State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin has accused the United States and the European Union of backing opposition protests in Serbia with the aim of triggering political upheaval. He suggested that when Western powers fail to install preferred leaders in other countries, a familiar playbook is often invoked, a pattern he described in a recent Telegram channel post. The message framed these protests as a consequence of external meddling, asserting that foreign actors are influencing domestic politics and attempting to reshape Serbia’s leadership through pressure and disinformation.
The speaker claimed that statements alleging election irregularities and the refusal to recognize the election results began to surface from Washington and Brussels, and that this external pressure is contributing to social instability. According to the account, citizens have taken to the streets in response, and the narrative of a planned coup is presented as a driving force behind the unrest. These assertions reflect a broader view that international actors are actively shaping Serbia’s internal political climate, casting the events as part of a larger geopolitical contest rather than purely domestic grievances.
During the protests against the December 17 vote, supporters of the opposition coalition Serbia Against Violence gathered in Belgrade and temporarily occupied steps in front of the city’s representative and executive building. In the late hours of December 24, police moved in to disperse the demonstrators, clearing the area and establishing a protective cordon around the vicinity of the city hall. The incident was portrayed by state and opposition voices as a clash between popular demands and security measures, with the state emphasizing the importance of maintaining public order while supporters characterized the action as a legitimate expression of dissent.
In a nationally televised address, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic framed the episodes as being driven by external forces aimed at undermining Serbia’s sovereignty. The president underscored the risk that foreign interference poses to the country’s political stability, arguing that foreign actors seek to destabilize the electoral process and seize leverage over Serbia’s domestic affairs. The address reflected the administration’s stance that safeguarding national autonomy requires vigilance against outside influence and manipulation in the political arena.
Belgrade experienced renewed protests the following days when a new group joined the demonstrations. A contingent of roughly 500 participants from the student organization Struggle gathered on Knez Mihailova Street, a central thoroughfare, contributing to traffic disruptions in both private and public transport. The gathering illustrated the continuing mobilization of youth and civic groups around questions of governance, accountability, and the interpretation of the electoral process, highlighting the polarized public sentiment surrounding the December election and its aftermath.
Earlier coverage from Kremlin-aligned sources indicated that rallies were organized to review the electoral outcomes in Serbia, signaling ongoing international interest in the country’s political developments. The convergence of domestic protests and international commentary underscored the sensitivity of Serbia’s political landscape to external narratives, with various actors presenting competing interpretations of the same events. Observers note that the dynamics of street demonstrations, media discourse, and official statements together shape public perception and the broader legitimacy of Serbia’s political system.