There has been nothing like the Russian invasion of Ukraine since the Second World War. The peace that will come to Ukraine will be unlike any we remember or studied about in history class.

Helsinki, Vienna, and Geneva, these capitals of magnificent diplomatic reach where agreements were made to end bloody conflicts around the world, will not be part of the new Ukrainian and Russian history. Peace in Ukraine is seeking a place that can ensure its longevity.

It is difficult, almost impossible, to find a place or people in today’s world walking the middle path. The planet is extremely polarized. There is no conflict that does not divide us into a developed North and a poor South, for example, or a declining West and a growing East. Division has become an inevitable aspect of intellectual reflection, not to mention the political strategies that stake their hopes of supremacy on it.

Serbia has a unique position on the international stage that allows it to balance between the most important global actors. The legitimacy to offer Belgrade as a negotiation venue stems from its ability to maintain positive relations with all parties, even during times of global division. It is precisely this balance between strong moral and material support for Ukraine and pragmatic relations with Russia that makes Serbia exceptionally qualified for such a historic task.

Those who have attempted to resist polarization have faced significant hardship from both sides while attempting to establish an equal distance. Today, a state’s riskiest strategy is to avoid aligning itself with any particular bloc—NATO, Russia, or its allies from renegade states like Iran and North Korea; or the Chinese bloc and its silent followers from East Asia, Africa, and Latin America. What about the blocs in the Middle East crisis, where the alliances and enmities are older than any of us who read the Kyiv Post?

President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed his hope for the end of the war with Russia through diplomatic means in 2025. We are hopeful that this will come true. If he believes this, then let’s assist him in realizing his hope, as it is truly the right time.

Despite our hopes and expectations, we don’t know what this peace will be like. Undoubtedly, your author shares the expectations of every Ukrainian for peace that will preserve the Ukrainian state and its people within internationally recognized borders. This expectation is based on the civilizational legacy left to us by the post-World War II order and made official in the UN Charter.

Belgrade already has a reputation as a city that is open to dialog. The organization of the negotiations to resolve the Kosovo issue, as well as many other international meetings, has shown that Belgrade could be a suitable place for complex discussions. Moreover, Serbia has the infrastructural capacities and security conditions to ensure the smooth organization of such events.

However, the peace negotiations are in the hands of the negotiators. Martin Luther King said, “Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.”

For this reason, we will refrain from proposing or advocating a specific peace formula here. However, we aim to present a crucial element of future peace, which, in a polarized world, can hold equal significance as the formula for a peaceful resolution. Let’s discuss the location and the people who have the potential to host and promote peace in Ukraine.

They are not numerous; in fact, they are scarce. Let us consider what requirements the host and witness of this historical act should fulfill. First of all, the host must be acceptable to both sides—not as a mediator, but simply as a host who makes both parties feel equally respected and welcome.
Almost all of the world’s known capitals of peacekeeping so far, such as the aforementioned Helsinki (NATO), Vienna (EU), and Geneva (the failed Swiss host of the peace conference), fail under this criterion.

The Russian negotiators will not come to any NATO and EU capital, and the Ukrainian ones will not go to any capital that has not provided at least some tangible support for their resistance to Russian aggression.

Early in the war, Turkey attempted to serve as a mediator between the warring parties, and its efforts were not without success. Its mediation was successful in the exchange of prisoners and the export of grain via the Black Sea ports. But Turkey is still a member of NATO.

China has been presenting some sort of peace plan, feigning neutrality and seeking peace, but there is ample evidence of its support for Moscow, which disqualifies it as a provider of good, peacemaking services.

As a country that has suffered sanctions, bombings, and difficult political changes, Serbia understands the complexities of peace negotiations and knows well the transition from conflict to stability.

Its history, no matter how hard, demonstrates that dialogue, despite its challenges, remains the only viable path toward stability and development.
Serbia’s neutrality can become a catalyst to redefine the role of smaller countries in international relations. At a time when major powers dominate the global agenda, Serbia can prove that even smaller states can also contribute to peace on a global level with their unique position and diplomacy. This would not only strengthen its international position but also set an example for other countries to actively participate in global peace.
So, let us try with Serbia!

Serbia is acceptable for Moscow because it is not a member of NATO or the EU, which the Kremlin regards as enemies. Serbia is acceptable because it is the only European country that has not imposed economic sanctions against Russia. Serbia has neither blocked nor nationalized one of the largest Russian energy assets in Southeast Europe, namely the Russian majority stake in the Serbian oil company NIS, although this Serbian gas and oil monopoly is facing considerable difficulties in carrying out its business activities due to European sanctions. Apart from Turkey, Serbia is the only European country that has not suspended air traffic with Russia and serves as one of the rare hubs for Russians (those who are allowed) to travel to Europe.

On the other hand, Serbia has politically supported Ukraine, its sovereignty, and its territorial integrity, including Crimea, whenever necessary. This support has been consistent not only since February 2022, but also since the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. In the UN, Serbia has voted four times for the condemnation of Russian aggression, along with the demand for the withdrawal of Russian troops from the occupied territories in eastern Ukraine. It has also voted to exclude Russia from the UN Human Rights Council.

It is equally important that Serbia continues to send humanitarian aid and funds to the Ukrainian people, including USD 32.4 million in March of this year. To date, Serbia has sent a total of 52 million USD to Ukraine. Relevant reports indicate that Serbia has dispatched a substantial quantity of weapons valued over one billion USD to Ukraine, a move that most NATO members have not yet undertaken.

The First Lady of Serbia, Tamara Vučić, and the First Lady of Ukraine, Olena Zelenska, have contributed even more than tens of millions of dollars and thousands of artillery shells to bring the two brotherly nations together, with their frequent meetings advocating for the care of refugees, hospital patients, and the future of youth education when the peace comes.

By hosting the peace talks, Serbia could symbolize the beginning of a new era for Europe. This new era will be one where peace will not rely solely on the superpowers but rather on a shared commitment to values and a mutual understanding of all parties’ needs. The Belgrade Agreement, with its symbolic name, could become a model for future peace processes around the world.

Future peace will be difficult to achieve and fraught with countless obstacles. However, let’s attempt to eliminate at least one significant obstacle. Who will treat the warring parties’ representatives equally at the airport and at the negotiation table? In whose capital will both Russians and Ukrainians feel safe, respected, and surrounded by goodwill?

Serbia’s policy of closeness to both warring parties has already resulted in political consequences. Many Europeans view Serbia as Russia’s agent, positioned to gain EU membership. The Kremlin views Serbia as a deceitful ally involved in collusion with Kyiv. Nevertheless, this position of Serbia—as difficult as it may be—could be the key to opening a dialog that would mark a turning point in European history.

This will culminate in some future Belgrade Agreement, a colloquial term for the agreement that not only brought peace to Ukraine but also to the entirety of Europe.

Serbia has the opportunity to take on a role rarely seen in its history—the role of a catalyst for peace at a time when the world is losing faith in the possibility of agreement. And today’s Serbia can and will do that. The Belgrade Agreement could become a symbol not only for the renewal of Ukraine, but also for the renewal of faith in diplomacy.