Recently, representatives from several significant nations have publicly expressed support for Serbia’s progressive government, almost as if directed to do so. Notably, high-ranking officials from the United States, Russia, and the European Union found themselves echoing similar sentiments.

Russia’s response was somewhat anticipated, as the Russian government generally opposes street protests. Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, remarked that “Serbia-Russia relations are a thorn in the West’s side” and claimed that “provocations aim to shift the protests from democratic to anti-state,” implying this is a common tactic of the West.

Conversely, the West has faced accusations from Serbian regime media alleging its involvement in an attempted color revolution, yet it has offered reassuring statements to Vučić. For instance, Gert Jan Kopman, the Director General of the European Commission’s Directorate for Neighborhood and Enlargement Negotiations, reportedly stated during a private meeting in Belgrade with opposition figures that “the European Union will not accept or support a violent change of government in Serbia.”

A similar point was made by Richard Grenell, the special envoy for former US President Donald Trump, who expressed on his X account: “We do not support those who undermine the rule of law or violently seize government buildings. If you disapprove of the law or the leader, work for change without resorting to violence.”

Give me what you can and we’ll turn a blind eye

These messages were interpreted differently across the political spectrum. Pro-government media perceived them as explicit backing for Vučić, while opponents of the regime found them disheartening for pro-democracy efforts in the country.

As for Russia, which is limited in its friends in Europe, it applies a give-and-take principle. Duško Lopandić, vice president of the European Movement in Serbia, noted to DW that “Russia is in a position where it has limited options, and Serbia’s refusal to impose sanctions on Russia suffices for them.”

On the subject of the European Union, Lopandić criticized its bureaucratic approach and claimed it turns a blind eye to the ongoing crisis. He argued that the EU’s priority is for Serbia to distance itself from Russia, showing more interest in stability and a resolution to the Kosovo issue than in the state of democracy and political systems in Serbia.

Moreover, Lopandić suggested that Grenell “has business ties, either direct or indirect, with the Serbian regime, which is quite skilled in transactional relations. However, I believe this support is tenuous and will dissipate as the regime reaches its inevitable decline, which has likely already started.”

Low value of the EU flag

The regime media’s victorious tone only fueled further support for the authorities but didn’t resonate well with the protesting citizens of Serbia. While protestors remained optimistic and encouraged each other with the belief that “we will have to resolve some issues ourselves,” there lingered a concern regarding how this interplay of Western and Russian backing might demoralize their resistance.

“I don’t believe it will, but the concern from my perspective is how negatively this transactional relationship will impact the EU’s image in Serbia,” noted Lopandić, adding:

“Previously, EU flags were prominently displayed alongside Serbian flags at demonstrations, but that is no longer the case. There have been incidents involving EU flags at protests, signifying this shift. Even as Serbia’s democratic standards decline, there are claims of progress. This creates an adverse public sentiment. Consequently, I believe it will not discourage the protestors, as the citizens have become desensitized to the EU’s long-standing narrative of non-existent progress,” Lopandić observed.

The regime dictated the messages?

Interestingly, both Grenell and EU representatives underscored that governmental power is not achieved through street violence, raising suspicions about a potential coordinated Western approach to the situation.

Lopandić described this as “a piece of government propaganda that has successfully elicited responses from them. We have witnessed numerous protests across Serbia, with hardly any violence occurring—other than in retaliation. This reflects a belief that stability derived from stabilocracy is worth pursuing, which is a troubling mindset.”

Support and demolition at the same time

The widespread attention these statements garnered reveals a strong belief among the Serbian populace that political change is unattainable without Western influence. Yet, this also highlights the regime’s persistent narrative that the West is both undermining and supporting it simultaneously.

“This is propaganda aimed at staunch regime supporters, stemming from years of anti-Western sentiments, leading them to readily accept the notion that the West is their enemy. The current crisis originated from internal issues—predominantly corruption and governance failures. The younger generation recognizes this as a system that perpetually generates inequality,” concludes Duško Lopandić, vice president of the European Movement in Serbia.

News