrade-based Centre for Contemporary Politics think tank.
Misunderstanding
Ties include contracts for Russian Mi-17 helicopters and a Pantsir air defence system sold to Serbia.
During the Covid pandemic, Russia provided medical equipment and Sputnik vaccines, while Moscow has supported Serbia at the UN, particularly over Belgrade's claim to its former province of Kosovo, which declared independence in 2008.
The Orthodox Church and the presence in Serbia of Russian media outlets such as Sputnik, TASS and RT Balkan provide useful communication channels for Putin, whose likeness adorns mugs, magnets, t-shirts and socks sold at kiosks in the heart of Belgrade.
Russia also retains a stranglehold through control of gas supplies, with its energy giant Gazprom owning critical energy infrastructure in Serbia.
Vucic faces pressure there too, as Belgrade negotiates a new multi-year gas deal with Russia when the current agreement expires at the end of May.
Russian investment, though, is dwarfed by China, which has pumped billions into Serbia and its Balkan neighbours in recent years, as it tries to expand its economic footprint in central Europe.
Another key player is the EU with whom Serbia conducts most of its trade.
Stiplija said the Kremlin's grip "is not that extensive but the Serbian government is trying to somehow use this misunderstanding... that there is a very big Russian political influence".
For Bieber, there is a "shared influence", pointing out that "most anti-Western media in Serbia are Serbian outlets".
Gordy said that Vucic's Moscow trip is "a populist gesture towards Serbia's right-wing fringe" as he battles widespread protests stemming from a deadly railway station roof collapse in Novi Sad last year that has become a symbol of deep-rooted corruption.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
How did Israel's attacks impact Iran's nuclear programme?
On Thursday morning, Israel attacked Iran's Arak heavy water reactor, one of the country's largest nuclear facilities, located 250 kilometres southwest of the capital Tehran. The facility had been completely evacuated, with no damage to the civilian areas surrounding the reactor, according to Iranian sources. According to the US non-profit Missile Defence Advocacy Alliance, the Arak nuclear reactor, also known as IR-40, is a heavy-water nuclear reactor that began operating in 2003. However, its design origins are unclear, with foreign experts believed to have contributed to its construction, including the Russian design firm Nikit. Reports indicate that Iran sought to present the reactor as "not to be used to produce nuclear material of military purity", but it was capable of producing about 9 kilograms of plutonium, raising US concerns that this could enable Tehran to manufacture a plutonium-based nuclear weapon. After signing the Iran nuclear deal in 2015, the international community conditioned the modification of the Arak reactor on the lifting of sanctions. In 2016, Iran announced that it had filled the reactor core with cement. However, in February of the same year, Tehran exceeded the maximum permissible heavy water stockpile limit for the first time, a limit that was also surpassed again in November 2016. In addition, Tehran transferred more than 80 metric tonnes of heavy water, formerly intended for the Arak reactor, to Oman. Although Iran still has control over this quantity, its cross-border transfer was not considered a breach of the agreement. In one of Israel's extensive military attacks on Iran, the strikes which began last Friday targeted critical nuclear sites, severely damaging its nuclear programme, according to multiple reports, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) data and recent satellite imagery. The strikes targeted three major uranium enrichment sites across the Middle Eastern country. At Natanz's central underground facility, the electrical infrastructure was reportedly completely destroyed, including backup power plants, leading to the possible damage or destruction of thousands of centrifuges, as confirmed by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi. At the same site, a smaller near-surface facility, the PFEP pilot plant, was declared completely destroyed. It contained advanced centrifuges that enriched uranium up to 60%. No visible damage was reported to the Fordow bunker facility. However, Fordow produces the most significant amount of uranium enriched to 60%, which is a few simple steps away from reaching the level of making a nuclear bomb. Four further sites were targeted in Isfahan, including a uranium conversion centre and facilities to work on uranium metallurgy technology, which is essential for making the core of a nuclear weapon. The centrifuge production workshops in Karaj and Tehran, also struck in Israeli attacks, were previously monitored by the IAEA, but the number of remaining undeclared workshops is unknown. Furthermore, at least 14 Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed since the attacks began, according to multiple sources in the region. The Israeli military said nine of them were a "key element" in Tehran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. According to IAEA estimates as of Tuesday, Iran has enough uranium enriched up to 60% to make up to nine nuclear bombs. It also has further uranium enriched to a lesser degree that could be used to produce additional bombs. Tehran has announced that it will take "undeclared" measures to protect nuclear material and equipment and may reduce co-operation with the IAEA, while Iran's parliament is considering a bill to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), following North Korea's example. If the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan goes offline, Iran will have to find external sources of uranium hexafluoride (UF6), the key ingredient in the enrichment process.
Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
MEPs back mandatory microchipping of all cats and dogs in the EU
The European Parliament has backed the mandatory microchipping of all cats and dogs across the EU, in a bid to reduce fraud and improve the enforcement of animal welfare standards. This brings the EU a step closer to setting minimum common standards for the breeding and keeping of cats and dogs, after the vote on amendments to the European Commission's original proposal. This vote paves the way for negotiations with EU ministers, who had already adopted their position last year. Currently, pet registration is mandatory in 24 EU member states, but the systems are fragmented. Only a private initiative, Europetnet, links national and regional databases in 17 countries. MEPs also proposed that dogs and cats imported from non-EU countries for sale must be microchipped before entry and registered in a national database. "This marks a clear move against illegal breeding and the irresponsible importation of animals from outside the EU," said Veronika Vrecionová, the Czech conservative MEP who acted as rapporteur on the file. Animal welfare organisations hailed the vote as a major breakthrough, noting that the law would ensure basic standards - including proper feeding, veterinary care and protection from abuse - helping eliminate unregulated backyard breeding and abusive puppy and kitten mills. Some earlier amendments by MEPs had sparked concerns for potentially facilitating illegal trade. However, animal welfare NGOs confirmed these issues were resolved in the final plenary vote. Crucially, the Parliament went beyond the Commission's original proposal by calling for full identification and registration of all kept cats and dogs, not just those placed on the market. "MEPs have finally taken a step today that we've been waiting for for years, one that could end the illegal pet trade once and for all in Europe," said Joe Moran, European office director for FOUR PAWS International. To prevent the exploitation of animals, MEPs also want to limit the number of litters a female animal can have during her lifetime. The rules would apply universally to all breeders, regardless of their size. In particular, the European Parliament took a positive step by including small breeders in the scope of the proposal, according to Iwona Mertin, companion animals programme leader at Eurogroup for Animals. "This is significant, especially in countries where 80% of breeders produce fewer than four litters per year. Without this, a major loophole would remain," she said. There are currently 127 million cats and 104 million dogs in the EU, with about 44% of households owning a pet. The sector's annual value is estimated at €1.3 billion, according to EU Commission data. MEPs also left the door open to extending the law's protections to other companion animals in the future, by supporting the creation of a so-called "Positive List," namely a list that would allow only species deemed suitable to be kept and sold as pets. Final negotiations between the Parliament and EU ministers are expected to begin soon, marking the last phase before the law can be adopted. A missile has hit the vicinity of the European Union delegation in Tel Aviv, according to several sources consulted by Euronews. The origin of the missile was not immediately clear, but it was presumed to be a projectile fired by Iran against Israel amid the military escalation between the two countries, now on its seventh day. The strike happened near a district with several embassies, including those from the United Kingdom, Austria, the Netherlands and Belgium. An EU official indicated all personnel of the delegation were "safe and sound." This is a developing story.
Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
Is this the UN's last chance to take the right side in history?
"War is the continuation of policy with other means," Carl von Clausewitz's haunting observation has echoed through generations of statesmen, soldiers and scholars. It is not a celebration of violence, but a sober reflection on the nature of power, diplomacy and human conflict. Today, this quote is more than an abstract idea; it is a lens through which we must examine the paralysis of international institutions, particularly the United Nations, in the face of the Iranian nuclear threat, which went unabated for so long. I have always believed in the importance and power of international organisations and have worked closely with UN bodies, participating in efforts that sought to uphold human rights, protect civilians, and foster international cooperation. Like many who grew up in the shadow of World War II, I saw the UN as potentially a moral beacon, a structure built on the ashes of the crematoria, forged by a collective promise: Never Again. Nevertheless, here we are. In 2025, the global Jewish population is finally expected to reach its pre-Holocaust size. That should be a cause for hope, for reflection, and for solemn gratitude. Instead, the Jewish State is left to militarily confront a regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran, that has never tried to hide its desire to annihilate Israel. From its leaders' genocidal rhetoric to its funding of terrorist proxies and pursuit of nuclear weapons, Iran's intentions were never speculative. They are spoken clearly, broadcast openly and carried out violently. Where was the outcry? Where was the moral clarity that once defined the post-war global order? Israel has no aversion to diplomacy, but sometimes diplomacy must follow, not precede, the clear demonstration that Iran cannot and will not achieve its goals. For now, that lesson has to be taught on the battlefield. As enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, 'Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations…' Israel's actions are not acts of aggression; they are acts of lawful self-defence, taken to prevent another 7 October but on a far greater scale, which itself was the first act in this war of aggression by the Islamic Republic and its proxies. Any institution truly committed to peace and security must recognise this right and support it, not condemn it out of fear or political convenience. The world should see in Israel's determination to destroy the Iranian genocidal threat that diplomacy is a tool, not a virtue in itself. It must be wielded strategically, with eyes open. The hard truth is that diplomacy only works when backed by strength, when the other side believes that refusal to compromise carries unacceptable consequences. Without that, negotiations become little more than performance, a charade designed to delay, deflect, and deceive. This is the lesson from Tehran going back decades. This is also a lesson that institutions like the United Nations have tragically forgotten. Where I once placed deep faith in the UN's moral mission, I now watch with a heavy heart as that promise falters. Working for many years with UN institutions, I witnessed the good they can do, but also the growing tendency toward equivocation, toward moral relativism, toward a fear of action against evil, of taking sides, even when the facts scream for judgment. Time and again, the UN settled for diluted resolutions aimed at appeasing the unappeasable - an approach that prioritised false balance over moral clarity. For too long, there had been no unequivocal condemnation of the Iranian regime's threats against Israel. No unambiguous denunciation of its proxies' murderous attacks on civilians. Silence, or, worse, symmetry, dominates the global discourse, as though a liberal democracy defending itself against an existential threat is no different from a theocratic regime calling for genocide. This silence is not neutral. It is a message, and it will not go unnoticed. This moment is not simply about Israel and Iran. It is about whether the world still remembers the moral foundations upon which institutions like the UN were built. If the UN cannot stand against a regime that openly declares its intention to destroy a member state, and a people, then what, exactly, does it stand for? Clausewitz's maxim is not an endorsement of war. It is a warning: when diplomacy loses credibility, war becomes the tool of last resort. The United Nations must ask itself what role it played in this equation. It failed to take a stand against naked aggression and the constant shrill of incitement to genocide. The Israel-Iran conflict is not just another diplomatic crisis. It is a test of the international system's moral spine. The Iranian regime was never made to understand that it could not succeed in its nuclear and annihilationist ambitions. This is perhaps the UN's last opportunity to take the right side in the history of humanity. If it fails now, it risks irrelevance, or worse, complicity. Israel has taught the international community a stinging lesson: for peace to prevail, it must be defended, not only with words, but with resolve and action. Robert Singer is the chairman of the Center for Jewish Impact and the former CEO of World ORT and the World Jewish Congress.
