This is an opinionated article by Engjellushe Morina, Senior Policy Fellow, and Angelica Vascotto, pan-European Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
This winter has seen Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic skating on dangerously thin ice. Mass student-led anticorruption protests have led to the resignation of the prime minister, Milos Vucevic, as well as several other members of his government. Last week, the president hinted that the turmoil could lead to a snap parliamentary election come spring.
But public anger and Vucic’s collapsing government are far from his only problems. Even before the protests, the president’s longstanding “à la carte” approach to foreign policy of hedging Serbia between the West and Russia (with a side order of China) seemed to be in trouble. Both the European Union and Russia have been pressing Belgrade to choose a side. Now, Vucic has found himself with very little international sympathy for his domestic woes—and very little room for manoeuvre.
This gives Europeans a key opportunity to help steer events towards stability and democratic progress while minimising the risk of regional spillover. To prevent prolonged instability and bring Serbia back on track, the EU should support civil society, address regional tensions, and reinforce Serbia’s European trajectory.
[…]
It is certainly an opinion I don’t share, but it isn’t outright missinformation. I think we can survive some different opinions in the comment section if there is no brigarding or outright lies.
@poVoq
I would not only delete @bungalowtill’s comments but ban the user entirely from the community. They literally wrote:
How else can you understand that if not as a call for violence? Such a comment is completely insane.
How is that a call for violence? That is a reference to the Maidan protests with all the messy parts that followed.
It is up to you, I’m not a moderator. Others in this thread appear to share my view that the said comments are highly biased, and they perfectly fit into a propaganda pattern. @bungalowtill’s comment (“another Ukraine project?”) can only be understood as a direct threat to the Serbian people demanding democracy. For example, Georgia’s Russia-linked party ‘Georgian Dream’ applied such a rhetoric in last year’s Georgian election, spreading fears among the population that Russia will attack the country if it opens to the EU and Western democracies.
But as I said, I’m not a mod. I stand by my initial remark to remove such comments, though.
Some people prefer stability over democracy. That’s a valid opinion to have, but not mine.
That said, the comparison is kinda bad anyways as Serbia is lucky to not have a land border with Russia.
What? People ‘prefer’ stability over democracy if they have no choice, as stability and democracy are not mutually exclusive. This argument is completely out of touch.
These people are already protesting explicitly for democracy. And this is not (or, let’s say, not only in this particular case) about Russia, but about China. Just read the article. There has been 15 dead people already, people are protesting for democracy, and then such a comment?
Do people in dictatorships ‘prefer’ living there if they have no choice?
Serbia is not a dictatorship. It is a democracy with deficits.
You are arguing a strawman anyways as I am agreeing with you that better democracy is worth it, but the world is not so black and white and I can accept that some people have different opinions on this matter.
@poVoq
I really wish you from the bottom of my heart that you will never be in a situation having to “choose” stability over democracy.
(In a personal note, you may read rule 4 of this community, “dehumanization.”)
Sorry, but how is that “dehumanisation”? Quite the contrary. You are the one not willing to accept that humans can have different opinions on various topics.
This is not about different views, what you are doing is extending tolerance and freedom of opinion to a narrative that comes from regimes which deny exactly this. History has shown where this leads.
No, this view doesn’t come from such regimes. It has been weaponized to some extend by such regimes, and I agree that it can be problematic, but by shutting down a view many people have you are exactly playing into the hands of such regimes.
@poVoq@slrpnk.net
This is nitpicking. What @bundalowtill and others are doing is spreading propaganda. I don’t see how you ‘play into the hands of such regimes’ if you take this down. If you don’t take this down, they spread further.
The weaponisation works like this: someone promotes what many people consider a “balanced” opinion and then waits for someone like you to show up and throw a fit and demand a removal of this “vile propaganda”. If it actually gets removed that’s a win, because then they can appear as the reasonable victims of censorship in the view of their target audience. The next step is then to promote their own propaganda platform without this “vile censorship” where they can fully control the narrative towards the then captured audience.
You understood if you (have) lived in a country where someone else tells you what you ‘prefer’. You never did, that is evident from your comments. And as I said, I wish you from the bottom of my heart that you’ll never have to make such an experience.
I have lived under such circumstances and still I don’t see how that is in any way relevant to some random person expressing their opinion in a comment on a website.