ANALYSIS: Russia Backs Crackdown on Mass Protests in Serbia – Inside Putin’s Playbook to Undermine Democracy
The largest anti-government protests in Serbia in more than two decades have shaken the capital and spread nationwide, bringing hundreds of thousands to the streets in scenes not seen since the fall of Slobodan Milošević.
What began as student-led demonstrations against corruption and creeping authoritarianism has now ballooned into a full-blown political crisis for President Aleksandar Vučić’s government.
As the standoff deepens, a familiar actor has emerged to help tip the balance: Russia.
In a move that has raised alarm in Western capitals, senior Serbian officials confirmed last week that Russian intelligence officers have been assisting the government in managing the protests, from providing surveillance coordination to offering crowd control logistics.
The Kremlin, long wary of what it calls “color revolutions,” is once again positioning itself as a bulwark against democratic uprisings in a strategically vital part of Europe. Moscow’s intervention isn’t just about stabilizing a partner government – it offers a revealing glimpse into how the Kremlin continues to assert influence across Eastern Europe, particularly in countries caught between Russia and the West.
The unrest comes at a critical moment for Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
With Ukraine still fighting to resist Russian occupation and the West fractured over long-term strategy, Moscow is quietly working to reclaim its role as a regional powerbroker – not only through tanks and treaties but by suppressing dissent wherever it threatens pro-Moscow regimes.
This is the same model Russia has deployed in Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Georgia – and now, once again, Serbia.
As the Kremlin simultaneously engages with the administration of US President Donald Trump on potential ceasefire terms with Kyiv, its maneuvering in the Balkans offers a window into how Putin blends soft power, security cooperation, and covert operations to shape events well beyond the battlefield.
Russia’s response to the Serbian protests, and the West’s muted reaction, may signal how much influence Moscow has regained in Europe – not just militarily, but diplomatically.
And for Kyiv, it raises a deeper question: If Moscow can still suppress mass movements in allied states without serious pushback, how far might it go to undermine Ukraine’s democratic future, especially if Washington steps back?
Serbians take to the streets
The protests began after a railway canopy at the central station in Novi Sad, Serbia’s second-largest city, collapsed during rush hour, killing five people and injuring dozens.
Investigations quickly revealed that the structure had been flagged for critical maintenance multiple times in the past year, but repairs were either ignored or delayed due to alleged cronyism involving state contractors. The tragedy lit the fuse on long-simmering public resentment over government corruption and lack of accountability.
Students from the University of Novi Sad organized the first mass rally, demanding the resignation of several local officials and a criminal investigation into government-linked construction firms.
Within days, demonstrations spread nationwide, drawing support from civic activists, opposition parties, and disillusioned citizens across ethnic and political lines. What began as localized mourning turned into a full-fledged movement demanding systemic change.
But as the protests grew in size and intensity, so too did the geopolitical stakes. With Serbia’s EU accession stalled and Vučić deepening ties with the Kremlin, Russia has wasted no time inserting itself into the domestic crisis–working behind the scenes to help Belgrade’s ruling elite suppress dissent and hold the political line.
In response, Serbian authorities have reportedly sought and received assistance from Russian intelligence services to manage and suppress the unrest. Serbia’s Deputy Prime Minister, Alexandar Vulin, acknowledged this collaboration, expressing gratitude for Russia’s support in combating what he termed “color revolutions,” according to Reuters.
“Western intelligence services are behind the color revolution in Serbia and would like to bring another government to power in Serbia,” Vulin said. “We will not allow this.”
Further emphasizing this alliance, Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu met with Vulin in Moscow to discuss the protests, reinforcing the narrative that Western entities are attempting to destabilize Serbia. Shoigu highlighted the regular dialogue and information exchange between Russia and Serbia aimed at preventing such destabilization efforts, per Reuters.
Russia’s longstanding influence in Serbia
The relationship between Russia and Serbia is deeply rooted in a shared Slavic identity, Orthodox Christian traditions, and a long history of political alignment. Moscow has consistently portrayed itself as the defender of Serbian interests – both culturally and geopolitically – going back centuries.
During the Cold War, Yugoslavia – though officially non-aligned – maintained a complicated relationship with the Soviet Union.
But after the collapse of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s and Serbia’s growing pariah status in the West due to its role in the Balkan wars, Russia re-emerged as a vocal supporter of Belgrade. Throughout the NATO bombings of 1999 and the Kosovo War, Moscow defended Belgrade diplomatically, vetoing UN resolutions and challenging NATO’s legitimacy during the Kosovo War.
This loyalty carried into the 2000s and 2010s, particularly regarding Kosovo. Russia has never recognized Kosovo’s independence, aligning itself with Serbia’s territorial claims and using its position on the UN Security Council to block Western-backed measures.
In turn, Serbia has refused to impose sanctions on Russia following its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and has gone on to deepen military ties through arms purchases and joint exercises.
Energy is another pillar of the Serbian-Russian relationship. Serbia is heavily dependent on Russian gas, primarily through the TurkStream pipeline, which runs through the Balkans.
Russia’s state energy giant Gazprom owned a majority stake in Serbia’s national oil and gas company, NIS, until last month, which granted it considerable influence over the country’s energy policy. Russian-owned Gazprom Neft reduced its stake in NIS from 50% to 44.85% in February to avoid Western sanctions targeting companies that still do business with Russia. The change in majority ownership was superficial, according to Reuters, resulting in few actual changes to the business.
Moscow’s soft power also plays a role. State outlets like Sputnik and RT shape public opinion, often reinforcing Kremlin narratives while discrediting Western institutions. Cultural and religious ties are also cultivated through the Russian Orthodox Church, which often collaborates with the Serbian Orthodox Church on public messaging and international outreach.
According to the European Western Balkans and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, this bond has made Belgrade one of Russia’s most reliable allies in Europe – despite Belgrade’s formal status as an EU candidate country.
Serbia’s deepening ties with Russia, especially in the context of suppressing domestic dissent, pose challenges to its aspirations to join the European Union.
Vučić has acknowledged that Serbia is unlikely to join the EU before the end of the decade, a sentiment that reflects both the EU’s enlargement fatigue and concerns over Serbia’s alignment with Russian interests, according to The Financial Times.
Kremlin suppression of ‘color revolutions’
Russia’s presence in Serbia comes as the Kremlin seeks to reassert itself as a global powerbroker – not just in Ukraine, but across Europe’s vulnerable borderlands.
Propping up Vučić during mass unrest serves that strategy: keeping a loyal partner in place while showcasing Moscow’s ability to suppress unrest abroad without firing a shot.
Leveraging historical ties, energy diplomacy, and media influence, Moscow has aimed for years to counterbalance Western integration efforts and stymie citizen protests in support of integration into NATO or the European Union, according to Washington-based think tanks like The Heritage Foundation and Carnegie Center.
Russia’s apprehension toward “color revolutions” – popular uprisings that have led to the overthrow of governments in former Soviet states and allied regimes – is deeply rooted in its post-Soviet strategic worldview.
The Kremlin sees these movements as foreign-engineered threats to authoritarian governance and regional spheres of influence. Moscow has routinely blamed the West, particularly the United States, for funding civil society groups and opposition forces as a form of soft regime change.
In response, Russia has developed and repeatedly deployed a strategic playbook to suppress such uprisings. This includes supplying intelligence and logistical support to embattled regimes, flooding the media landscape with disinformation, deploying online troll farms, and conducting cyberattacks to discredit protest leaders or Western-aligned figures.
When necessary, it has escalated to direct intervention – as seen in Ukraine in 2014, when mass protests led to the ouster of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych.
The Kremlin responded by annexing Crimea and launching a covert military campaign in eastern Ukraine under the guise of defending Russian-speaking populations. Today’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine was enabled, in part, by the West’s muted response to Russia’s initial illegal acts of war in 2014.
In Georgia, Russia responded to the 2003 Rose Revolution by portraying it as a CIA-backed operation and later invaded in 2008 after Tbilisi moved closer to NATO, per the Council on Foreign Relations.
Similarly, in Kyrgyzstan, Russia backed different factions depending on which side promised alignment with Moscow, even intervening diplomatically and financially to sway outcomes during the Tulip Revolution in 2005 and subsequent unrest in 2010, according to Reuters.
The pattern underscores a consistent Russian posture: counter Western-backed democratization efforts by reinforcing authoritarian resilience, especially in countries viewed as geopolitical buffer zones.
Tough choices ahead
Belgrade’s decision to lean on Moscow to help contain the largest anti-government protests in its post-Milošević history may signal not just a short-term crisis response, but a strategic turning point.
By inviting Russian security assistance, Belgrade is not just managing domestic unrest; it’s signaling where it may turn as pressure mounts from below and from abroad.
The move risks hardening perceptions in the West that Serbia is no longer serious about democratic reforms or EU integration. It also aligns squarely with the Kremlin’s long-running strategy: propping up friendly strongmen to stave off popular movements and stall the spread of liberal democratic influence near Russia’s borders.
As protests swell and international scrutiny intensifies, Serbia’s leadership faces a defining choice: move toward the democratic values it claims to aspire to, or double down on authoritarian tactics backed by Moscow.
The stakes are no longer just national — they’re geopolitical. And the world is watching.