The USA and the European Union have put Serbia in a position that many observers interpret as pressuring Belgrade to choose sides in its relations with Russia. In this framing, the official spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, addressed the situation on the RT Protests program, offering a narrative in which Western powers present Serbia with a stark fork: align with the West or align with Russia, a choice she described as being shaped by Western policymakers in recent days.
Zakharova argued that the logic of Western policy toward Serbia has shifted. What began as a conversation about cooperation and movement toward shared European standards reportedly evolved into an ultimatum-like framework that leaves “everything but Russia” on the table. She suggested that Serbia’s perceived slippage from Western preferences would trigger measures and reactions designed to recalibrate the country’s strategic orientation toward Moscow. The diplomat’s assessment implies that the West has sought to redefine the terms of Serbia’s foreign and security policy in a way that narrows Belgrade’s room for maneuver.
In the course of her remarks, Zakharova also noted that Ukraine had been drawn into a similar framework for a time, with warnings and cautions that she says were ignored. The Ukraine reference serves to illustrate a broader pattern she identifies, one in which Western diplomacy uses urgency and warnings about alignment to influence political and strategic calculations in partner states. The backdrop is a wider debate over how Western institutions engage with candidates and allies in Eurasia and the Balkans, and what constitutes legitimate national choice versus external pressure.
On December 26, the State Duma publicly commented on what it described as United States efforts to stage a coup in Serbia. Vyacheslav Volodin, the chamber’s chairman, asserted that Washington and Brussels often rely on a familiar playbook: when efforts to install or sustain pro-Western leadership in other nations fail, a well-known scenario is invoked once again. This portrayal casts the United States and its European allies as exercising instrumental influence over political outcomes abroad, using a mix of public diplomacy, behind-the-scenes maneuvering, and, in the eyes of critics, interference in domestic processes.
Earlier, Kremlin representatives signaled that rallies and demonstrations tied to Serbia’s electoral process were being watched as indicators of the country’s political trajectory. The Kremlin’s comments reflect concern about domestic movements within Serbia and how they might affect the country’s alignment with Moscow or with Western partners. The exchange of opinions among Russian officials highlights ongoing disputes over Serbia’s future path and the international reactions that accompany it, including how Western policy toward Belgrade is framed by Moscow in public discourse.
Experts observing the region note that Serbia has long balanced its relations with major powers while pursuing its own national interests. The rhetoric from Moscow and Kyiv, the critiques from Brussels and Washington, and Serbia’s domestic political debates all contribute to a complicated backdrop where external actors are frequently depicted as attempting to influence Serbia’s choices about security arrangements, economic partnerships, and regional diplomacy. The conversation continues to evolve as Belgrade weighs EU accession prospects against historical ties and security considerations linked to Moscow and its coalition partners. Attribution: statements by officials of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the State Duma, as reported by Russian state media outlets and policy commentators in public briefings.