At a diplomatic conference in Belgrade on Dec. 24, 2025, Aleksandar Vučić presented regional defense developments as evidence of a coordinated campaign against Serbia. The argument rested less on newly disclosed facts than on a familiar framing: that military cooperation among neighboring states, combined with diplomatic momentum on Kosovo, amounts to strategic pressure on Belgrade. Vučić described the preservation of peace and stability as Serbia’s “most difficult” task, while attributing the difficulty primarily to external actors.

The president cautioned against minimizing defense contacts among Pristina, Albania, and Croatia, asserting that such cooperation carries “clear political and security objectives.” He said he raised these concerns with NATO and the European Union, but received no “clear answers,” a formulation that reinforces a sense of grievance while offering little detail on the substance of those exchanges.

“Against Whom Is the Arming Directed?”

Vučić sharpened his message by citing specific procurements, though without contextual comparison. “Why (purchase) a hundred new wheeled armored vehicles? Why 18 new Caesars? Why planes, anti-aircraft weapons, and everything else?” he asked. Rejecting the idea that such systems could be aimed at Austria, he concluded: “It won’t be because of Austria. It must be because of Serbia.” The framing assumes intent from capability, a leap that critics argue overlooks alliance planning, modernization cycles, and national defense rationales.

He extended the argument by noting that “Everyone in our surroundings is either in NATO or on the NATO path, like Bosnia and Herzegovina,” adding that the alliance would be “strong enough to, at any moment, overpower a tiny Serbia.” The juxtaposition casts Serbia as simultaneously non-threatening and uniquely targeted, a rhetorical tension that has characterized Vučić’s security discourse for years.

Kosovo, Law, and Selective Attribution

The president further linked regional military trends to Kosovo, asserting that principles of the United Nations Charter and UN Security Council Resolution 1244 are being violated. He claimed that the United States and Türkiye are “openly and unambiguously arming Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija,” adding: “There is one single goal: directly threatening the Republic of Serbia and its territorial integrity, and attacking the civilian population and the military-police structures of the Republic of Serbia.” The assertion, reported by Tanjug, was presented without corroborating detail.

Vučić also spoke of a “new wave” of recognitions of Kosovo’s independence, stating: “Many regional and big world factors have started a new wave of recognition of Kosovo's independence.” He singled out cases where, in his words, “for Sudan and Syria, the influence is clear and unambiguous: firstly of Türkiye, secondly of Saudi Arabia.” Kosovo declared independence in 2008 and has been recognized by about 119 states, including Türkiye. Serbia continues to reject that status and to campaign for de-recognition.

The address reinforced Belgrade’s long-standing narrative of external pressure and legal grievance, while sidestepping how Serbia’s own policies shape regional perceptions.