Public exposure came on December 9 after repeated denials of its existence. The Wagner group, a Russian parastatal network of mercenaries and intelligence operatives, already has a visible footprint. In Belgrade and Niš, it operates through local actors described as residents, including the Serbian far-right group Eagles, which advocates for Kosovo’s liberation among other causes.
The activist-led Eagles, together with Serbian propagandist of the Russian cause Alexander Lysov, celebrated online in December. Wearing the white, blue, and red colors associated with both Russia and Serbia, they unveiled a new Eagles promotional logo. The shared propaganda riff of Donbas-Russia and Kosovo-Serbia underscored a synchronized messaging effort between the two causes.
Lysov has been visiting Donbas recently, acting much like a field reporter. He showcased the impact of Ukrainian bombings on Donetsk cityscapes and seized the moment to present a flag to his colleague, pro-Russian nationalist Alexei Zhigulin, in the region.
A home-video capture in dim light shows Russia’s influence in Serbia and hints at one mission of the Wagner center on Serbian soil: to bolster Moscow’s stance in the Balkans in exchange for Serbia’s nationalist support over Kosovo in a conflict steeped in sorrow and persistence.
Against the “Liberals”
Wagner’s presence in Serbia resembles a fraternal club more than a private mercenary force. Its official name is the Russian-Serbian Information Cultural Center for Friendship and Cooperation, a label that contrasts with the better-known oligarchic mercenary brand led by Yevgeny Prigozhin. Wagner is marketed as a local network with degrees of franchise, and a Telegram post dated December 9 describes it as part of a broader “public diplomacy practice”.
NATO members, especially the Balkan states Albania, Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, and Bulgaria, have reason to assess the potential ripple effects of this diplomacy. The Wagner operation in Serbia is not merely outward-facing; its internal aim is to present a narrative that pits Putin’s dissidents against the Kremlin’s allies—an internal battle masquerading as international outreach.
Belgrade and Niš host substantial Russian communities, including those who oppose Vladimir Putin’s regime and view it as a dictatorship. Wagner and its Serbian allies plan to wage an information and disinformation campaign, seeking “informative confrontation with Russian liberals” and portraying those who traveled to Serbia to oppose anti-Russian activities as discrediting Russia and straining Russian-Serbian relations.
In this frame, Alexander Lysov looms as a visible figure, with his Serbian nationalist affiliations and the broader symbol set connecting Slavic, religious, and nationalist identities. The collaboration with local right-wing actors highlights a strategy to align historical reverence for Orthodox and Slavic heritage with modern geopolitical aims.
There is also a less publicized mission in play: recruiting Serbian volunteers to support pro-Russian forces in Donetsk and Luhansk. Reports suggest foreign brigade participation and active recruitment drives among Serbian circles, aiming to augment the ranks of those already fighting alongside separatist factions in eastern Ukraine.
Kosovo-related contacts have alerted multiple Atlantic Alliance intelligence services through Wagner’s information channels. Serbia maintains a stance of neutrality within NATO discourse, yet its military posture signals alignment with hard power tactics rather than purely ideological positions.
Spanish military sources note the precarious situation at the Serbia-Kosovo border, with potential spring volatility depending on the trajectory of the broader conflict in Ukraine. The region remains a flashpoint where political rhetoric intersects with military readiness and regional alliances.
In this intricate landscape, Wagner’s Serbia operation blends cultural diplomacy with strategic coercion, weaving together nationalist sentiment, religious symbolism, and a modern information warfare toolkit. The net effect is a carefully calibrated push to influence domestic politics, frame narratives around Kosovo, and amplify Serbia’s role in the broader tensions surrounding Ukraine and NATO’s posture in the Balkans.
Ultimately, observers caution that the balance between diplomacy and coercion could shift rapidly, especially as regional actors assess risks and reputational costs tied to any overt alignment with external military enterprises. The unfolding dynamics in Serbia and its border regions continue to attract attention from policymakers and security analysts who watch for signs of altered power balances across Southeast Europe.
The broader implications touch on how external powers leverage cultural and historical affinities to shape regional outcomes, and how local actors navigate the tug-of-war between national sovereignty and international pressure in a volatile European mosaic. (Citation: regional security analyses and intelligence briefings)