George, you describe the Student List’s victory as a “masterful” example of winning with a contentless campaign and the creation of “fake populism.” But Serbia’s history makes this far more than an interesting political observation. It raises serious questions about how movements are built, how political change is organised, who supplies the resources, and what happens after power changes hands. 2026 is just another sequel to a film Serbia has watched before. And the history is considerably more complicated than the slogans. Consider three moments: the Kosovo student protests of 1981, the overthrow of Slobodan Milošević in 2000, and the Student List’s electoral victory in 2026. These were different events with different causes. But each illustrates why political mobilisation needs to be examined in its full historical context. First, 1981--Kosovo Yr after Tito Death. Following Tito’s death in 1980, Yugoslavia faced mounting economic difficulties, political uncertainty and unresolved national tensions. Student protests in Pristina began over poor living conditions and escalated into demonstrations demanding that Kosovo become a republic within Yugoslavia. Kosovo Albanians Demonstrators demanded for unification with Albania. The authorities responded with force, and the unrest intensified existing tensions over Kosovo’s constitutional status and the future of the federation. This was not simply a story of students protesting and everything remaining the same afterwards. The demonstrations exposed deep divisions that would continue to shape Yugoslav politics for the next 20 yrs. They did not single-handedly cause the country’s later collapse, but they demonstrated how student mobilisation intersect with much larger national and political conflicts. Oct 5th, 2000- Fall of Milosevic: Otpor. This is where the documented evidence of direct foreign assistance becomes particularly important. On 11 December 2000, 3 months after Milosevic Coup by the Student Protest and there hand pick Pro EU Politiciansm The Washington Post published Michael Dobbs’s investigation, “U.S. Advice Guided Milosevic Opposition.” It described a sophisticated American effort to help Serbia’s opposition defeat Milošević through political consulting, voter research, activist training and election monitoring. Here are some of the details-Otpor. • $41 million: The approximate US democracy-building effort in Serbia described in the December investigation, including support channelled through organisations such as the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute. • $77.2 million: The broader three-year US assistance effort reported in September 2000. This covered democracy and civil-society programmes across multiple organisations; it was not money paid to Otpor alone. • 2.5 million “Gotov je” stickers: Millions of stickers bearing the slogan “He’s finished” were printed using USAID-funded resources and distributed as part of the opposition mobilisation. • 5,000 cans of spray paint: US taxpayers funded materials used by student activists to spread anti-Milošević graffiti. • Approximately 400 election monitors trained: The December investigation reported that US-funded training prepared hundreds of monitors, who then trained around 15,000 more. • A strategic meeting in Budapest in October 1999: American pollster Doug Schoen presented Serbian opposition leaders with research showing Milošević’s vulnerability and the importance of opposition unity. • Training for Otpor activists: In March 2000, the International Republican Institute funded a Budapest seminar where approximately two dozen Otpor leaders received instruction in nonviolent resistance from retired US Army Colonel Robert Helvey. They studied how to organise strikes, communicate through symbols, overcome fear and undermine a regime’s authority. These details come from contemporary reporting, not speculation invented decades later. <Cite refs={["turn112224search0","turn112224search1"]} /> Let that sink in, really think about it Critically! The American effort was not limited to applauding Serbian protesters from a distance. It included campaign research, communications materials, organisational support, activist training and the preparation of election monitors. These were practical interventions intended to improve the opposition’s capacity to defeat Milošević. Foreign assistance was a direct and documented component of the political campaign to remove him. That does not mean the United States single-handedly overthrew Milošević. Serbian citizens, opposition parties, mass protests, electoral mobilisation and the decisions of domestic institutions were indispensable. But to explain the outcome without examining the foreign assistance would be to leave out a substantial part of the historical record. And there is another important point: the support was politically consequential precisely because it was connected to a real domestic movement. Otpor already had Serbian activists, genuine grievances and a domestic audience. External assistance helped strengthen an existing political force; it did not need to manufacture every grievance or every protester. That is the distinction people miss when they insist that a movement must be either completely spontaneous or entirely foreign-created. Political reality can be more complicated. Now, George, bring that history forward to November 1m 2024 to Oct 25th 2026. The Student List emerged from protests following the Novi Sad railway-station canopy collapse, which killed 16 people. It subsequently won Serbia’s October parliamentary election, receiving approximately 52.7% of the vote according to preliminary official results. Reuters reports that the movement’s victory left Serbia facing questions about its future government, its leadership and its international direction. The public grievances that gave rise to the movement needs to be taken seriously. But so must the questions that arise when a protest movement transforms into a governing force. Before the election, the Centre for Eastern Studies described the Student List as a decentralised, anti-corruption, catch-all movement represented by 250 independent candidates. Its programme contained 11 broad points, while its candidates often spoke in general terms about major issues. The analysis also highlighted the lack of a clearly defined foreign-policy position. That raises legitimate questions, questions that a new political establishment should answer openly and honestly. Who finances the movement’s infrastructure? Where does the $ come from. Which organisations have provided it with money, technical support, training or strategic advice. What relationships does its leadership maintain with foreign governments, political foundations and international organisations? The Student leaders have extemely impressive CVs and where all hand picked by EU Members Germany, Croatain Serbian Diaspora along with major money from in coming EU Member Montenegro- Should be noted majority of Student List Leaders are of Montenegrin ethnicity not Serbian. Now ethnicity is not direct evidence but it does deserve question and scurnity especially if you understand the history between Serbians and Montenegrin- just cause we share same Reglious Christian Orthodox faith doesnt mean we are one and same. Never have been and never will be. For the Student Leaders, What are there actual position on EU accession, Kosovo and Metohija, relations with Russia and China, energy security, defence and Serbia’s independent foreign policy? They have never fully gone into details about their plans just glazed over with to appease working class Serbian voters who are frustrated with Vucic due to cost of living crisis. And when candidates with different political outlooks are brought together under one electoral banner, what programme will determine the decisions of the government they form? These are questions of transparency and sovereignty. They should not be dismissed as conspiracy theories, but neither should allegations of foreign direction be presented as facts without evidence. The 2000 precedent makes scrutiny reasonable. It does not establish that the Student List has received the same kind of assistance. That must be established through documents, financial disclosures, credible reporting and verifiable institutional links. But surely, after Serbia’s own experience, nobody should be asking the public to accept a new political establishment on trust alone. George, you have identified the apparent paradox of a movement winning with a campaign you describe as “contentless.” The next step is to investigate the machinery behind that success and the political programme that will follow it. Who built the organisational capacity? What resources were available? What relationships helped the movement develop? And what concrete policies will its leaders implement now that they have won? Serbia has already experienced a major political transformation in which foreign governments openly invested money, expertise and organisational resources to help achieve a desired outcome. That history is not proof of a repeat—but it is a compelling reason to demand transparency before the next chapter unfolds. The lesson of Otpor is not that Serbian protesters were somehow unreal, or that foreign assistance automatically invalidates an electoral victory. The lesson is that political movements can have domestic roots while also benefiting from outside support, and that understanding a political transformation requires examining both. The lesson of 1981 is different but equally important: student protests can expose deeper national tensions whose consequences extend well beyond the original demands. And the lesson for 2026 is that winning an election does not end the questions. It makes them more urgent. We have seen student mobilisation. We have seen political upheaval. We have seen foreign governments provide documented assistance to Serbian opposition movements. What we have not yet established is whether the Student List has comparable foreign relationships today—and that is precisely why its funding, institutional connections and political programme deserve transparent scrutiny. George, Serbia has watched this film before. The cast has changed, the political circumstances are different, and the outcome is not predetermined. But this time, before the credits roll, the Serbian public deserves to know who financed the production, who helped write the script, and what the people taking power intend to do with the country. 🇷🇸 Because democracy means more than choosing who governs. It means having the information necessary to hold those who govern accountable. archive.ph/UubU#selection-32…

Profesor Jovo Bakić: Najpre otkriti sve veze Vučićeve vlasti s kavačkim i škaljarskim klanovima Profesor Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu i kandidat za poslanika Studentske liste Jovo Bakić izjavio je da će mu, ako bude ministar unutrašnjih poslova u novoj vladi Srbije, prioritet biti da utvrdi šta se zbivalo između režima Aleksandra Vučića i onog nekadašnjeg u Crnoj Gori, odnosno da dokuči veze Vučićeve vlasti s „kavačkim“ i „škaljarskim“ kriminalnim klanovima. Bakić je rekao da misli da Crna Gora i Srbija nemaju otvorenih pitanja, a da odnosi nisu kakvi bi trebalo da budu zbog toga što su bivše vlasti dveju država igrale na kartu „zavađanja naroda“, dodajući da sadašnja vlast u Crnoj Gori ima simpatije Studentske liste, te da on predsednika i premijera Crne Gore doživljava kao braću. On je istakao da nijedna zemlja neće biti ugrožena od Srbije i njene nove vlade, da će joj cilj biti dobrosusedski odnosi. „Odnosi nisu bili onakvi kakvi treba da budu. Bio sam, kao čovek koji voli i Srbiju i Crnu Goru, jako razočaran svime što se dešavalo. Ubeđen sam da ćemo mi sa Studentske liste vrlo brzo popraviti te odnose i dovesti ih na nivo na kom moraju da budu. Jer mi smo istinski braća, nezavisno od toga ko se identifikuje kao Crnogorac, a ko sebe prepoznaje kao Srbina. Mi smo braća i ništa drugo ne možemo biti do braća. U svojoj porodici imam i Crnogorce i Srbe, i volim i jedne i druge. To ne sme da bude klica razdora. Moramo da budemo dve normalne države, koje imaju najbolje moguće odnose, jer sve drugo nije normalno“, kazao je on. Opširnije na: bezcenzure.rs/vesti/politika… Izvor: Beta

"The EU remains ready to work closely with the incoming Serbian government on the fundamentals of the EU accession process, specifically on democratic criteria, independent judiciary and fundamental rights, including media freedom."

RADOJE ZVICER U DUBAIJU SLAVIO POBEDU BLOKADERA U SRBIJI Na drustvenim mrezama pojavio se video-snimak iz kluba u Dubaiju, na kojem je, prema navodima koji prate snimak, Radoje Zvicer istakao uvredljivu poruku upucenu Aleksandru Vucicu. Ako je autentican, ovaj snimak otvara ozbiljna pitanja: da li se pobeda studenata u blokadi slavi uz poruke coveka koji se povezuje sa organizovanim kriminalom i za kojim se traga? Gradjani zasluzuju odgovore, a ne zastradivanje i uvrede. Ovakve tvrdnje moraju se proveriti, a svaka eventualna pretnja mora biti ozbiljno shvacena.

Ilija Srdanović pozvao sve građane da budu dostojanstveni u pobedi i da se suzdrže od nasilja. „Pobeda mora biti potvrđena”, navodi prvi na studentskoj listi.