The media and public scene in Serbia, regarding the Ukrainian conflict, as well as the overall international situation, underwent significant changes during 2024. Particularly sensitive have been topics related to relations between major powers, the crisis in the Middle East, and the U.S. presidential elections. In previous articles, we pointed out a certain liberalization of most media, especially television, on issues of international relations, where the Ukrainian conflict was at the center of attention. Now, the public’s interest is expanding to a range of other topics from the international environment. What could be the motives behind this shift?
VIOLENT CONFRONTATION
The majority of the population in Serbia, as well as in Serbian territories in general, is geopolitically inclined towards Russia and expresses sympathy towards proponents of multipolarism, to the same extent that they exhibit antipathy towards NATO and the USA. Public opinion in Republika Srpska shares a similar or even more pronounced sentiment in this regard. The same situation exists in Montenegro, which, paradoxically, is a NATO member. A somewhat more moderate stance towards the European Union is noted in Serbia, although it cannot be said that there are majority sympathies.
However, things are quite different when it comes to Donald Trump, who has changed the perception of American politicians and the USA in general. Sympathy towards him is expressed even among segments of public opinion in Serbian territories that are not favorable towards America. In terms of the conflict in the Middle East, it generates less interest compared to the Ukrainian crisis. While sympathy for Russia is widespread among the majority of the population, both regarding the Ukrainian conflict and the international order leaning towards multipolarism, the Middle Eastern conflict has no clear favorite. Nevertheless, consistent with the previous, Israel evokes less sympathy and more condemnation in the Arab-Jewish conflict.
TRUMP’S SERBIA
On burning issues, Serbian media generally report based on agency news and their own correspondents on the ground, although public attention is primarily focused on analysts and experts who appear on television and other media, providing their perspectives on events and processes. The result looks like this: Donald Trump enjoys widespread and majority sympathy among the public in Serbia, often even among segments of society that are extremely unfriendly towards the USA. This is a rare phenomenon when it comes to American politicians. A similar phenomenon is the fact that the U.S. presidential elections are commented on in shows like “Current Affairs” on Happy TV and Informer TV, where a pro-Russian narrative and strong opposition to NATO and the USA prevail. Experts in these media formats do not favor Biden or Harris. In simple terms, the motto is “Either Trump or nothing.” While the “deep state” is marked as the enemy, Trump is treated as a serious alternative. The belief is that his election as U.S. president would create a chance to improve international relations as a whole, especially among the great powers. Similar sympathy for Trump is evident on so-called “patriotic portals and media” on the internet, and on very popular YouTube channels such as Balkan Info, Srbin Info, Helmcast, and others.
SOME RANDOM ASSASSINS
Interestingly, on Pink TV and Vesti TV (owned by Željko Mitrović), Prva TV, and Kurir TV, the situation is more balanced on this issue, with no expressed sympathy for Trump or representatives of the Democrats. A plethora of so-called “NATO lobbyists” do not align with the sentiment of the majority of public opinion in Serbian territories. In the context of the American elections, Trump is certainly not their favorite. In their attempt to promote the American narrative, many irregularities, conflicts, and contradictions are pushed to the background. The impression is that they are not prepared for these issues and problems, avoiding commenting on them, and noticeably minimizing or overlooking them.
When analyzing Russian society (as well as Chinese and other proponents of multipolarism), this group of analysts points to the “absence of democracy,” “assassinations of opponents and repression of the opposition,” “media blockades,” while topics of irregularities, conflicts, and visible deficiencies in the U.S. pre-election process are either avoided or, at best, minimized. What cannot be avoided in their analyses, such as two assassination attempts on Trump and numerous attacks on him (trials, reduced rights, etc.), these analysts and the media that give them space explain as isolated incidents. In their interpretation, these are marginal assassins, or incidental cases of eccentrics who, without serious support or logistics, take extreme measures to attempt Trump’s assassination.
Although, by all indications, the Serbian diaspora in the USA has overwhelmingly supported Donald Trump over the past decade, some reporters from America are openly sympathetic to the Democrats. For instance, Dejan Jelača does not hide his preference for Kamala Harris, which receives airtime in Serbia, especially on Kurir TV. In contrast, it is common for analysts who are unfriendly towards the USA and NATO to express trust in Donald Trump when commenting on American politics. That support was particularly strong during the attempted assassination of Trump, where the “deep state” was mostly blamed, or even directly the political and social backing of the Democrats. In duels with Biden, and even Kamala Harris, that part of the analyst and political spectrum favored Trump’s stance as victorious.
CUPBOARD ANALYTICS
When it comes to the Middle Eastern conflict, it is interesting that pro-NATO analysts consistently support Israel and are very critical of Iran, the Palestinians, and their allies. The crimes against civilians in Gaza are acknowledged as existing and “possible,” though their scale is downplayed and treated as a byproduct of the conflict, or in some cases, indeed condemned. The same pattern of excluding objectivity is evident in analyses of the Eastern Front. Throughout this calendar year, in the Ukrainian conflict, the Russian side has had evident initiative and is slowly but continuously advancing.
However, pro-NATO analysts downplay the scale of this initiative, or even deny it. When asked to comment on the evident advances of the Russian army, they will say that the settlements are small, and interestingly introduce a new term, stating that they are not concerned with “cupboards.” Thus, the significance and size of Russia’s advances are minimized. On the other hand, when the Ukrainians suddenly made an incursion into the Kursk region, we could hear that it was a major Ukrainian breakthrough. Analyses suddenly emerged about a possible exchange of territories, a crisis in Russia “as the conflict spreads to its territory,” and similar scenarios.
MISSED PREDICTIONS
However, by September, it became clear that the Ukrainian offensive in the Kursk region had made no progress. On the contrary, the Russian side carried out counterattacks, gradually pushing the Ukrainians back from this territory. The previously exploited narratives that Ukraine was “defending itself by advancing deep into Russia” and that “Russian aggression would have to face the need for territorial exchanges like Kursk” lost their meaning. Another appeal by Zelensky to Western and global audiences with a “peace plan for Ukrainian victory” proved to be nothing more than an unnecessary media spin.
Many media outlets had previously stated that Russia would need to slow down or even stop its advances in Donbas to send reinforcements to the Kursk region, but these claims turned out to be inaccurate. The same goes for the many expectations expressed repeatedly in the media, suggesting that developments in the Kursk region would lead to a wave of discontent in Russia, which could manifest in various ways. This was likely intended to be reinforced by systematic Ukrainian targeting of military and civilian targets across Russian territory with drones, various forms of missiles, and long-range artillery. However, the idea that Putin would declare war, initiate partial mobilization, and redeploy troops from Donbas and Zaporizhzhia proved unrealistic. As did expectations that Russia would accept phantom “negotiations” from which it was excluded from the start and which were planned as a media provocation by various Western structures.
HISTORY ACCORDING TO BRANIMIR ĐOKIĆ
The opposite happened. By the end of September, the Russian side intensified its attacks and continued advancing across the front—towards the transport hub of Pokrovsk and the nearby Mirnograd, almost reaching the outskirts of these areas. The town of New York was also captured, and intense fighting took place in the strategically important Toretsk. A significant success was the capture of the city of Ugledar, which opened the way for further advances through the steppe and towards the Dnieper. Battles continued for Chasiv Yar and north towards Kupyansk. In media across Serbian territories, this should, at the very least, dissuade pro-NATO lobbyists, although many of them do not pay much attention to facts. Basic historical facts and economic indicators are being distorted.
For instance, NATO lobbyists often talked about Russia’s alleged economic weakness, uncritically referring to nominal GDP. However, as nominal GDP matters less than purchasing power parity (PPP) GDP, they were caught off guard by the fact that Russia, during this year, rose to fourth place in the world (behind China, the USA, and India), overtaking Japan, and became the largest economy in Europe. They also speculate with historical facts. On the show “Usijanje” on Kurir TV on September 23, political scientist Branimir Đokić (actually a NATO lobbyist) claimed that Russia had practically not won any wars in modern history, except for World War II, which cost them 27 million lives. He then listed “historical facts,” such as Russia’s capitulation in World War I, the loss to Japan, the Crimean War, “defeats in the Chechen War,” and so on.
HOW A CITIZEN BECAME AN OFFICIAL
Similarly, Darko Obradović, who “brilliantly” claimed that Russia was not among the top ten economies in the world by nominal GDP (though it is fourth in the world by PPP GDP), now, in a September 26th broadcast on Informer TV, claimed that Russia did not enter World War I because of Serbia (despite historical facts showing that Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914). The farthest in his improvisations goes Dr. Darko Trifunović, who traditionally blames Russia for practically all the problems in Serbian territories in modern history and the present day! Similar sentiments are shared by Dragan Šormaz, Biljana Shahrimanjan-Obradović, and a few others. The seriousness of this discourse is evidenced by last year’s statement from Biljana Shahrimanjan-Obradović (who primarily focuses on Vladimir Putin in her appearances) in one Kurir TV broadcast, where she claimed that a high-ranking Chinese government official allegedly stated that the Russian president was “not normal.” It later turned out to be a citizen of a Western country of Chinese origin, an NGO activist.
In their performances, she and Darko Obradović claim that Russia will have a financial deficit of 5% in 2025, although it is unclear where they got this information or who can predict such figures in advance.
AT ODDS WITH THE TRUTH
A common trait among all NATO lobbyists in Serbian territories is their reluctance to acknowledge or their tendency to downplay Russia’s military successes, as well as their, at the very least, silence about Russia’s political, economic, and social stability. The fact that the West is helping Ukraine and that Russia is holding its own in the conflict, and will likely defeat Ukraine despite not conducting a mobilization, is conspicuously glossed over.
Russia, in its special military operation, uses only part of its professional army and contracted soldiers. Conscripts are not used outside Russia’s borders, and reservists (of which there are potentially several tens of millions) have not been called up. In this way, Russia is attempting to carry out its special operation, practically “fighting with one hand tied behind its back,” a notion that is very difficult for pro-NATO lobbyists to accept. Their theory is that Russia is losing the war, lacks resources, and, in desperation, is considering nuclear weapons, which of course has nothing to do with reality and is the product of an orchestrated but unimaginative propaganda campaign.
STRICTLY WITH ISRAEL
Regarding the Middle Eastern crisis, the media landscape in Serbian territories seems less politicized and engaged compared to the Ukrainian conflict. Likewise, divisions in Serbian society over this issue are not as sharp. While the vast majority of the population traditionally places trust in Russia, in the Middle Eastern crisis, the divisions are not as pronounced. Nevertheless, pro-NATO lobbyists are strictly in favor of Israel and its support from the USA. On the other hand, the Palestinians and their allies (Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah, Iran, etc.) enjoy significant majority sympathy in the public sphere, especially when it comes to the civilian casualties in Gaza. Pro-NATO lobbyists, as well as some more objective analysts, skillfully remind in their media appearances that in various conflicts in the former Yugoslav territories, Iran and several Arab and Islamic countries supported Bosnian Muslims or later Albanians. On the other hand, the fact that the multipolar world, including Russia and China, supports the Palestinians, further shapes the views of much of Serbian public opinion.
QUESTIONABLE EXPERTISE
Experts and analysts favorable to Russia in the Ukrainian conflict approach the Middle Eastern crisis more cautiously, often placing their professionalism at the forefront. Despite everything, they frequently point out the inconsistency of Western power centers, particularly the USA and NATO, in determining the roles of aggressors and victims. What is tolerated in Israel’s case is not accepted in other situations. Serbia, Republika Srpska, and, to a lesser extent, Montenegro are among the few regions in Europe where the Ukrainian conflict can be followed in a relatively objective manner in the media. The same applies to U.S. elections and the Middle Eastern crisis. Although there is a presence of so-called NATO lobbyists who orchestrate support for American and NATO interests, it has been observed that they lag behind in expertise and quality in comparison to the experts and intellectuals who also appear in Serbian media on these issues. This further drives public opinion in Serbian territories to turn increasingly towards the opposing side of the “deep state,” especially towards Russia, which has been a traditional Serbian ally and brotherly nation, and the Russians a kindred people.
