Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić’s recent statements about Serbia’s military strength and its responsibility to protect Serbs beyond its borders have renewed concerns over Belgrade’s regional posture, particularly amid continuing tensions with Kosovo, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Speaking Sunday at a memorial ceremony for 12 Krajina Serb refugees killed by Croatian aircraft in 1995, Vučić said Serbia’s military was now 50 times stronger than the former Yugoslav People’s Army and insisted that Belgrade had no intention of attacking anyone.
“Peace is our number one goal,” Vučić said, while emphasizing that Serbia would always have the capability to defend its people.
The combination of assurances about peace with repeated references to Serbia’s growing military capabilities has nevertheless drawn scrutiny from regional observers, who argue that Belgrade’s rhetoric increasingly resembles a broader narrative about threats to Serbs outside Serbia.
The comparison with Russia’s rhetoric before its full-scale invasion of Ukraine has become particularly prominent.
In the months before Russia launched its February 2022 invasion, Moscow repeatedly portrayed Ukraine as a threat to Russian-speaking populations, questioned Ukraine’s sovereignty and claimed that Russian intervention was necessary to protect people in Donbas.
Critics of Belgrade’s current rhetoric argue that a similar pattern of threat construction is emerging in Serbia, although there is no evidence that Vučić has made a decision to launch a military operation against a neighboring country.
Serbia’s “protection” narrative
In recent weeks, Vučić has repeatedly emphasized the idea that Serbia has a responsibility toward Serbs living outside its borders.
During a visit to Rmanj Monastery in Bosnia and Herzegovina, he said that there were no separate Bosnian or Croatian Serbs, but rather one Serbian people, while emphasizing Serbia’s readiness to protect them.
Such statements have raised concerns among officials and analysts who view the language as potentially challenging the principle that the rights and security of ethnic communities are primarily matters for the states in which they live.
The rhetoric has also included increasingly strong descriptions of alleged threats facing Serbs and Orthodox Christians, including references to “terror” and “ethnic cleansing.”
The claims have been disputed or characterized differently by actors on the ground. The Serbian Orthodox Eparchy of Raška-Prizren, for example, has referred to pressure against Serbs in Kosovo, while Belgrade has used significantly stronger language in describing the situation.
The difference in terminology has become part of the wider political debate over whether Serbia is responding to genuine security concerns or constructing a narrative that could be used to justify greater political or military intervention.
Serbia’s growing military capabilities
At the same time, Serbia has significantly expanded and modernized its armed forces in recent years.
The country has acquired the Israeli PULS multiple-launch rocket system and has announced new missile capabilities. Vučić confirmed in March that Serbia had obtained weapons he described as near-hypersonic.
Kosovo has also repeatedly raised concerns over Serbia’s military deployments and capabilities, particularly those positioned toward its territory.
Belgrade maintains that the buildup is defensive and intended to strengthen deterrence rather than prepare for offensive operations.
Vučić has consistently argued that Serbia’s military strength is designed to prevent conflict by ensuring that no adversary can threaten the country or the Serbian population.
The issue has nevertheless attracted attention from neighboring states.
Croatian President Zoran Milanović questioned Serbia’s military buildup during a visit to Ankara last month, asking what the growing arsenal was intended for and what threat it was designed to counter. He described the situation as unusual.
Belgrade rejected criticism but did not provide a detailed public explanation of the strategic purpose of every element of its expanding military capabilities.
Echoes of pre-war narratives
The debate has also revived comparisons with the rhetoric used by Russia before its invasion of Ukraine.
Between 2021 and February 2022, Russian officials and state-linked commentators repeatedly argued that Moscow had a responsibility to protect Russians and Russian-speaking populations, while portraying Kyiv and the West as growing threats to Russia’s security.
Russia ultimately used similar arguments to justify its military intervention.
The comparison does not establish that Serbia intends to follow the same path. Serbia is economically and politically integrated with Europe to a significantly greater degree than Russia was before the invasion, and Vučić has repeatedly stated that maintaining peace and pursuing European integration are strategic priorities.
Nevertheless, analysts warn that repeated references to threats against Serbs, combined with military modernization and assertions of a right to protect ethnic Serbs outside Serbia, can contribute to an increasingly confrontational regional environment.
The legacy of nationalist politics
The current rhetoric also has a longer political history.
In 1997, Vučić, then a senior figure in the Serbian Radical Party, published an article outlining a strategy that included waiting for shifts in the international balance of power and pursuing Serbian territorial interests through political means and, if necessary, military force.
Vučić’s political positions have changed considerably since then, and he has since presented himself as a guarantor of regional stability and Serbia’s European future.
However, critics argue that elements of the nationalist discourse of the 1990s continue to appear in contemporary political messaging, particularly when relations with Kosovo, Croatia or Bosnia and Herzegovina become tense.
Peace rhetoric and regional concerns
Serbia’s leadership insists that the country’s military expansion is intended to guarantee peace rather than prepare for war.
Vučić has repeatedly said that Serbia does not want conflict and that economic development, investment and modernization remain the country’s priorities.
But regional governments and Western officials face a broader question: whether Serbia’s growing military capabilities and increasingly assertive rhetoric are primarily instruments of deterrence or part of a longer-term strategy to increase Belgrade’s influence over Serb communities in neighboring countries.
For now, there is no public evidence that Serbia is preparing for an imminent military conflict.
The concern lies elsewhere — in the gradual normalization of language that presents developments affecting Serbs outside Serbia as matters of national security and increasingly links that narrative to military strength.
For European governments seeking to prevent a new security crisis in the Western Balkans, the challenge is therefore not simply to monitor Serbia’s military capabilities, but also to pay close attention to the political narratives surrounding their intended use.
