German journalist Michael Martens has written about Serbia’s relationship with the United States, Belgrade’s decision to indirectly provide military assistance to Ukraine, and the role of former U.S. Ambassador to Serbia Christopher Hill in facilitating communication between Belgrade and Kyiv.
In a post on X, Martens quoted Hill describing a meeting with the Ukrainian ambassador in Belgrade, during which Ukraine presented a list of military equipment it urgently needed on the battlefield and asked whether Serbia had the capacity to respond.
“Early in my mandate in Belgrade, the Ukrainian ambassador came to me with a list of defensive equipment that Ukraine desperately needed on the battlefield. My embassy team examined whether Serbia had the capabilities to respond to these requests, and it turned out that it did,” Hill was quoted as saying.
Martens explains that Serbia has continued to insist that it has never directly sold Ukraine even a single bullet. Formally, he notes, this claim is accurate, because the deliveries were routed through intermediary countries such as Poland before reaching Ukraine.
“However, everyone involved in Belgrade knew that countries like Poland and the Czech Republic were not the final destination of the military equipment. Naturally, the Russians had also noticed these transactions,” Martens wrote.
According to Martens, Serbia received warnings behind the scenes regarding this cooperation with Ukraine, while Russian intelligence agencies also publicly criticized Belgrade over the matter.
Hill reportedly emphasized that for the United States it was important that Serbia’s involvement was not viewed as benefiting from the war, but rather as part of a long-term relationship between Serbia and Ukraine based on shared interests.
Martens writes that Hill’s objective was for “Serbia to remain on the right side of history,” despite criticism that Belgrade had refused to impose sanctions on Russia following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
“Hill, who was viewed by Serbia’s opposition and many NGOs as being too close to Vučić during his time as ambassador, considers the criticism of Serbia for not joining sanctions against Russia to be excessive,” Martens wrote.
The FAZ journalist also described Hill’s approach in Serbia, saying the ambassador wanted Belgrade not merely to comply with Western demands but to play a role in creating a broader strategic shift.
“The Russians were, of course, extremely unhappy with the developing relationship between Ukraine and Serbia,” Hill said, according to Martens. “This is why Russia publicly criticized Belgrade, and the influence of such criticism should not be underestimated given the prevailing mood in Serbia.”
Martens also questioned Hill about whether Serbia was playing a double game by supporting Ukraine while maintaining military ties with Russia.
According to Hill, the United States closely monitored whether Serbia was cooperating with Russia in any significant way.
“It was a high priority for the United States to closely monitor whether Serbia was cooperating with the Russians in any way. We devoted considerable resources to ensuring that we understood the real situation,” Hill said.
Martens added that Hill had previously stated that, according to U.S. intelligence assessments, there had been no significant arms sales from Serbia to Russia.
In conclusion, Martens writes that Hill views Serbia’s indirect assistance to Ukraine as a highly positive example of U.S.-Serbian cooperation.
“He describes it as ‘an example of strategic cooperation,’” Martens concluded.
