Over a thousand demonstrators attempted to break into the government building. Serbian President Vucic referred to it as an 'unsuccessful color revolution.' What information is worth noting?

According to reports from Russia, Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabic expressed her gratitude towards the Russian intelligence for providing information about the impending unrest.

Let’s put it this way, of the so-called four major global intelligence organizations, only the CIA and FSB are truly worthy of their names. The MI6 is like the Kremlin’s office in the UK, and Mossad is more hyped than substantial.

Let me tell you a story about Turkey.

On July 16, 2016, during the coup in Turkey, the military had already taken control of the TV stations and sent people to arrest Erdogan. According to previous coups, the military had already won.

However, at that time, Putin directly called Erdogan, telling him to flee immediately. He was vacationing at Marmaris port in southwestern Turkey. Minutes after Erdogan left the hotel, the coup forces stormed in, decimating the presidential guard, and Erdogan’s bodyguards were killed in action. Later, Erdogan attended their funerals.

Let’s look at the media reports

The basic storyline is that the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS), led by Vučić, emerged victorious in the December 17th elections, securing victories in both parliamentary and Belgrade city votes, defeating their opponents, the Serbian Anti-Violence Opposition Alliance (SPN).

According to preliminary statistics from the Serbian National Election Commission, Vučić’s party secured nearly 47% of the votes in the parliamentary elections, a significant lead over SPN’s 23%. This vote count means that SNS will obtain an absolute majority of seats (over half) in the 250-member parliament, allowing them to form a government without the need for a coalition.

However, SPN and some “international observers” claim the elections were unfair, alleging election manipulation by Vučić. Consequently, SPN supporters, primarily led by a social organization called “Serbia against violence” (ironically named), called for resistance and immediately initiated demonstrations. These protests quickly escalated into violent clashes, including an attack on the city hall, which was eventually quelled with the intervention of riot police.

SPN and “international observers” view the involvement of riot police as malicious suppression, while SNS and Vučić argue that this is a Western-backed color revolution with the involvement of Western intelligence agencies, a claim supported by Russia (as mentioned in the news, with prior notification). This summarizes the basic situation and the evolution of this event.

First, it is essential to explain that Serbia has made significant concessions and compromises in its judiciary, constitution, and electoral procedures to align with EU standards, as part of its efforts to join the European Union (EU), a process that began in 2016.

For those familiar with Eastern European affairs, Vučić is a staunch pro-European leader, and EU accession is a central part of his electoral policy. Serbia has made considerable progress in EU accession negotiations, having completed 34 out of 56 chapters, making it the frontrunner among all candidate countries. Currently, the primary obstacle to Serbia’s EU accession lies in the “sovereign territory issue” (refusal to recognize Kosovo) rather than procedural matters.

In comparison to countries like Ukraine, which are plagued by corruption and dysfunction, Serbia stands out as a model of a democratic nation. If Serbia’s elections are considered problematic, then one can easily dismiss Ukraine’s voting process.

In my view, Serbia’s election results align with democratic procedures, and the EU has independent third-party monitoring to verify this. Therefore, major Western nations cannot openly claim that Serbia’s elections are “fraudulent” but can only point out “deficiencies.”

Many NGOs (so-called international observers) cannot directly assert electoral fraud but focus on the “improper influence” brought about by Vučić’s incumbency advantages and irregularities in the voting process (flaws).

If you ask whether these flaws are possible, I believe they are, but they do not significantly impact the outcome (the margin is too substantial). You can consider the example of the U.S. presidential election: LOL.

For our dear supporters of the “knowledgeable king” and “sleeping king,” they are still accusing each other of election fraud in the 2020 election (fake ballots, false counting, empty counting, etc.) and the administrative authorities' use of incumbency advantages, let alone Serbia, which has gradually improved since its Soviet era, LOL.

But if you use this to argue that, therefore, all of the United States' election processes are fraud, and it’s only natural to incite supporters to attack Capitol Hill: ) Those who are currently facing a series of federal criminal charges, the “knowledgeable king” and the Capitol Hill ghosts being shot to pieces by federal law enforcement, will tell you what real rule of law is ;-)

So, the logic here is quite simple, “Serbia against violence” (ironically named) hopes to escalate the situation through violence, ultimately overthrow the current elected government. If this is not a color revolution, I don’t know how else to define it.

Since the beginning of the Hong Kong Umbrella Movement and the anti-extradition bill protests, NGOs have not been as effective.

The Turkish color revolution was preemptively reported to Sudan by Russia and subsequently suppressed.

The color revolution in Kazakhstan saw intervention and suppression by the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) backed by Russia.

Now, it’s Serbia’s turn, with early elections called by Vučić, supported by Russian intelligence, striving for victory amidst challenges.

The process of a color revolution generally unfolds as follows:

1. The United States becomes dissatisfied with a certain country.

2. The United States openly interferes in the internal affairs of that country, demanding free elections.

3. Pro-American governments fail to win the elections.

4. The United States becomes furious and launches a color revolution.

However, this process often encounters issues, resulting in the color revolution circling back, turning relatively moderate and pro-American regimes into extreme anti-American ones.

Hamas came to power in a similar manner.

Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabić expressed gratitude to the Russian intelligence agency for providing information about the upcoming unrest. Brnabić stated during a live broadcast on Pink TV, “I can only express my gratitude. Perhaps it’s not popular in the West to do so, but I genuinely believe it’s essential to thank the Russian intelligence agency for standing up to protect Serbia and for sharing this information with us and others, especially tonight. They had all this intelligence and shared it with us, while others at the time were saying, no, this is Russian disinformation.”

If I’m not mistaken, this color revolution is likely aimed at Vučić himself, with the aim of overthrowing him and supporting a pro-Western leader to isolate Russia. If Serbia succeeds in this regard, Hungary will undoubtedly follow suit in toppling Orbán, and Russia will completely lose friends in Europe.

I’m familiar with this pattern…

In 2004, Ukrainian presidential candidate Yushchenko lost to Yanukovych in the presidential election. Yushchenko quickly found the reason for his failure - Yanukovych’s manipulation of the election. Soon after, Yushchenko’s manipulated Orange Revolution in Ukraine marked the beginning of nearly 20 years of political turmoil in Ukraine.

It must be said that this movement, filled with distinct American-style color revolution characteristics and a sense of justice, will actively push Ukraine towards a more free and democratic advanced society!

The US President also characterized the Orange Revolution as “the struggle of the Ukrainian people for freedom and democracy”!

It sounds even better than singing.

In January 2021, then-US President Trump lost to another candidate, Biden, in the election. Trump also quickly found the reason for his failure - Biden’s manipulation of the election. Subsequently, the Capitol Hill movement in the United States marked the beginning of partisan strife.

It must be said that this movement, filled with distinct American-style color revolution characteristics and a sense of justice, will actively push the United States towards a more free and democratic civilized society, and the beacon of American freedom will illuminate the entire universe, becoming the guiding light of universal civilization!

As a result, on January 8, 2022, on the first anniversary of the Capitol Hill occupation event, Biden personally characterized it as an armed rebellion!

So, here comes the twist: Who got the script wrong, the United States or Ukraine? Which is more just, the Capitol Hill event or the Orange Revolution?

Do you think that’s the end of it?

In January 2023, Brazilian presidential candidate and former president Bolsonaro lost to another candidate, Lula, in the presidential election. Bolsonaro’s supporters, without hesitation, stormed Brazilian institutions such as the National Congress, the Federal Supreme Court, and the Presidential Palace, staging a more severe scene than the “Capitol Hill event” learned from the United States.

Then, Biden spoke with Lula, expressing “unwavering support for Brazilian democracy” and condemning the violence!

Behind the Brazilian Capitol Hill event and the 2004 Ukrainian Orange Revolution, it is essentially the United States providing support from behind the scenes.

But the question is, why was Ukraine supported while Brazil was condemned?

Now the situation has turned to Serbia, and we all know who is behind this. It’s easy to guess that the US will take an “attitude of the Serbian people’s pursuit of freedom and democracy” towards this matter.

This routine has been played for decades, and it’s time to change the script. The same few scenes keep repeating, and they never get tired of it…

Vučić held his ground.

If he hadn’t, he would have been the next Yanukovych.

At that time, how the West had stirred up trouble first, incited the declaration of independence in Luhansk Oblast, initiated color revolutions in Kyiv, and forced the then democratically elected Yanukovych to make consecutive concessions, culminating in a disgraceful episode of not even being able to return to his own country—these actions would gradually fade from the annals of history in the years to come.

By then, it would be clear that Russia was merely reacting, merely following the West’s lead, and employing the same tactics in Crimea, all of which would be heavily criticized in history books.

To this day, how many people still insist on fixating on the Crimea events, attributing the origins of the Russia-Ukraine conflict solely to Russia, conveniently omitting what happened before Crimea.

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Those who have never experienced a color revolution will suffer when they encounter this small trick.

Since it can only be used once, why use it at all?

Because the cost is too low. A little bit of money, coupled with the promise of a few green card slots, can deceive a group of cannon fodder to charge forward. The cost of making one missile can buy 100 cannon fodders.

When the cannon fodder gets caught, the final payment and green cards are saved. After being released, these people can’t find good jobs either. Who would use them? Who dares to use them?

A little money that can be printed at will buys your future, quite amusing.

Whether there are dates or not, you can hit a dead rat with one shot, just in case. It’s truly a low-cost, high-return tactic.

Why do I always say they are big hypocrites? It’s because of this.

Isn’t Ukraine the same? They elected a pro-Russian president at the time, and then, through a coup guided by the United States, they forcibly removed him from office. He was a legitimately elected leader, produced according to their methods. But he was eliminated.

Turkey’s Erdogan, wasn’t it the same? He was almost removed, also through a coup. No matter how you look at it, Turkey is a multi-party democratic country, and Erdogan was elected through votes. However, the United States, once again, guided and incited internal opposition in Turkey, attempting to overthrow the election results through a military coup.

Then there’s Georgia, which enacted a law against foreign political infiltration, a law common in Western countries. But the same old story repeated itself. The United States, France, and the European Union, first severely criticized Georgia for being undemocratic unnecessarily. Then, they used internal opposition in Georgia to carry out a coup, forcing Georgia to retract the legislation.

Now it’s Serbia’s turn. Vučić is a legitimately elected leader, right? But the same story repeats itself—incitement and collusion with internal opposition, a direct refusal to accept the election results, and a coup.

And, this coup is not a one-time thing. The reason Serbia called for early elections is also a coup, a color revolution.

All of these incidents, one after another, are the handiwork of the United States. But they insist day after day that they stand for democracy and freedom. They accuse others of not being democratic and free, even if they follow the exact same practices.

So, I saw through these people a long time ago. When you don’t implement a voting system, they call you a dictator. When you implement a voting system, they say your elections are unfair. When you can prove that your elections are open, fair, and just, they simply don’t care about their own reputation; they go straight for the coup, a military coup.

And then, when you do carry out a coup or a military coup, they turn around and accuse you of being a dictator.

Putin once said, not long ago, that when he first came to power, he naively thought that the conflict between the United States and Russia was a struggle of systems and ideologies. But when the Soviet Union disintegrated and Russia adopted their system, what did the United States do? Who do you think incited Chechnya’s independence when Putin came to power? Wasn’t it the United States?

So, Putin realized later that all this talk about democracy and dictatorship, about ideology, was all fake. It ultimately boils down to a conflict of national interests and great power interests. Whether you are the Soviet Union or Russia, whether you are a dictatorship or a democracy, you are destined to be the biggest enemy of the United States.

In other words, if they want to target you, they don’t care about their own face, principles, standards, impartiality, or justice. They only care about finding excuses and reasons to accuse and vilify you. If they can’t find any, they just dispense with excuses and reasons and go straight for the jugular. Look at how the United States attacked Gaddafi and Syria, sparking color revolutions throughout the Middle East. Wasn’t it done this way?

What is this called? In the least, it’s called hypocritical double standards. In the extreme, it’s called nothing is trustworthy. Every word they say, every promise they make, is not to be trusted.

In other words, when dealing with such people, you can only treat every word they say as nonsense, and every action they take as malicious.

Only in this way can you try to ensure that they have a hard time undermining you behind your back.

Other answerers have already explained the cause and effect of this event in detail. Here, I’ll provide a brief introduction to the topic of Political Order and Revolution .

Political order, in essence, is when different political groups with varying interests compete according to universally recognized rules. The winning group gains political status corresponding to its victory, while the losing group, even if dissatisfied, must adhere to this order .

This order may not always be fair but must be lawful, conforming to the minimum consensus. Whether it’s the hereditary monarchy of an emperor’s eldest son, a presidential election system, a parliamentary system, or a system like the National People’s Congress, the key is adherence to this process - “not breaking the rules.”

So, what does it mean to “break the rules”? Revolution (here, revolution is broadly defined to include color revolutions) .

The key question here is, why should I follow the order if I have the strength to directly achieve my goals?

Society isn’t static but continuously progresses. The interest groups or classes engaged in political interactions may be advanced at one point in time, holding the primary wealth and social resources, with strong executive power. However, in the next period, they may decline, lose control over more social wealth, and have weakened executive capabilities. According to the existing political order, they can only select new political groups from among these decaying classes, leading to a contradiction:

Under the current order, emerging class groups that possess advanced productive forces and social wealth cannot participate in politics to expand their interests. As a result, these emerging classes may seek to change the existing order, whether through reform or violence.

Of course, it’s important to note that those who seek to change the existing order through violence are not necessarily emerging classes; they could also belong to other established groups .

Let’s take two countries as examples. Serbia in this question is a typical case. The political group that lost in parliamentary elections was dissatisfied and hoped to bypass the order, using violence to force the winner of the parliamentary elections to concede. The result was a failure.

Another typical case is Ukraine:

KK Xiaoxiao: The History of Political System Changes in Ukraine

Former Soviet states often oscillate between presidential and parliamentary systems (these two political systems have many contradictions in the allocation of power). For example, Russia eliminated the parliamentary system by shelling the Soviet building, but Ukraine did not. Ukraine’s history is roughly as follows:

1. At first, it was a presidential system, with A and B in competition, and A won.

2. B was dissatisfied and, relying on its strong position in the parliament, used a series of methods such as public opinion and social movements to make A concede. As a result, A chose to concede, and it had to announce a change from a presidential system to a parliamentary system.

3. After gaining a firm foothold in the parliament, B once again became the president through competition. But B remembered that it had used the parliament to bring down the president, so if the parliament also produced a strong C to overthrow itself, it was very likely. So, B chose to change the system back to a presidential one.

4. Afterward, a strong C indeed emerged in the parliament, and C repeated B’s history by ousting B. As the primary force in the parliament, C transformed the country’s system into a parliamentary one.

Starting from the Ukrainian Constitution in 1996, Ukraine modified its constitution four times in just 20 years, oscillating between presidential and parliamentary systems. Due to different interest groups continually undermining the political order for their own political interests, the entire national political structure became less stable .

So, having addressed the above issues, what is the difference between a Color Revolution and a revolution?

From various cases in different countries, Color Revolutions often achieve only the first and simplest step - paralyzing the existing political order (sometimes not even completely destroying it). In simpler terms, they rely on short-term populist shocks to create internal strife within the government, leading to division within the ruling group and temporary paralysis of the existing political order. However, if the government unites even slightly and the security forces act decisively, Color Revolutions are generally defeated.

Revolutions are much more intense than Color Revolutions. Firstly, they are more violent and aim not only to paralyze the political order but to completely destroy the existing political order. Furthermore, a revolution consists of two stages - the destruction of the old world and the establishment of the new world, meaning that revolutions go much further than Color Revolutions, with the ultimate goal of establishing a new political order .

Color Revolutions… to put it bluntly, they can’t do much.

The recent violent protests in Serbia are essentially a Western-backed color revolution, with the trigger being the recent Serbian elections.

On December 17, Serbian President Vucic announced that his ruling party, the Serbian Progressive Party, and its coalition “Serbia Can’t Stop” won over 127 out of 250 parliamentary seats, securing an “absolute victory.” This marked the third election held in Serbia within three years, a rare occurrence in European countries.

Vucic, who was re-elected in 2020, has faced strong opposition from Western countries due to his pro-China and pro-Russia stance. Serbia became the first European country to grant Chinese citizens visa-free entry and one of the countries in Europe with the highest number and value of cooperation projects with China. Amid the Russia-Ukraine conflict, as an EU candidate country, Serbia refused to impose sanctions on Russia and remained the only European country maintaining air links with Russia, facing significant pressure from Europe and the United States.

In this context, the Serbian opposition, supported by the West, organized protests, demanding a rerun of the parliamentary elections. Vucic approved the opposition’s request for early elections. In April 2022, Serbia held presidential, parliamentary, and local elections, with the opposition winning less than one-fifth of the votes in the parliamentary elections. Vucic won 59% of the votes in the first round of the presidential elections, securing a second term.

In May 2023, protests against the shooting incidents in Serbia led to anti-violence demonstrations in cities like Belgrade. The opposition seized the opportunity to turn these anti-violence slogans into calls for “the government to step down” and “the government to change its pro-Russia stance,” advocating for a comprehensive shift toward the West. In response to the opposition’s protests, Vucic resigned as the leader of the Progressive Party, becoming an ordinary party member, and announced early parliamentary elections in December.

However, the results of this election once again disappointed the opposition. Vucic’s “Serbia Can’t Stop” coalition, primarily led by the Progressive Party (SNS), received 46% of the votes, about 4 percentage points higher than in the 2022 elections. While the opposition camp (SPN) increased its vote share, it still held less than one-third of parliamentary seats, far from overturning the government. This means that the Progressive Party-led government will continue to rule.

Not only was the Serbian opposition disappointed, but Western countries also had their hopes dashed. They had hoped to remove this thorn in Europe through this election but found themselves facing resistance. Consequently, they resorted to familiar tactics, openly accusing the Serbian elections of irregularities and illegitimacy, claiming that “Vucic’s victory was stolen from the opposition.” This led to riots.

To be honest, Vucic didn’t need any foul play to win because his lead was overwhelming. In this election, Vucic swept his opponents, with his Progressive Party (SNS) winning a majority of seats in the National Assembly. Their vote share and seat count were about twice that of their closest rivals. They also won regional and municipal elections, securing council seats in 165 towns, including the capital, Belgrade. All other parties claimed to hold council seats in only nine towns. Vucic’s lead was so significant that there was no need for cheating. The Western attacks were baseless given the scale of his victory.

Vucic has a solid base of public support, so even if the U.S. tried to orchestrate a color revolution, organize opposition protests and demonstrations, it wouldn’t shake the overall situation in Serbia. Moreover, Serbia has Russia as an ally. In this case, when opposition supporters stormed government buildings, Russia provided crucial information in advance. It’s reminiscent of how Putin warned Erdogan about the 2016 coup attempt in Turkey, which Erdogan survived. One has to admire Russia’s intelligence work.

Now, the West is mired in its own troubles and too preoccupied to plot color revolutions. Moreover, the color revolutions of a decade ago have left countries like Libya and Yemen in turmoil to this day. The idea that “human rights trump sovereignty” is becoming increasingly unpopular in Europe and the U.S. In this Serbian election, the government hadn’t taken any action, while the opposition had already resorted to violence by attacking government buildings. It’s hard for the Serbian people to trust these opposition forces with their votes.

Passerby A: Nearly a thousand demonstrators attempted to rush through the metal fence. The police used anti-wolf spray, water cannons, and other means to disperse the crowd. Some protesters broke into the parliament and clashed with the police. During the entire congressional riot, six people died. A few days later, a police officer died, presumably by suicide.

Huang Sa-ren: This is the way the people fight for democracy, it’s both moving and inspiring. Only a dictatorship would send the police to suppress it.

Passerby A: I’m talking about the events at the U.S. Capitol.

Huang Sa-ren: Well, then, that’s a riot.

Once again, Russia provided intelligence in advance, allowing Vučić to prepare and preventing a color revolution.

Russia’s infiltration of Western intelligence systems has been highly successful. They previously informed Turkish President Erdoğan in advance of a coup attempt, enabling him to successfully suppress it.

In the case of Serbia, the intelligence provided by Russia seems to clearly indicate Western involvement. Russia likely learned of this plan from within Western intelligence systems before notifying Vučić.

Vučić maintains good relations with China and Russia, even importing China’s air defense system. The West is highly dissatisfied with Vučić, and the planning and execution of the regime change likely took a considerable amount of time, only to be disrupted by Russia at the last moment.

On the 24th, 2,490 protesters gathered in Belgrade, with 1,195 attempting to storm the government building. Over 35 people have been arrested, and nationwide arrests are ongoing. Several police officers were injured in the clashes, with two in serious condition.

Serbian Prime Minister Brnabić stated that while Serbia attempted to be vigilant about the “color revolution,” some remained skeptical and only said, “Those are false Russian reports, spreading fake news.” The facts have proven otherwise.

In 2022, the total strength of the U.S. military was 1.4 million personnel, with a military budget of $877 billion. However, the U.S. military is no longer the most powerful entity in the United States; instead, it’s non-governmental organizations (NGOs). They have achieved far more on various battlefronts than the U.S. military.

NGOs, short for Non-Governmental Organizations, are intermediaries between governments and businesses. Currently, there are two million NGOs in the United States, employing nine million people, with an annual expenditure of $500 billion.

Through various means such as bribery and subversion, NGOs can overthrow a government for just a few billion dollars.

NGOs have achieved many feats that even the U.S. military couldn’t. In just two decades, NGOs spent less than $25 billion to dismantle the Soviet Union. The last president of the Soviet Union was in favor of Western values.

In cooperation with the CIA, NGOs have plotted the overthrow of legitimate governments in over 50 countries, causing local turmoil.

Famous color revolutions include the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and the Purple Revolution in Iraq, among others.

In recent years, many countries have started to pay attention to U.S. actions, and the success rate of the United States has declined.

Serbia is the latest example of a failed color revolution.

Every time there’s news about Serbia, it reminds me of the 1998 incident when the U.S. bombed our embassy in the former Yugoslavia.

Look at these protests, rallies, demonstrations, and then the siege and assault on government institutions, eventually turning into armed uprisings. This is the consistent pattern of color revolutions instigated by the West.

For a strategic location like Serbia, which is not under Western control, these occasional color revolutions are not surprising.

When you look at countries and nations in the world that don’t obey Western rhetoric, is there one that has been spared? Most of them use various means to divide their territories, then internally corrupt and manipulate sellouts to stir internal conflicts in an attempt to overthrow another’s regime.

It can be said that since the dissolution of Yugoslavia, Serbia has become accustomed to such events. So much so that from the 1990s to around 2010, my memory of it was mostly about changing the country’s name.

In fact, China has been experiencing similar things for decades, and even before the concept of “color revolution” was introduced, China had already gone through such events.

In 2011, due to the absolute dominance of public intellectuals on our internet, it gave anti-China forces great confidence. Therefore, the U.S. Ambassador to China, Jon M. Huntsman Jr., as well as some U.S.-funded domestic forces, thought “the time was ripe.” So, they organized and connected on a large scale through various channels, preparing for a color revolution in Beijing, echoing the “Arab Spring” in the Middle East.

The end result is well known. There were very few people at the actual scene, and a massive crowd gathered to watch the spectacle, much like watching a monkey show. Ambassador Huntsman himself was caught by reporters, broke into a sweat, and mumbled a couple of evasive sentences before leaving with his bodyguards.

However, China is still China, and Serbia is nowhere near China in terms of national strength and political system.

The main reason is that multi-party electoral politics leads to too many political opportunists and interest groups with political ambitions. This results in the existence of groups that will always surrender to external powers, kowtowing for support to gain political power and economic benefits, even if it means betraying the national and ethnic interests. So, I hope Vučić has good luck.

A small country already has a tough time surviving between major powers, let alone a strategically important small country. It’s bound to be a thorn in the eyes of the strong.

But there’s no need to worry too much. China and Russia are no longer what they were in 1998.

While their internal minor disturbances are manageable, considering Serbia’s internal affairs, providing intelligence will suffice.

However, if there’s any NATO military group attempting military invasion and regime change, we will definitely settle the scores for the past 25 years, old and new grievances combined.

What is Western democracy and human rights? This is another clear example.

If it aligns with Western interests, like Israel, it’s considered democratic and upholding human rights, despite their daily slaughter of Palestinians.

If it doesn’t align with Western interests, like Serbia, they seek to subvert it, to carry out color revolutions, even though Serbia’s president is democratically elected.

When a color revolution erupted in the U.S. Congress, the West cried foul, calling it a disgrace to democracy.

The United States' non-governmental organizations should be banned by all countries. Let them go and carry out color revolutions in the United States. It’s time for a revolution in the United States.

On December 18th, “Serbia Cannot Stop” had the highest support, receiving 46.3% of the votes and is expected to gain 128 seats. The largest opposition, “Serbia Against Violence,” ranked second with a support rate of 23.6%.

So, the West, unwilling to accept failure, staged this.

The United States tends to employ a familiar tactic against small and medium-sized countries that it doesn’t like or that don’t conform to U.S. interests, which is to carry out “color revolutions.” Supported by U.S. intelligence agencies and organized by a series of U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations, the concept of color revolutions became widely known after the successful use of such tactics in Serbia in 2000, followed by the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia in 2003.

This year, faced with strong pressure from the United States and the West, the Serbian government experienced two major shooting incidents in May, resulting in 19 deaths. In response, the Serbian opposition held months of protests, including several massive marches with millions of participants. Subsequently, there was a NATO troop increase in the Kosovo region.

Following these events, the opposition demanded new parliamentary elections, and in early November, Vucic announced early parliamentary elections, hoping to strengthen his control through this process.

The overwhelming support for the ruling party in Serbia this time around indicates that the “color revolution” orchestrated by the United States and the West did not succeed, and the opposition supported by the West suffered a dismal defeat in the elections.

Of course, led by the United States, the Western powers will not accept failure and will likely return to try again. Stability can only be achieved when there is economic development and the well-being of the people.

The critics are really humorous, refusing to acknowledge even the results of democratic elections and insisting on their own narrative.

The opposition in Serbia , composed of a coalition of parties called “Serbia Opposition Against Violence ,” gathered thousands of supporters outside the Belgrade City Council to protest. However, the protest later escalated into violence , with a group of demonstrators attempting to break down the doors of the City Council building, only to be dispersed by the police.

“Serbia Opposition Against Violence " choosing to resort to violence is quite ironic.

It reminds me of a joke:

“Why do you perform a hunger strike?”

“Just to have a meal.”

Seeing this image makes it clear.

Why use aliases and wear masks?

Chinese people who have experienced the events in Hong Kong are very familiar with this; it’s another color revolution. For example, attacking the police, deliberately provoking the police to be beaten and then taking photos to upload, designing an iconic gesture, forming human chains, and having unidentified individuals organize and command.

Any country that believes in the rhetoric of democracy and freedom is automatically endowed with the attributes of a color revolution, and the beautiful scenery can be ignited at any time.

In addition to the familiar taste, there is also a familiar formula. Opposition parties take advantage of the occasion of a general election to incite social unrest, and then they manipulate international mainstream public opinion, conducting extensive propaganda. They exert strong “international public opinion pressure” on the government, ultimately forcing the elected government to step down. Then, they support pro-American opposition forces to come to power, completing the life cycle of the color revolution.

The cause of this incident was the parliamentary elections held in Serbia on December 17. The ruling party led by the current President Vucic, the “Serbian Progressive Party,” achieved an “absolute victory” in the elections. However, the election results sparked strong dissatisfaction from Serbian left-wing parties, green parties, and centrist parties, which formed an opposition alliance known as the “Anti-Violence Alliance.” On the one hand, they questioned the fairness of the elections, and on the other hand, they began actively organizing personnel to take to the streets in protest. Soon, the protest demonstrations turned into violent activities.

This is the set of measures the United States has been practicing for many years in implementing “color revolutions.” From the photos released by the media, it can be seen that while there were only a dozen “hired thugs” attacking the Serbian government building, there were dozens of people in the background holding “long guns and short cannons,” which had nothing to do with a protest demonstration but was a public spectacle.

“Color revolutions” used to be an important means for Western countries, especially the United States, to politically subvert other countries. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the end of the Cold War, “color revolutions” were once unstoppable and highly successful. After all, compared to launching a direct war, this kind of “color revolution” under the pretext of “promoting democracy” is more efficient and cost-effective for interfering in another country’s internal affairs and controlling its government.

This riot is very similar to the “color revolutions” that have occurred in countries in Central Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. Whenever a ruling government does not bow down to the United States, the U.S. attempts to incite the opposition through its non-governmental organizations, rapidly developing into large-scale street riots under the banner of protest demonstrations. The situation gets out of control, forcing the current government to step down, and the country’s leader is either arrested or goes into exile in another country. Under the support of the United States, pro-American forces quickly come to power. Nearly ten countries in the above-mentioned regions, including Ukraine, Libya, and Yemen, have all suffered from such disasters.

But this time is different from the past. Serbia obtained intelligence in advance, with a clear understanding of the time, place, and main conspiracies of the opposition’s instigation of this riot. They fought a well-prepared battle, capturing almost all the leaders of the opposition.

In summary, the example of Serbia illustrates that the tide of the times surges forward! As countries around the world become increasingly vigilant, the United States will find it increasingly difficult to repeat its old tricks, and the era when the world was at the mercy of the United States is gradually fading away.

Trump: My supporters also once stormed the Capitol. At that time, our Western media and governments remained mostly silent.

Biden: Later, it was all considered a “riot.”

Trump: Just wait until I reclaim the presidency in 2024; then, you can take a look at the reports from these countries and media.

Biden: ……

Macron: This is nothing; street politics is a characteristic of democratic countries. Just look at France.

Vucic: Why is it that when it comes to Serbia, it’s not considered democracy?

Director Burns: In this world, which government is democratic, and which government is authoritarian, that’s something we decide…