Authorities in Belgrade assert that they have extended invitations to American and Russian security agencies, with their arrival in Serbia anticipated within the next few days. The government insists on a transparent investigation supported by international entities to confirm that no sound weapons were deployed during the recent protest.

Conversely, certain opposition members are advocating for the investigation to be carried out by the UN and the OSCE rather than foreign security services. Initial responses indicate that the government has no objections to their involvement either.

FBI and FSB Inquiry – Evidence of Institutional Breakdown

According to military-political commentator Aleksandar Radić, the government’s appeal is primarily driven by propaganda, viewing it as a tactic to buy time.

“The incident on March 15th is significantly serious and profoundly diminishes trust in the Serbian government. Something occurred that cannot be ignored, and they require an exit strategy and crisis management. However, outside intervention is unnecessary; this issue must be addressed within Serbia. The nation is polarized, with some denying any occurrence and others believing the authorities attacked citizens during a solemn tribute,” Radić argues.

Political analyst Dragomir Andjelković considers the request for foreign security services as a “blunt admission that all Serbian institutions have collapsed.”

“This is entirely on Aleksandar Vučić’s shoulders. It’s alarming when citizens lack faith in the police, judiciary, and other institutions that ought to have credibility. Amidst this internal distrust, Vučić seeks validation from foreign institutions perceived as reputable, rather than relying on our own underperforming agencies,” Andjelković states.

Questioning Government Assertions

The responses from the invited agencies remain uncertain, and it is unclear whether they will accept the invitation to come to Serbia. The Serbian populace only has official statements to rely on claiming their arrival, which cannot be substantiated.

Radić deems it “outrageous for any foreign agency to conduct investigations in Serbia.”

“They have no capacity to provide answers beyond what is publicly available. While state camera footage exists, it is contentious due to its reliance on Chinese facial recognition software, yet it fails to offer tangible evidence for sound weapon usage. Moreover, the state claims they possess equipment they earlier denied, heightening skepticism regarding the validity of any forthcoming statements. We must also ask: how can we trust such sources,” Radić contemplates.

This raises another concern regarding the impartiality of the FSB, as Radić questions whether they can uphold objectivity in their assessment given their known alignment with the Serbian government.

FSB – An Unbiased Ally of Authorities?

Aleksandar Vulin, the deputy prime minister, has publicly thanked Russian services for their backing against the “color revolution,” which Andjelković interprets as evidence that “Vučić might find it easier to collaborate with Russia. Yet, one must consider parallels in the U.S. with Trump and the FBI, who similarly act as political entrepreneurs with interests in Serbia.”

Regarding Russian measures against the “color revolution” as mentioned by Vulin, Andjelković points out that “an analysis of Russian media reveals that they largely mock narratives concerning the colored revolution. Even within a heavily controlled media landscape, this story lacks dominance,” he adds.

What could the FBI and FSB potentially investigate in Serbia? Is there anything necessitating on-site exploration that remote methods couldn’t achieve? While recordings and statements from attendees exist, sound weapons leave no physical trace, potentially explaining why authorities opted to prolong the issue under the guise of transparency.

Political Posturing over Reality

Radić reiterates that “available recordings and statements are sufficient, and these services cannot yield new evidence. State surveillance footage is questionable, especially utilizing flawed technology, while sonic weapon use leaves no material proof. Therefore, interested parties may draw conclusions based on political biases rather than factual evidence,” Radić asserts.

Andjelković believes that “the FBI and FSB’s involvement merely facilitates a deception intended to convince the Serbian public that no misconduct occurred. This type of weaponry is inherently difficult to substantiate, which is why Vučić has resorted to such a convoluted and hard-to-prove narrative,” he elaborates.

(Un)controlled Paramilitary

Radić emphasizes that the discussion largely overlooks the issue of paramilitary organizations in Serbia, which he considers a critical security concern. “The pivotal question is whether a paramilitary group may have deployed a sound cannon. Officials deny any such involvement; if it wasn’t them, then who? Paramilitary groups were undoubtedly present during the March 15 incident, displaying their own insignia. Past incidents, like the Banjska case, illustrate that the state tolerates such groups. In nations where paramilitary entities operate and state security forces are marginalized, they often become threats to their own populations,” Radić concluded for DW.

News