The Serbian prime minister, Ana Brnabić, indicated that Moscow had cautioned Belgrade about the possibility of public disorder. The information surfaced via a Serbian television channel, TV Pink, which cited government sources in its report.
Brnabić explained that Russian intelligence services conveyed warnings of potential unrest to Serbian authorities. Yet she added that the reaction inside Serbia was mixed: some officials and commentators dismissed the warnings as exaggerations or misinformation, while others were skeptical of the state’s ability to handle the risk. She noted that a share of the population was aware of these warnings but chose not to assist the authorities in addressing the coming challenges, reflecting a climate of hesitation and doubt among several sectors of society.
In a related development, President Aleksandar Vučić was preparing to meet with Alexander Bocan-Karcha, the Russian ambassador to Belgrade, to discuss the unrest that had unfolded in the capital city. The anticipated talks were framed as part of ongoing efforts to manage Serbia’s diplomatic position during a period of heightened tension and irregular demonstrations in Belgrade’s administrative area.
Earlier, Vučić had commented on the security incident in front of the Belgrade administration, noting that two police officers had sustained serious injuries during the clashes. The remarks underscored the seriousness of the day’s events and the authorities’ stance on maintaining public order in the face of disruptions.
Additionally, Vučić reiterated a principled position on international sanctions, emphasizing that Serbia’s moral posture did not permit sanctions against Russia. This stance underscored the country’s careful balancing act between diplomatic ties with Moscow and its own economic and political considerations on the broader European stage.
The sequence of statements and planned engagements highlights Serbia’s delicate navigation of an evolving regional situation. Authorities have repeatedly urged calm, emphasized legal channels for addressing grievances, and signaled readiness to engage with international partners, including Russia, to prevent further escalation. Observers note that the shifting narrative around these warnings and the responses from Belgrade reflect broader questions about national sovereignty, media messaging, and public trust during times of unrest.
While the government stresses the importance of transparency and restraint, residents and analysts alike are watching how Belgrade will reconcile the conflicting signals from foreign intelligence services, domestic political actors, and civil society groups. The coming weeks are likely to bring further statements, meetings, and a continued focus on ensuring stability while safeguarding Serbia’s strategic interests on the international stage.