Student protests in Serbia represent a highly interesting social phenomenon and an opportunity to raise important questions about the deep structural problems within Serbian society. While the significance of student demands should not be dismissed, we must ask whether these protests genuinely reflect the needs of students or, like previous protest movements, have become a tool for political manipulation and a struggle for the interests of a minority that claims to represent the majority. First, it is crucial to distinguish between genuine dissatisfaction and political spectacle. Protests in Serbia have often served as an instrument in the hands of various political factions seeking to exploit public discontent to strengthen their own political positions. Additionally, these political groups have frequently operated in coordination with foreign intelligence structures. In the case of the current protests, it appears that the struggle for advancing both domestic political and foreign intelligence interests is more prominent than a sincere fight for a just and efficient political system.
A SUBCONSCIOUS HOMAGE TO RED REVOLUTIONS
History repeats itself: a new revolution has begun. Unlike its predecessors, it has lasted weeks rather than decades. Those earlier revolutions left Serbia with two disastrous legacies. The first, in 1918, the so-called “Yugoslav” revolution, triggered a deadly transformation of Serbia’s spiritual identity, leading to what might be called the “identity trans-genderization” of Serbs into Yugoslavs. The second, in 1944/45, equally drenched in red as this current movement, cemented the achievements of the first revolution, introduced further identity experiments, granted autonomy to Kosovo and Vojvodina, laid the foundation for Croatia’s new state, and, as Radina Vučetić described it, sweetened our lives with “Coca-Cola socialism.”
However, unlike the earlier revolutions, this latest one did not have a bloody beginning. Its metaphorical blood-stained hands are merely a subconscious homage to the red revolutionaries, whose hands, as Krcun once put it, “were bloodied up to the shoulders.” Given its distinct color and postmodern characteristics, it might be aptly dubbed the “ironically bloody red revolution” or the “velvet revolution of mommy-and-daddy’s neo-partisans.” This should come as no surprise, considering that some sociologists suggest we now live in a world where necropolitics has become the only politics. Yet, this uprising lacks the potential to evolve into a true “color revolution” because it is, at its core, anti-political.
THE PERCEPTION OF THE “RIGHT ORDER”
The young leaders of the student rebellion, resembling the “Women in Black,” attempt to empathize with others’ pain and mimic sorrow as authentically and sincerely as possible. Their cynicism and anti-political stance benefit the authorities, while their elitist attitude toward the rest of the population is a major obstacle to achieving revolutionary goals. Naturally, it’s important to note that these harsh critiques are not directed at all protesting students. They are aimed at a small group of “students” (the legitimacy of their student status is questionable) driving the faculty blockade movement.
These student-blockaders often claim they are fighting for a “better and more just socio-political order.” However, what they fail to grasp is that their understanding of the “right” order is shaped by two primary elements: one local, with a long historical continuity, and one global, manifesting differently across cultural contexts. The first element stems from our cultural pattern, often expressed through an exaggerated and egomaniacal “I.” This particular trait is especially evident today and is reflected in the tendency to perceive opposing views as insults, often more offensive than the harshest of vulgarities. When someone says, “I think,” it implies that everyone else who thinks must think as they do. Those who disagree are automatically categorized as mercenaries, bots, or “sandwich-eaters.”
FIRST NEWSCAST – ON THE BLOCKADES
The second key element lies in the anti-social and anti-political influence of social networks, particularly on younger generations raised and educated in a world shaped by their influence. This makes it interesting to note the statements of young blockaders, formerly TikTokers and Instagrammers, who admit they watched a “newscast” for the first time in their lives during the blockades. Naturally, it is hard to expect young people, encountering “newscasts” only as students—people who are insufficiently educated, informed, and politically literate—to change the reality they live in. They can influence change, but the question remains whether they know what they want and, if they do, whether they are competent enough to realize their desires without being exploited.
However, our plenum organizers have come to believe they are the sole authoritative factor in Serbian society. They wish to create an honest, uncorrupted technocratic system; a meritocracy that promises the “educated and enlightened” a politically correct “capitalist communism”; a postmodern “Platonic state” where the “best” would live according to their needs, enjoying prosperity provided by lower castes through hard physical labor. These plenum organizers are conformist and aspirational. They epitomize pure ambivalence, a trait characteristic of our cultural pattern, reflected in the simultaneous need to pose as both heroes and victims while, on the other hand, laying ladders for the impatient climbers seeking higher political influence and “fatter” financial grants.

FROM THE 1968 PROTESTERS TO OTPOR
This captures the full tragedy of student protests in Serbia. A brief historical overview reveals that nothing has changed, and there is a real possibility this protest will end the same way. The former 1968 protesters—yesterday’s Stalinists and Maoists, fighters for the “red Karl Marx University”—became the most fervent proponents of neoliberal, turbo-capitalist ideology, high priests of Thatcherism and Reaganism, and champions of NGOs. They sought to liberate Serbia from “retrograde nationalism” and thrust it into modernity, much like their fathers pushed Serbia into communism. For their zeal, they were richly funded and rewarded by Western foundations. Similarly, they set an example for young people, the future “leaders,” on how to secure financial stability and climb the ladder of socio-political power in Serbia.
An even more striking example is the student protests of 1996/97, which gave rise to the well-known and controversial organization Otpor. Although only a small number of students joined Otpor, the activism of its members and the passivity of the majority led to the student revolt of the 1990s being associated with Otpor. Let us not forget the foreign factor, which, through Otpor, channeled the students’ anger and manipulated their desire for a better and fairer society. In the end, the greatest beneficiaries of the entire student movement were the leaders of Otpor and certain leaders of the student protests. If their “spiritual fathers,” the 1968 protesters, pushed Serbia from nationalism into modernity, Otpor activists contributed to a new “qualitative” leap that transformed Serbia from a sovereign state into a perpetually transitional and semi-colonial one.
WHO SENT THE CIRCULAR EMAIL?
If we were to fully explore this dialectical process, we would have no choice but to analyze the potential future into which the plenum organizers, the dedicated consumers of gluten-free bread, are leading us.
Just like in the protests of ’96/97, we are once again forced to navigate murky waters. The blockader-plenum organizers, that is, the leaders of these blockades, remain anonymous figures. When the blockade of the Rectorate began, professors at the University of Belgrade received an unsigned circular email listing student demands, calling on professors to join the faculty blockades and suspend lectures. To this day, it remains unclear who sent that email.
Western power centers support students and their academic “superstructure” in various ways, including financial backing. Sometimes, the real background of an event is best revealed through peripheral details—for example, the fact that the registration fee for the website of the newly founded Proglas was paid by an NGO that has long been a favorite of key anti-Serbian power centers in the West.
PLENUMS – A TOOL IN THE HANDS OF PRO-WESTERN STRUCTURES
These and similar “non-governmental” organizations are independent only from the Serbian government. In fact, nearly all NGOs in Serbia function as so-called “governmental non-governmental organizations.” They are independent of the Serbian government but heavily dependent on foreign governments, as is evident from their websites and donor lists. The open question remains: why are these governments not more discreet in hiding their involvement in funding these NGOs? Or do they simply consider themselves powerful enough not to bother with such details?
Plenums are the perfect plaything for pro-Western structures in Serbia. As we have emphasized, no one knows who is truly behind these plenums or who leads them. They could very well be ordinary students with no ties to foreign intelligence services. However, the real problem lies in their concealment behind the plenum structure, their reluctance to step forward and present themselves to the public, thus avoiding speculation and various assumptions. If a change of government occurs, pro-Western media will exploit their anonymity and introduce their own operatives as the “true” leaders of the blockades. This method has been used before, when the media promoted Otpor members who had little to no role in organizing the protests of ’96/97.
PEACEFUL ACTIVISTS?
One recent controversy is particularly interesting—the expulsion of Croatian “students and citizens” from Serbia. The influence of Croatian intelligence services on the protests has long been noted, especially after revelations that the faculty blockades were being carried out according to the instructions of the anarchist handbook “Blockade Cookbook,” which was created in 2009 following the blockade of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Zagreb. At first glance, labeling student blockaders as foreign operatives may seem like a conspiratorial narrative or a government propaganda trick. However, just days after President Vučić spoke about intelligence indicating Croatian involvement in organizing the protests, five Croatian nationals were expelled from Serbia, along with eight other foreigners who had participated in a workshop organized by an NGO. On January 22, Serbian police questioned attendees of the Erste Foundation academy, which included citizens from Slovenia, Slovakia, North Macedonia, Albania, Moldova, Romania, Austria, and the Czech Republic. The Croatian participants, after hours of interrogation, received official deportation orders citing “the protection of the security of the Republic of Serbia and its citizens” as the reason. This prompted Croatia to send a protest note to Belgrade authorities. The Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs subsequently issued travel warnings for its citizens, advising them to postpone visits to Serbia. Finally, the European Commission weighed in, expressing concern over the detention and deportation of “peaceful civil society activists from EU member states and the Western Balkans region, allegedly posing a security threat.” Prior to this incident, at the end of last year, a group of students from the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing in Zagreb entered Serbia, only to be labeled by government-affiliated media as collaborators of Croatian intelligence services.
A “HARMLESS” WORKSHOP
One striking observation is the excessive activity not only of Croatian university students but also of media outlets and numerous YouTube podcasts that diligently, minute by minute, follow developments in Serbia. Their interest in the protests is so intense that they regularly report on even the smallest, nearly imperceptible occurrences, incidents, and peculiarities taking place both on campuses and in the streets. If we take another historical perspective, we see that from the creation of Yugoslavia in 1918 to the current protests, Croatian students were largely indifferent and uninterested in the political and social activity of students in Serbia. However, in recent weeks, we have witnessed nearly unanimous support from Croatia, manifested not only in Cyrillic banners displayed at universities in Zagreb, Rijeka, Pula, and Zadar, or letters of support written in Cyrillic but also in the direct involvement of Croatian students coming to Belgrade or Novi Sad to participate in blockades and demonstrations. Adding to this is the participation of Croatian citizens in a workshop organized by the NGO “Erste Foundation” (whose website lists a long roster of donors well-known to us). This justifies the assumption that behind the facade presented by pro-Western media—describing it as a “harmless workshop about installations and free artists’ activities”—lies the activity of Croatian intelligence services. These are likely instructors for the implementation of the color revolutions recently mentioned by Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico.
MAP OF CROATIAN INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
To understand the power wielded by Croatian intelligence services, we must point out the following facts. Before Yugoslavia’s dissolution, the last head of the State Security Service was Josip Boljkovac, who later became the first Minister of Internal Affairs in Tuđman’s Croatia. Being at the helm of the federal service and a proven Croatian nationalist, it is logical to assume that on the eve of the state’s breakup, he worked to strengthen his cadre structure in Serbia. This explains why, even today—35 years later—there are individuals leading various NGOs who openly promote Serbophobia, Vojvodina separatism, the relativization of Serbian victims, and the total de-sovereignization of Serbia. Their rhetoric and terminology uncannily echo the statements of “fathers of the nation” Ante Starčević and Ante Pavelić, the wartime broadcasts of HRT, and the declarations of modern leaders of the Croatian Party of Rights or the Homeland Movement. These individuals are promoted in pro-Western media as champions of protests and faculty blockades, particularly in Novi Sad. A prominent figure in this regard is Dinko Gruhonjić, who serves as a “litmus test” for evaluating the nature of all protests in Serbia. For instance, students at the Faculty of Philosophy in Novi Sad once staged a similar blockade provoked by anti-Serbian statements from this individual. Those students were condemned by all pro-Western media and labeled as “extremists and fascists preventing students from attending lectures and attempting to oust the honest and well-meaning Dinko Gruhonjić from the faculty.” Unsurprisingly, support for the “persecuted” Gruhonjić immediately arrived from Croatia. Thus, we can construct a map of Croatian intelligence activities ranging from the early works of Sonja Biserko, through Dinko Gruhonjić, to future candidates who are “learning the trade” at the ongoing protests and blockades.
CROATIAN SPY – RETIRED JNA OFFICER
To prove that these are not just empty stories, let us recall a case from 2016. The Security Information Agency (BIA), in cooperation with the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office, arrested an individual on suspicion of committing the criminal offense of espionage. The person in question had lived and worked in Croatia until 1990, after which he relocated to Serbia. The news of a Croatian spy being arrested in Serbia spread like wildfire, and within an hour, nearly all regional agencies had reported on the event. The Croatian portal Index published that the captured agent had worked for Croatia’s Military Security and Intelligence Agency (VSOA) and had been collecting information that could be of particular interest to VSOA. According to the Croatian portal, he focused on JNA officers against whom Croatia had initiated or could initiate criminal proceedings for alleged crimes committed during the wars of the 1990s. The Croatian spy was reportedly “monitoring the organization and relationships within the Serbian military and had been under surveillance by his Serbian colleagues for months,” Index stated. The HINA agency, citing “unofficial sources from media circles,” published that the Croatian spy was allegedly a retired JNA officer and one of the commanders of the former Army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. According to these reports, HINA stated that the person in question was “a Serb from Drniš,” Čedo Čolović, who held dual citizenship and moved to Serbia after Operation Storm. He was arrested allegedly while preparing to flee to Croatia after being tipped off that his cover had been blown. HINA further reported that Croatian intelligence services had recruited him and that he had accepted their offer in exchange for a guarantee that no criminal charges for alleged war crimes would be filed against him in Croatia.

ZAGREB – REGIONAL CENTER FOR CONTENT CENSORSHIP
This example unequivocally proves the presence and activity of Croatian intelligence services in Serbia. However, it should be noted that Croatian intelligence does not operate independently, as Croatia lacks the capacity to act as a sovereign state. Croatian services are managed by Western intelligence agencies, primarily the CIA and BND, and their mission is to operate regionally, with a special focus on Serbia. Through them, Western agencies seek to achieve their strategic interests. Due to linguistic and cultural similarities, Croatia plays the same role towards Serbia as Ukraine does towards Russia. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that Zagreb hosts the regional center for monitoring and censoring “undesirable” content on YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram.
Another crucial aspect is Serbia’s geopolitical position in the ongoing war in Ukraine, which significantly influences internal events and social dynamics. Serbia’s position can best be described not as John Kerry once stated—that Serbia is “on the line of fire”—but rather as “a hole in the carpet,” given that Serbia is situated deep behind the anti-Russian coalition. With this in mind, we can better understand the emergence and aggressiveness of these protests, as they synchronize with the sanctions imposed by the U.S. on NIS (Naftna Industrija Srbije). It is reasonable to assume that these protests represent a form of Western pressure on the Serbian government to expel Russian influence from NIS.
CLINTONITES ON EUROPEAN SOIL AND THE CASE OF SLOVAKIA
Recently, similar protests have erupted in Slovakia. The situation there bears many similarities to current events in Serbia, albeit with certain unique features. According to intelligence information provided to Prime Minister Robert Fico, the opposition, in coordination with foreign intelligence agencies, is preparing a coup. The Clintonite faction has decided to exhaust every possible option on European soil—which still serves as a battleground for their operations—in an attempt to preserve their strongest ideological foothold. The rise of sovereignist movements in Europe is significantly curtailing their ability to operate as they did in the past. Intelligence operations in Slovakia are of critical importance to these globalist ideologues, who are desperate to secure at least one victory before the crucial elections in Germany next month. Such a victory would allow them to maintain relevance as an ideological force in the face of the ongoing “Great Reset” towards traditional values, a process officially set in motion by Trump’s inauguration. In addition to the ongoing revolutions in Serbia, Slovakia, and Georgia, Hungary must also be taken into account, as Viktor Orbán recently stated that intelligence reports indicate a similar operation is being planned in his country.
The first signs of a coup attempt in Slovakia became visible a month ago, just before Fico’s visit to meet with Putin. Currently, Slovakia is experiencing the same model as Serbia: storming government buildings, acts of violence, death threats—the method is identical. The only question is how each country will respond to these challenges. In any case, Serbia’s security services must now be more active than ever, as everything happening globally—especially in Slovakia—will quickly spill over into Serbia. If we compare today’s events with those of 2000, the situation is clear.
SALOME ZURABISHVILI SUPPORTS SERBIAN STUDENTS. STRANGE?
It is no coincidence that Prime Minister Robert Fico compared the attempted color revolution in Slovakia to the case in Serbia. Recently, on the social network X, former President of Georgia Salome Zurabishvili, known in Georgia and beyond as an open collaborator with pro-Western agencies, expressed her support for the protests in Serbia and Slovakia. Although this may seem trivial to some, attention should always be paid to such seemingly minor details. Like Gruhonjić, Zurabishvili serves as a similar “litmus test” that applies universally.
To be clear, no one is denying the students’ right to protest—quite the opposite. Serbia has a rich tradition of student activism dating back to 1847, when the “Youth Society of Serbia” (Družina mladeži srbske) was founded at the Belgrade Lyceum. However, it is essential to highlight that the method of blocking faculties and forming plenums is unconstitutional. The student parliament is the only legitimate representative body for students as outlined by the Constitution. Similarly, there should be an appeal to students to exclude NGO activists and collaborators of foreign intelligence agencies from their ranks.
On the other hand, the government is expected to urgently adopt a law on the registry of foreign agents. Such a law is essential for any sovereign state. Above all, it would positively impact the democratization of political processes and eliminate all speculation and “conspiracy theories” surrounding the actions of NGOs and other organizations funded from abroad.