On December 8, GA!-Think Tank presented an Expert Talk with Balkan historian, Geert Luteijn on the link between protests in Serbia and the European Union. Below is a report of the key ideas and points of discussion that Dr. Malcontent presented.

The following report reflects an academic discussion and a series of ideas presented at GA’s first Expert Talk. GA is a platform for academics, students, and young professionals to share their ideas regarding international relations and history. We do not take a position but seek to further platform intellectual debate and discussion. 

Protests begin

The catalyst of the protest began on November 1, when a renovated canopy under the Novi Sad train station collapsed, killing 16 people. This canopy was part of renovations Serbia had done thanks to investment primarily from China as part of the belt and road initiative, as well as some money from Russia. 

While the canopy collapse was a tragedy that upset many people, it was the governmental response that turned sadness into anger. The government chose to deny blame, denying that they did the renovations, or that the canopy was even part of the renovations done. 

This resulted in a small amount of student protests, which the government responded to by arresting 10 students, further igniting tension. The protests would grow bigger in the coming weeks and months. 

The protesters would paint their hands red, to symbolize the government having blood on their hands. This would become the iconic symbol of the protests. 

Rather than being limited to a few major cities, protests were all over the country, big and small. Students would march through rural villages for months to protest the government’s corruption and handling. 

The root of the protest movement was frustration at corruption within Serbian politics, particularly under President Aleksandar Vučić. However they did not initially call for his removal but instead made the protests a broader call against corruption. Protesters attempted to rally all segments of Serbia society in their cause.

The response by Vučić and his government only inflamed the protests and made the situation for himself worse. 

The Belgrade March 15 Protest

The most famous protest was held in Belgrade on March 15, 2025, when protesters filled the streets. 

A common tactic of the Serbian government and other autocrats in the region, is to purposefully make protests violent. Vučić has ties to groups of football hooligans who the government uses to provoke or attack opposition in order to overshadow the demands and make people focus on the violence of a protest.

Protesters outsmarted the government, working to organise the protest so that it ended two hours earlier than planned, not giving the hooligans the chance to incite in time. 

What did the protesters want?

The protesters did not initially make the protest about the government itself but rather had specific demands. They had four demands:

1. The publication of procurement documents regarding the canopy and renovations to the Novi Sad train station.
2. An end to prosecution of students. 
3. Prosecution for security forces that were involved in attacking students during the protests.
4. A 20% increase to the higher education budget. 

Vučić’s response 

Vučić would respond to the protests by attacking students. He would accuse them of being foreign agents and argue there was a western plot to undermine Serbia. He actively sought to position himself as defending Serbia from foreign interference. 

He would also use the state’s control of Serbian media by restricting coverage and used the protests as justification to further restrict media freedom. He would also use the state’s capabilities to mobilize counter-protesters, attempting to divide Serbian society. He even created the Ćaciland, a park dedicated to counter protesters in an attempt to showcase wide support for the government. 

He also used state violence in an attempt to suppress the protesters. 

Rather than engage with the protesters, Vučić would give fiery speeches denouncing them and saying he would not let them “destroy Serbia.”

This response turned the protester’s demands to change from the previous four, to calling for early elections. Vučić’s term is set to end at the end of 2027, but as president, Vučić has the power to call early elections. The response by the government, and institution corruption made many believe that Vučić lost his mandate. Vučić refused to call early elections, calling the protests a colour revolution akin to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004 and the Georgian Revolution in 2003. 

Challenges for the protesters with elections

While the protesters have begun calling for early elections, it remains to be seen how this will play out. 

They face challenges as an election will force them to come up with a unified platform beyond just the core issue. This gives Vučić the opportunity to exploit a divided movement that has managed to unify Serbian society on a handful of key measures. 

As more issues are brought to the table, the students will have to find a way to maintain unity. 

Then there is the risk of creating a list. How will they create a list everyone is happy with? It is worth remembering how diverse this protest movement is. It started with students but also includes rural farmers, and veterans from the Yugoslav civil war.

Additionally, creating a list gives the government targets to go after, both through violence and through reputation attacks. 

The students have gathered widespread support but the movement must change and adapt if it aims to succeed on an electoral level.

Serbia in Europe

Following the Yugoslav civil war and loss of Kosovo, there was a large sentiment in Serbia to join the European Union. Serbia was led by a liberal party from 2004 to 2012 that aimed to bring Serbia into the EU. 

However there were always issues with regards to integration, particularly over corruption and bringing to justice war criminals from the 1990s. 

In 2012 Serbia gained candidate status a week before elections. The liberal parties were unable to capitalize off this due to timing and Vučić won. His election further derailed the process as he has continued the process but not made meaningful changes to the country that it needs to enter the bloc.

Additionally in the 2010s until the Ukraine War, there was pushback in the EU against expansion halting the process. 

The EU has struggled to condemn Serbia’s authoritarian tendencies due to existing business relationships and has taken on vague bureaucratic language. Serbia as of now remains at candidate status but is “significantly delayed.”

Today Serbians have little faith in the EU and Serbian protests choose to wave their national flag over the EU one. 

Serbia in the context of the geopolitics

Serbia seeks to remain a neutral actor, avoiding entanglement with the EU. However it remains heavily involved with Europe through business relationships. Its greatest trading partner is Germany for example. 

The government has also attempted to pass a lithium deal with the EU which benefits the EU by providing them the lithium needed for their energy transition and benefits Serbia’s oligarchs and elites financially.

However the deal is very unpopular as it would pollute large parts of Serbia with little benefit to the public. Serbia has very few electric cars and the average Serbian would gain very little from the deal. This deal would spark heavy opposition within Serbia. The deal is for now, off the table.

Serbia also has good relations with Russia and China. It has opposed sanctions on Russia but also gave weapons to Ukraine in their war against Russia. China meanwhile is a major investor in the country. 

Conclusion

Serbia stands at a crossroads where it is attempting to maintain a precarious position despite being surrounded by and dependent on the EU. All this is happening while domestic pressures are mounting. 

The EU however remains unable to coherently assert itself, vaguely supporting protest demands while continuing to do business as usual with Vučić and his allies.

We at GA!-Think Tank would like to thank Mr. Luteijn for his excellent lecture and bringing attention to this often overlooked yet still critical country and its political situation.