After 3 days, 18 panels, 2 keynote speeches, and more than 100 speakers, the Belgrade Security Conference officially closed. This year’s edition gathered 743 registered participants and hosted 566 attendees, marking the most visited BSC to date. Closing remarks were delivered by Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer, President of the German Marshall Fund, and Igor Bandović, Director of the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy.

In her closing message, Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer emphasized that Europe is at a strategic crossroads and that the principles that shaped the post-war order such as democracy, cooperation, and the transatlantic bond are facing renewed challenges. She highlighted that the Western Balkans, long positioned at the crossroads of history, have a clear path forward: Euro-Atlantic and European integration remain the most effective route to lasting peace and prosperity. De Hoop Scheffer underlined that vision, reform, and strategic partnerships consistently lead to progress and that GMF is proud to support journalists, activists, and young leaders across the Balkans who work to strengthen democracy and anchor the region in transatlantic cooperation. “The Western Balkans are not just part of Europe’s past — they are central to its future,” she noted, reaffirming GMF’s commitment to regional changemakers.

In his remarks, Igor Bandović reflected on the difficult year that preceded the conference. He recalled that in April it was unclear whether BSC would take place at all, given pressure on civil society, police visits to partner organizations, funding withdrawals, and an overall environment of instability, describing, moreover, challenges posed by nationwide protests and general strike – Do we stop our work or continue supporting vulnerable groups, those detained, and communities experiencing repression.

He pointed out that the high numbers of this year’s conference “do not just reflect scale — they reflect trust, commitment, and the shared belief that this space matters.” This year, Belgrade Security Conference, he proceeded, created space for and honest discussion based on truth, responsibility, and confrontation with reality. Mr. Bandović stated that “only by standing together — in a shared, principled, and coordinated front — can we hope to defend space for truth, freedom, accountability, and European civic space.”

The post Belgrade Security Conference Closing Ceremony appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

In a discussion moderated by Vessela Tcherneva, Deputy Director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, panelists examined the modernisation of green technology, its implications for Central and Eastern Europe, and the role China plays in the global clean-tech landscape.

Participants agreed that Europe – and especially the CEE region – urgently needs more investment, more realistic planning, and faster implementation of green technologies.

Julian Popov, former Minister of Environment and Waters of Bulgaria, emphasised the need to identify common ground between phasing out fossil fuels, increasing defence budgets, and maintaining the competitiveness of EU industries. “If we put these together and look at them separately,” Popov argued, “the budget does not work – we are running a ten per cent budget deficit, high inflation – it does not work.” He highlighted recent EU-level action, noting that “a few weeks ago, the European Council, supported by the European Parliament, agreed on an interim target to lower emissions.” Everything else, he suggested, is secondary. Popov envisioned a future in which China leads in innovation while Europe becomes a key assembly hub, supported by Chinese firms and factories.

Alicja Bachulska, Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, warned that if the EU continues to approach China as it currently does, “we’ll end up an assembly line for Chinese products.” Focusing on Eastern Europe – and Poland in particular – she noted that expectations of creating a level playing field with China have not materialised. “China has been very reluctant to treat partners as equals,” she explained. Bachulska also criticised European complacency, pointing out that China’s five-year plans and official strategies have long been publicly available, yet “Europeans have failed to read or acknowledge these documents,” leading to “a lot of wishful thinking.” Europe, she concluded, must “diversify our partnerships” and “develop technologies that bypass China.”

Vuk Vuksanović, Senior Researcher at the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy, offered a broader geopolitical perspective. In order to challenge the EU, he argued, China concluded that it needed to “make a footprint in the Balkans.” According to Vuksanović, this strategy provides Beijing with three key advantages: access to natural resources, access to the EU market, and relationships with corrupt local officials. He also pointed to a new wave of Serbian environmentalism following the Novi Sad canopy tragedy – “one of the rare issues that united both the political left and the political right.” Finally, Vuksanović warned that Chinese and Russian influence in Serbia will not disappear even if President Vučić leaves power.

The post Europe’s Clean Technology Dilemma: The Role of the CEE Region appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

At the Belgrade Security Conference, the panel “Feminist Peace in Hostile Times” examined how global backlash, militarization, and anti-gender movements challenge the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda.

Moderator Maja Bjeloš (BCSP) emphasized that women’s contributions to peacebuilding remain undervalued, even as conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and elsewhere make feminist approaches more urgent.

Nicola Popović (Gender Associations International) reflected on the 25-year legacy of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, noting that it emerged from pacifist women’s movements demanding human security rather than state-centric security. She warned that today the WPS agenda risks being “co-opted rather than transformed,” stressing that states must confront the structures that enable violence and militarization.

From Lebanon, Shirine Jurdi (WILPF) described the severe insecurity facing women across the Middle East. She stressed that in conflicts from Gaza to Yemen, women repeatedly ask “who protects us,” as civilian suffering continues to intensify. Jurdi called for demilitarizing security, restoring dignity, and ensuring women’s participation and access to resources: “Protection cannot be selective.”

Ukraine’s experience was outlined by Olena Kharytonova, adviser to the Ministry of Education. She highlighted efforts to secure justice for survivors of conflict-related sexual violence and underscored the difference between “sustained” peace and “just” peace. With thousands of women on the frontlines yet excluded from negotiations, she argued that accountability for war crimes and the inclusion of displaced Ukrainians must be non-negotiable.

From North Macedonia, Sara Milenkovska (Stella Network) emphasized that anti-gender actors exploit insecurity, eroding mechanisms for equality even as the country presents itself as progressive. She warned of rising transphobia and shrinking democratic space, arguing that feminist strategies must rely on transnational solidarity, coalition-building, and mutual aid.

Serbian activist Snežana Jakovljević (Sandglass) stressed that women’s rights and security are inseparable. Drawing on experiences from the 1990s anti-war protests to the present, she argued that women remain the first to resist violence, yet state institutions increasingly co-opt and militarize WPS language while civil society faces growing financial constraints.

International consultant Milena Stošić linked the regional backlash to global trends of state capture and rising gender-based violence. She underscored that young women are leading today’s democratic resistance but often face unacknowledged risks. She called for bottom-up strategies and renewed investment in grassroots organizing: “We must return to the basics of direct democratic practice.”

From Kosovo, Marigona Shabiu (YIHR) highlighted shrinking civic space as political actors attempt to limit women’s agency. She stressed intergenerational cooperation and cross-border feminist solidarity as essential tools for preserving progress: “Resistance is our shared task — losing hope is exactly what anti-gender actors want.”

Audience questions addressed the influence of religion on anti-gender movements and whether cooperation with religious leaders is necessary. Panelists agreed that confronting the backlash will require broader alliances, clearer messaging, and persistent community engagement.

Despite increasingly hostile contexts, speakers shared a unified message: feminist peace approaches remain vital, and safeguarding the WPS agenda depends on solidarity, resilience, and sustained grassroots action.

The post The Frontlines of Equality: Defending the WPS Agenda in Hostile Times appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

The roundtable “Lessons from Swiss Neutrality: Trustbuilding and Dialogue in the Western Balkans” explored how Switzerland’s experience in neutrality can inform peacebuilding and reconciliation in the region.

Switzerland’s long-standing tradition of neutrality has shaped its global role in diplomacy, mediation, and peacebuilding. This roundtable examined how the core principles of Swiss neutrality – credibility, discretion, and inclusivity – can support reconciliation and institution-building efforts in the Western Balkans. Participants discussed how neutrality, as both a value and operational practice, can help build trust, facilitate dialogue, and strengthen resilience in divided societies.

The session also considered how adaptable the Swiss model is to the current political and social realities of the region. Key questions included: What makes Swiss neutrality a credible and sustainable peacebuilding model? How can its principles be applied to Western Balkan dynamics? What lessons from Switzerland’s mediation and “good offices” can support regional dialogue? Where are the limits of neutrality in deeply polarized environments, and how can they be managed? And how can neutral facilitation contribute to rebuilding trust and strengthening institutional resilience across the region?

Jean-Daniel Ruch, former Ambassador of Switzerland to Serbia, spoke about the Swiss model of neutrality and its foundations. He emphasized that neutrality is not the same as non-alignment, but rather the outcome of specific historical circumstances faced by countries positioned between major powers. He highlighted the importance of neutrality being recognized by others and noted that Switzerland was fortunate to have its neutrality acknowledged more than 200 years ago.

Throughout the discussion, Ruch explored how Serbia could potentially integrate elements of the Swiss model. He pointed to student protests as an example of direct diplomacy in action. He also noted that Serbia’s position, situated between four major powers, could be leveraged as a strategic advantage—but doing so requires flexibility and significant resource investment. One remark that drew particular attention was his suggestion that the next Trump-Putin meeting could be held at Sava Centar.

Alexandra Matas, Director of the International Security Dialogue Department at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, stressed that today’s polarized world urgently needs “bridgemakers.” She emphasized that neutrality is not passivity; on the contrary, successful neutrality requires proactive engagement. Neutral countries act as facilitators, maintain backchannel communications, and do whatever is necessary to keep dialogue alive. Addressing audience questions, she highlighted the distinction between mediation, negotiation, and dialogue facilitation. She also sparked debate by suggesting that Serbia could potentially pursue both neutrality and EU accession simultaneously.

Nicolas Ramseier, President and Co-Founder of the Geneva Center for Neutrality, discussed the prerequisites for successful neutrality. He highlighted the importance of internal stability, a strong reputation, and historical credibility. Ramseier suggested that Serbia could benefit more from being a partner to the EU rather than a full member, describing this approach as “not putting all your eggs in one basket.” He envisioned Serbia as a potential diplomatic powerhouse, equipped with the tools to achieve this if the government chooses that path. On the ethical dimensions of neutrality, he stressed the need for consistent criteria and prioritizing actions that benefit the broader international community.

Moderator Lejla Mazić concluded the session by emphasizing that neutrality is a social necessity. She argued that with sufficient resources, reputation, independence, political will, and support grounded in facts and history, neutrality could become a viable reality in the Balkans.

The post Swiss Neutrality and Peacebuilding in the Balkans: Lessons for Regional Dialogue appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

The panel Digital Repression and the Future of Civic Space focused on how spyware, cyberattacks, disinformation and legal loopholes are increasingly used to intimidate journalists, activists and ordinary citizens, shrinking democratic space across the region. All speakers agreed that these practices create a powerful chilling effect and that stronger safeguards, public awareness and institutional accountability are essential to protect fundamental rights.

The panel was moderated by Maja Bjeloš, Senior Researcher at the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy, who in her opening remarks highlighted the hostile digital environment in which civil society operates, noting state-sponsored attacks on media Južne vesti and KRIK, hacking attempts targeting BCSP, efforts to copy the conference website and the use of various spyware tools identified by Transparency International.

Jelena Sesar, Researcher at Amnesty International, outlined the growing digital threats facing journalists, activists and civil society in Serbia. She explained that authorities rely on two models of intrusive surveillance. The first involves advanced spyware such as Pegasus and Predator, which can remotely transform a phone into a camera or microphone and provide unrestricted access to personal data. The second is locally developed spyware used by state security services, which requires physical access to a device. Amnesty also documented the unprecedented use of Israeli technology to forcibly unlock phones, a tool meant for legitimate investigations but now repurposed against civil society. Alongside spyware, Sesar described the deployment of IMSI catchers – portable devices that mimic telecom antennas to identify individuals at protests. In response to a question from moderator Maja Bjelos about how such repression affects everyday life, Sesar highlighted the profound psychological and practical consequences. Victims frequently report feeling violated, anxious and unsafe, often changing their behaviour, withdrawing from activism or censoring themselves.

Filip Milošević, technologist at the SHARE Foundation’s Emerging Threat Lab, described how little is known about the full scale of spyware and forensic tool abuse in Serbia since the publication of the organisation’s initial report. He noted that investigators have not identified new confirmed cases, but this absence of evidence is far from reassuring. According to him, two explanations are possible: either the authorities paused the use of these tools after public exposure, or civil society lacks the technical capacity and resources needed to detect ongoing abuses. Milošević added that many detained individuals now avoid carrying their phones, showing that awareness has increased, while others had their devices deliberately broken or factory-reset — raising suspicion that forensic tools were used to extract data beforehand. When asked about strategies for protection, he stressed that building trust and cooperation among civil society organisations, media and citizens is essential. Without stronger networks, surveillance technologies only reinforce the power of those already in control and deepen the chilling effect on society.

Zuzanna Sielska, Assistant at the Research Center for Public Policy and Regulatory Governance at the University of Silesia, examined the growing threat of cyberattacks and hybrid interference, emphasising that the most dangerous attacks are often invisible. While some acts of sabotage have been successfully prevented, she warned that psychological operations and disinformation campaigns pose a far greater long-term risk. Describing a recent case in Poland, she explained how a series of drone attacks was immediately followed by an online wave of posts claiming they were carried out by Ukrainians, Russians or Belarusians. This deliberate mixture of truth and falsehood was designed to create confusion, provoke speculation about NATO’s response and weaken public trust.  Discussing the consequences, she pointed to the information warfare that intensified after millions of Ukrainian refugees arrived in Poland. Thousands of online accounts, many traced back to Russia, pushed claims that Ukrainians were taking jobs or disrespecting Polish society, attempting to fuel resentment.

Dušan Pokuševski, Lawyer and Programme Director at the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, explained that, unlike in some European countries, Serbian law does not explicitly recognise spyware as either legal or illegal, leaving a dangerous grey zone. Existing provisions on digital surveillance and are, on paper, aligned with international standards, including requirements of proportionality and legitimate aim. However, what is missing is the rule of law in practice: institutions are not free or willing to act in accordance with these norms. Mr. Pokuševski stressed that surveillance contributes to a broader chilling effect. People are afraid of how their information might be used, and digital monitoring becomes just one element in a wider strategy of pressure on anyone critical of the government. He recalled attempts to use Pegasus against civil society activists in 2023, which forced them to completely change their communication habits. In his view, education is crucial: only when people understand their rights can they exert meaningful pressure on authorities that violate them.

The panel was organised with the support of the “Knowledge for Reform Action in the Western Balkans” project, funded by the Kingdom of Norway and implemented by UNOPS.

As part of this collaboration, the Protocol for Digital Security and Response to Digital Attacks was also developed, further strengthening efforts to enhance digital safety and resilience.

The post Digital Repression and the Future of Civic Space appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

As Russia’s war against Ukraine enters yet another year, Europe faces the challenge of moving beyond crisis management toward a sustainable and durable peace architecture. The task is not only to end active hostilities but also to design a stable security framework that prevents renewed conflict and rebuilds trust in European security institutions.

Developed within the Conversations on European Security project, the Peace Matrix is a strategic framework created by the Geneva Centre for Security Policy and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Vienna. It outlines the political, diplomatic, and security steps necessary to shape Europe’s future security order. Drawing on insights from experts across Europe, North America, Russia, and Ukraine, the matrix identifies where incremental agreements are possible, how priorities might be aligned, and where external support can reinforce pathways to peace. This session presented the Peace Matrix to the broader policy community and explored its potential application to Ukraine and Europe’s future security.

The panel began with short presentations by the speakers, followed by an interactive debate with the audience. During the introductory remarks, Alexandra Matas, Director of the International Security Dialogue Department at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, explained that the Peace Matrix emerged from numerous track-one dialogues and aims to encourage reflection on the future of European security.

Christos Katsioulis, Director of the FES Regional Office for Cooperation and Peace in Europe, expanded on this idea by describing European security as an “architecture project.” To build it, he said, we must first understand its structure — a task made more difficult while the war in Ukraine continues. He described the Peace Matrix as a tool for navigating complex, interconnected challenges, comparing it to a puzzle whose arrangement depends on the actor trying to solve it. He emphasized the importance of approaching this puzzle from an EU perspective.

Zaur Shiriyev, Nonresident Scholar at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, provided insights from the Azerbaijan–Armenia conflict, arguing that the Peace Matrix can offer valuable lessons. For many years, he said, Russia’s role and its pro-war positioning were major obstacles to peace negotiations. After the war in Ukraine began, it took Armenia and Azerbaijan just 18 months to reach a peace agreement. While the matrix will not end the war in Ukraine, Shiriyev argued, it could help prevent some of the post-conflict mistakes made elsewhere.

The discussion then turned to the role of neutral countries in peace negotiations and whether they are failing to fulfill their responsibilities. Katsioulis remarked that neutrality can function effectively only when both parties demonstrate genuine political will. He also questioned whether all actors understand neutrality in the same way. He emphasized the need — and the possibility — to bring more dialogue and negotiation back to the table.

A subsequent question addressed deterrence, the idea of a European army, proliferation, and demilitarization. Responding together, Katsioulis and Matas noted that many of these options have already been considered and even tested to varying degrees. Proliferation, they argued, would be dangerously destabilizing, while large-scale demilitarization is not realistic in the current geopolitical environment.

In closing, moderator Nemanja Džuverović, Professor of Peace Studies at the University of Belgrade, asked what distinguishes the Peace Matrix from other peace indexes and frameworks. The speakers agreed that the matrix should not be viewed as a competitor but as a tool with its own unique strengths. They emphasized that certain spaces in the matrix are intentionally left open, reflecting the reality that the global environment is dynamic and new threats can emerge at any time.

The post Peace Matrix: Pathways to a Sustainable European Security Order appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

In an audience-inclusive discussion moderated by the Advocacy Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights – YUCOM, Jovana Spremo, panelists representing Montenegro, Serbia, and Bosnia & Herzegovina, discussed the common challenges faced by human rights defenders in the Western Balkans.

Panelists agreed that governments often set obstacles for civil society organisations and employed subversive tactics meant to make activists’ lives more difficult. Additionally, participants agreed that smear campaigns were a tool employed often by authorities to discredit organisations. “Having trust in those who are defending your rights” said Spremo, “is the first step”.

Dejan Lučka, Director of the Banjaluka Centre for Human Rights, opened by saying that “the most dangerous thing is not a single law but the atmosphere which the law makes, even when struck down”. Lučka focused on the fact that governments, both in Republika Srpska and in the wider region, engender the concept of civil society organisations as potentially dangerous and normalise the idea of such groups are foreign mercenaries and lobbies. “Defenders have had to become very creative just to keep working” he concluded. “At any time, you can get a lawsuit filed against you.”

More transparency, demanded Ivan Radulović, Program Coordinator for Human Rights & Justice at Civic Alliance Montenegro. “We do seem to be frontrunners” conceded Radulović, “but there are still many concerns”. He also added that cooperation between NGOs from different countries in the region often goes as smoothly as possible, and that the problem lays instead with the relationships between NGOs and governmental institutions. Frontrunners or not, Montenegro still has a way to go—even after it has joined the EU. “We actually focus on what happens on the day after,” he concluded, “we become a member state”.

“GONGO organisations have been spreading across Serbia as well as phantom organisations – organisations that only exist on paper” – this is a big problem in Serbia, according to Alma Mustajbašić, a Public Policy Researcher at Civic Initiatives. GONGOs simulate dialogue and support for the authorities, she added. When government funds and support go to GONGOs, what can CSOs even do? “What is left for real civil society organisations”, emphasises Mustajbašić, “is real work on the field and with the communities, because this is how citizens can actually recognise who is doing the work”.

“When you do not have trust, you do not have society”. This was the conclusion of Tamara Filipović Stevanović, Secretary General of the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia. “The journalist community – real journalists – are human rights defenders”, Filipović Stevanović said, as opposed to journalists who only repeat after the government. Tamara also spoke on the threats and attacks made against Serbian journalists – whether the physical kind or the numerous spear campaigns that are published in matters of days, if not hours. “This is the worst year since 2008 for our journalists”, she said.

In the second part of the panel, panelists joined the audience in five smaller groups to discuss four different topics: security of human rights defenders, disinformation and smear campaigns, GONGOs and phantom organisations, and regional cooperation. Panelists and audiences agreed that solidarity and regional cooperation are very important, as is taking care of one’s own and each other’s mental health. “What is needed are media-literate people,” said Filipović Stevanović. “We should try to focus on initiatives that would gather youth and people from different countries from the Western Balkans,” added Radulović.

The post Hands-On Strategy Exchange: Human Rights Defenders and Civil Society under Repression appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

The third day of the Belgrade Security Conference continues with the public presentation of the “SecuriMeter 2025 Report: Western Balkans Regional Security Perceptions”.

The Regional Cooperation Council’s SecuriMeter 2025 survey offers a detailed insight into how citizens across the Western Balkan Six perceive security, governance, and everyday risks ranging from corruption and migration to cyber threats and economic uncertainty. As the fifth annual edition, the report aims to inform the public with factual, data-driven findings so that key decisions affecting the region are based on evidence rather than prejudice. With responses from more than 6,000 citizens, the report shows increasing trust in regional and European cooperation, while still highlighting persistent concerns about general security, personal safety, corruption, economic pressures, and depopulation.

Mr Amer Kapetanović, Secretary General of the Regional Cooperation Council, opened the session with welcoming remarks and highlighting three main messages drawn from citizens across the region. First, people are increasingly afraid of institutions that they feel are not performing as they should. Second, trust is shaped by delivery, not declarations. Mr Kapetanović presented a developed statistical model showing clear trends. Third, youth and the EU remain the strongest anchors in the Western Balkans. The model shows that citizens who trust local institutions are more likely to trust EU institutions as well. When the EU perspective feels tangible, trust increases. Security, he concluded, is not only about threats but also about trust.

Mr Aner Zuković, Senior Security Advisor at the Regional Cooperation Council, continued by presenting some of the most interesting results from SecuriMeter 2025. Only 25% of WB citizens are satisfied with the way things are going in their economy. 38% believe the Western Balkans is a secure region, while 49% consider their own economy safe. Just 31% are optimistic about regional security over the next 12 months. 46% of WB citizens think the continuation of the war in Ukraine negatively impacts security in the region. About 53% of WB citizens feel personally secure, yet everyday fears remain common. One-third believe domestic violence is widespread. Half of WB citizens carry less cash to avoid being robbed. 21% have installed security cameras, while 2% own a gun, and around 10% are considering getting one. The whole report is available here.

Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Political Science, University of Belgrade, Dr Tijana Rečević talked about the importance of distinguishing security from safety as both analytical and theoretical concepts, with the main difference between the two being the intention behind the harm. She then mentioned how, unfortunately, we live in a society where slogans such as “corruption kills” are becoming less metaphorical, with issues such as unsafe roads, weakened standards, weak law enforcement, etc., becoming everyday life. She also linked this to growing issues of immigration, low trust in the media and police, and other related concerns. Later on, she emphasised the role of education in making long-term, lasting changes to society. As an education worker herself, she provided useful insight into how the student movement inspired changes in the way critical thinking is perceived in our societies.

Dr Sonja Stojanović Gajić, Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies South East Europe, University of Rijeka, talked about the role of wars, or rather narratives of war, as a security issue. She feels it boils down to two main issues. The first is a deep-rooted fear of war in our society, while the second is the shared trauma of war that characterises this region. However, she stayed on a positive note by giving the example of the student protests in Serbia, especially the movement from Novi Pazar, and how this generation normalised a relationship that previously was not very good. An important topic she mentioned was the fact that two-thirds of people in Serbia would not trade their freedom for security, which she points out as a significant improvement and a source of optimism.

Research Analyst at Carnegie Europe, Ms Iliriana Gjoni, pointed out the deeply rooted clientelism in societies throughout the Western Balkans. She later touched upon EU accession and the importance of the Serbian market, which undermines the process by giving Serbia a kind of privileged treatment. She was critical of the EU’s justification for this and said that the time of stabilitocracy has run out. Later on, she pointed out the importance of reconciliation in the region in order to move forward, which we as a region still have not achieved. To that end, she stressed the importance of ending nationalistic slurs while protesting against governments in the region.

Ms Nikolina Stojanovska, Managing Director and Project Manager at Market Vision, talked about the irony of corruption being normalised as a part of our daily lives. She emphasised that the latest tragedy in North Macedonia happened exclusively because of corruption. She pointed out a positive aspect in the SecurityMeter 2025 results: contrary to popular narratives, 68% of citizens wish to stay in their economy.

The post Public Presentation of SecuriMeter 2025 Report: Western Balkans Regional Security Perceptions appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

The panel “Recalibrating EU Support: Strengthening Candidate Countries’ Resilience to Malign Interference” examined how foreign actors exploit institutional weaknesses, economic vulnerabilities, and societal divisions in EU candidate countries – and how the EU can provide more effective support in countering these threats.

Speakers agreed that resilience must be built simultaneously at the institutional, economic, and societal levels, and that safeguarding democratic processes is inseparable from bolstering security and economic stability. The discussion was moderated by Steven Blockmans, Senior Fellow at CEPS and ICDS and Visiting Professor at the College of Europe.

Gergana Noutcheva, Associate Professor in the Political Science Department at Maastricht University, presented research demonstrating that malign interference systematically undermines democratic institutions in EU candidate countries, with Russia remaining the primary source of such activity. She explained that interference operates both through institutional channels, including election manipulation and support for political forces aligned with pro-Russian or illiberal agendas, and through societal channels aimed at eroding social cohesion and spreading narratives that challenge core democratic values. Countries heavily exposed to these threats, such as Moldova and Ukraine, have developed stronger resilience due to their frontline experience. Others, including Georgia and Serbia, show limited institutional resistance, particularly where ruling parties benefit from Russian support. Noutcheva stressed that building democratic resilience requires both institutional and societal components. Institutional resilience is easier to achieve when democratic governments are genuinely committed to protecting the system; in Serbia’s case, she argued, the framework exists on paper, but political leadership demonstrates little willingness to use it. Societal resilience, however, is far more difficult to build, especially because the EU remains an ineffective public communicator.

Fanny Sauvignon, Researcher in the Foreign Policy Unit at the Centre for European Policy Studies, addressed the socio-economic conditions that shape the resilience of candidate countries. She noted that their growth remains largely consumption-driven, while weak social safety nets and persistent brain drain undermine long-term development. She highlighted that external actors exert destabilising influence through strategic investment in critical infrastructure, through migration dynamics, and through the fuelling of corruption – all of which carry profound long-term consequences. Sauvignon emphasised that opening the single market and removing trade barriers would significantly strengthen economic stability, particularly when combined with efforts to reduce the heavy energy dependence of many candidate states. She also pointed to concerns about the under-absorption of EU funds, arguing for a sustained focus on building durable economic resilience and seeking long-term, practical solutions. In the short term, she recommended ensuring better access to EU loans so that candidate countries do not turn to China for financing, while maintaining conditionality as a core principle of such assistance.

Antoine Michon, Policy Officer at the Centre for Analysis, Planning and Strategy of the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, argued that enlargement requires the EU to make a concrete commitment to strengthening its security community. He identified three key sectors where this transformation must occur. The first is economic security, an area where the Union needs a far more sophisticated agenda. The second is defence, which is particularly important for non-NATO candidates; Michon underscored the need to reinforce Europe’s defence capabilities, both for the present and the future, including through the development of integrated defence-industrial bases, while acknowledging that this sector poses sensitive challenges for enlargement due to existing screening mechanisms. The third sector concerns what he termed FEMI – Foreign Electoral Manipulation and Interference – a comprehensive “democracy shield” designed to counter attempts by foreign actors to undermine democratic processes. His proposal includes establishing a new centre for democratic resilience that would strengthen institutional capacities in candidate countries and foster greater citizen engagement. As he noted, “candidate countries’ security is EU security, even today.”

Responding to a question from the audience about whether enhanced defence cooperation could encourage member states to support enlargement – especially with regard to the defence capacities of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia – Michon cautioned against expecting defence collaboration to shortcut the fundamentals of the accession process.

The post Recalibrating EU Support: Strengthening Candidate Countries’ Resilience to Malign Interference appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

At the Belgrade Security Conference, the panel “Democracy Under Siege: The Rise of Anti-Establishment Extremism in Europe and Serbia” examined how anti-establishment narratives, conspiratorial thinking, and far-right activism are reshaping European politics and weakening democratic norms.

Moderated by Predrag Petrović, Research Director at the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy, the discussion emphasised that extremism today is not a fringe occurrence but a mainstream challenge that influences political communication, public attitudes, and institutional behaviour. Petrović opened by noting that anti-establishment parties in Europe now command close to 30% of support, compared to 12% in the 1990s. “This is no longer a marginal phenomenon,” he said. “These movements thrive on grievances and reject the foundations of democratic governance.”

Kacper Rekawek, Senior Research Fellow at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, described rising extremism across Europe, focusing on the Netherlands. “What we see is extreme populism — a revolt against the elite,” he said. While longstanding, social media and the COVID-19 pandemic significantly accelerated these dynamics. He outlined several Dutch factions- from conspiracy believers to radicalised farmers, emphasising their adaptability: “They are constantly searching for new topics that allow them to remain relevant.”

From Sweden, Morgan Finnsiö, researcher and investigative journalist at the Expo Foundation, argued that Nordic extremism mirrors broader transnational patterns. “Anti-establishment extremism looks remarkably similar across countries,” he explained. He highlighted the growing involvement of youth: “Extremists are getting younger, sometimes teenagers.” The 2022 Gotland killing, carried out by a former neo-Nazi influenced by U.S. conspiracy narratives, illustrated how extremist beliefs have entered the mainstream. “Right-wing extremism in Sweden continues to export neo-Nazi ideology across the region,” he added.

Turning to Serbia, Isidora Stakić, Senior Researcher at BCSP, outlined how extremist discourse intersects with state power. While fringe groups persist, she argued that the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) increasingly employs anti-systemic rhetoric. “The ruling party is becoming an extremist force,” she said. “Institutions violate basic human rights, loyalist groups attack protesters, and officials use hateful language to delegitimise the opposition.” She described this dynamic as transactional authoritarianism, where political loyalty is rewarded with impunity.

Aleksandra Bulatović, senior research fellow at the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory and a well-known activist, stressed that extremism in Serbia is defined politically, not analytically. “Labels are imposed on activists, not on those who undermine institutions,” she said, highlighting the government’s “eco-terrorist list” targeting peaceful environmental protesters. “According to the authorities, an extremist is simply someone who refuses to be afraid.”
Bulatović argued for distinguishing extremism from legitimate radical activism: “Civil disobedience is democratic at its core. The misuse of these terms threatens civic space and undermines democratic capacity.”

Addressing a question about student protests, Stakić emphasised that criticizing an increasingly anti-systemic government is not extremism. “If the system produces extreme outcomes -inequality, erosion of rights – questioning it is legitimate,” she said.

The conversation also turned to foreign influences. Asked about Russia, Rękawek explained that pro-Kremlin narratives resonate with anti-establishment groups because “Putin is seen as someone who ‘breaks the system’.” Finnsiö added that foreign actors often only amplify existing domestic grievances: “It runs almost on autopilot. These movements look to each other across borders.”

Audience questions focused on the use of “family values” rhetoric, homophobia, and the merging of COVID-era radicals with traditional far-right actors. Finnsiö noted that European security agencies still lack consistent terminology: “Definitions matter – because loose definitions risk harming civil liberties.”

As the panel concluded, speakers agreed that anti-establishment extremism is evolving across borders and platforms, increasingly influencing mainstream politics. Democracy, they warned, is being undermined not only by fringe actors but also by political leaders who normalize conspiratorial and exclusionary narratives. Strengthening democratic resilience, they argued, will require clearer definitions, accountable institutions, and the protection of legitimate civic activism from politically motivated repression.

The post Democracy Under Siege: The Rise of Anti-Establishment Extremism in Europe and Serbia appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.