Last Monday, Serbia welcomed Gert Jan Koopman, a senior Brussels official and Director-General for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations (DG NEAR). His agenda followed the usual script: meetings with President Aleksandar Vučić (whose constitutional competencies in Serbia’s EU integration are nonexistent, but let’s not start this topic now), Speaker of the National Assembly Ana Brnabić, ruling coalition members, opposition leaders, and civil society representatives. On paper, it was a typical European official’s visit: polite discussions, nodding heads, and the usual buzzwords from the “Parallel Universe of Ursula von der Leyen” about reforms and progress.
Then came Tuesday morning…
Imagine the shock: the front page of a major Belgrade daily newspaper featured Koopman’s photo alongside the dramatic headline, “The EU will not accept or support a violent change of power in Serbia.” A statement so bold it was practically begging for attention. Was this Koopman’s boldest moment yet, or simply the work of an editor with a talent for spin?
The article, stitched together from agency reports, described what it called a “closed-door” meeting between Koopman, opposition leaders, and civil society representatives. Intriguing, right? Except it was not true. As the team at European Western Balkans discovered, there were no secretive joint meetings. Koopman met opposition leaders at the National Assembly and civil society representatives at the EU Delegation in Belgrade. So where did this sensational statement come from?
Decoding the Drama
Participants at the meetings clarified that “violent change of power” was not discussed as implied. Instead, there was a question about Serbia’s increasingly polarized political environment and ongoing crisis within already existing political crises (which the EU has pretended not to see since 2016). Koopman, true to form, responded with the usual EU clichés about stability, reforms, and enlargement momentum. Adding a twist of irony, Koopman repeated one of the Serbian klepto-authoritarian regime favorite, and long-debunked, narratives: the supposed “attack on the president’s family.”
But let’s return to the front page. How this vague discussion became a front-page accusation of opposition groups plotting violence is an exercise in journalistic acrobatics. Was this an example of creative journalism or a calculated effort to twist the narrative?
Who Benefits?
The article framed Koopman’s remark as a stern warning to opposition leaders and civil society, groups already under immense pressure in Serbia’s tense political climate. It subtly suggested they were teetering on the edge of violent rebellion. Such baseless accusations are not only irresponsible but also dangerous. Who stands to gain from stirring up more polarization in a deeply divided society?
Then there’s the glaring issue of sourcing (or rather, the lack of it). When European Western Balkans sought clarification from EU institutions, the initial response was the traditional and predictable vague platitudes: “We encourage dialogue” and “We are concerned.” Only after persistent questioning did the EU confirm that Koopman had addressed a hypothetical “regime change” question, but that he was misinterpreted.
However, the EU failed to provide a clear and detailed account of events that could decisively debunk the narrative suggesting that the opposition and civil society were planning violence. Who posed that question, and in which context? Once again, pro-government Serbian media outpaced EU institutions in shaping the public narrative.
And here’s the kicker: by distorting the story, the article conveniently shifted attention away from the actual purpose of Koopman’s visit, discussing reforms within the Reform Agenda and meeting the conditions for the second tranche of the EU’s Growth Plan. Instead, it undermined the credibility of opposition leaders and civil society while (again and again) further eroding public trust in EU institutions among Serbia’s pro-European citizens. Coincidence? Hardly.
A Curious Conclusion
This episode leaves us with one pressing question: Who orchestrated this spin, and why? Was it a desperate attempt by a once-respected daily newspaper to curry favor with the ruling party, or part of a broader strategy to delegitimize dissent? Perhaps we should ask Richard Grenell, he always seems to have an answer.
One thing is clear: society suffers when truth becomes collateral damage in political games. In Serbia, it seems the price of EU integration is not just about reforms and funding conditions, it is also the erosion of trust in both domestic institutions and the European project itself. If this is the kind of “progress” Koopman came to promote, perhaps Brussels should send someone better equipped to navigate reality and Serbia’s spin machine.