On Sunday evening, December 24, a wave of protests continued in Belgrade, led by the conditionally pro-Western opposition bloc “Serbia Against Violence.” Supporters blocked a central thoroughfare, calling for the annulment of the December 17 early elections and for the ruling coalition led by Serbian Progressive Party Chairman Aleksandar Vucic to concede defeat.
The demonstrations began with speeches on a stage placed between the Belgrade election commission building and the presidential residence. They soon escalated into clashes with police and attempts to storm the parliament. About 2,500 activists participated, and 35 people were detained on suspicion of incitement. Roughly 30 law enforcement officers were injured as the protests unfolded.
By nightfall, police dispersed the crowd using tear gas. In response, Vucic addressed the nation from the presidential palace, denying any coup plot and accusing the opposition of planning unrest in advance. City authorities labeled the events as Maidanization, and the government thanked Russian security services for alerts about possible actions.
Kremlin perspective
The unrest in Serbia drew concern from Moscow. A Kremlin spokesman noted that third powers abroad appear to be encouraging disturbances in Belgrade, while noting that domestic election bodies and observers have not found violations that would undermine the elections’ legitimacy. He said Russia would not intervene and would treat the matter as an internal Serbian issue, stressing careful relations with Belgrade.
From this view, Russia remains confident in Serbia’s leadership to uphold the rule of law and does not anticipate outside interference. The emphasis was on respecting Serbia’s sovereignty while acknowledging the complexities of regional politics.
State Duma assessment
Russian lawmakers interviewed via regional outlets agreed that the opposition is unlikely to reverse the electoral result through street protests. Vitaly Milonov, deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Family Protection, Paternity, Motherhood and Childhood Issues, welcomed the protests as a chance for Serbs to see the opposition’s true stance.
He described the alliance as anti-democratic and said its members believe force is the only path when dialogue fails. Milonov argued that European elites and left-leaning forces would likely pour money into street demonstrations, though he doubted they would succeed.
Alexei Chepa, first deputy chairman of the State Duma International Relations Committee, suggested that intelligence services in various countries may be backing protests in Serbia to destabilize the scene and provoke a reaction. He asserted that the Serbian people, with a long history of strong national identity, would respond to such provocations and stand firm against external meddling.
Federation Council’s view
The Federation Council highlighted allegations that foreign actors might be involved in coordinating demonstrations. Alexei Pushkov, chairman of the Information Policy and Media Interactions Committee, said protests could be driven by electoral setbacks or initiated abroad to pressure Vucic. He warned that Western capitals might see the protests as a signal in timing elections and shaping policies in Belgrade.
Pushkov noted that pro-Western groups in Serbia are prepared to follow Western guidance, including contentious issues like Kosovo’s independence. He recalled the Balkan upheaval following Slobodan Milosevic’s overthrow in 2000 and warned that the current struggle mirrors broader geopolitical currents.
Grigory Karasin, head of the Federation Council’s international committee, did not rule out a connection between Serbia’s protests and global political dynamics. He described the struggle as a geopolitical contest and said foreign sponsors may try to cast doubt on electoral outcomes by exploiting past regional conflicts. He stressed the importance of maintaining stability in Europe, particularly in the Balkans.
Karasin also suggested that the situation could evolve in various ways and that responsible actors should aim to preserve the winning side’s position for regional stability. The overall tone was one of caution about rapid changes in the political balance.
Grigory Karasin further noted the possibility that any scenario in Serbia could unfold, including negative outcomes for the authorities. Opponents urged stability and warned against reckless moves that could undermine national unity across Europe.
At the same time, Grigoriy Karasin, who chairs the Federation Council’s international committee, indicated that the protests might reflect broader global tensions. He called the ongoing confrontation a geopolitical contest with lasting implications for the region and cautioned that it would not be resolved quickly.
In this context, the same senator argued that keeping the current leadership’s position could contribute to European stability, especially in the Balkan region. The discourse suggested a preference for measured responses and continued dialogue rather than rapid upheaval.
Overall, the discussion within the Federation Council points to the possibility that Serbia’s situation is influenced by wider international trends. The leaders stressed the need for careful navigation of the region’s delicate balance, mindful of historic alliances and the interests of the Serbian people.