As part of the program Regional Initiative to Combat Disinformation “Western Balkans Anti-Disinformation Hub: Exposing Malign Influences through Watchdog Journalism”, we present you a new monthly analyses of fake news and disinformation narratives.
Constructing a leader through the media – Milorad Dodik as a symbol of the protection of the Serbian people
In Serbian public discourse, especially in media outlets with significant influence on shaping the political narrative, Milorad Dodik is consistently portrayed as the central figure in safeguarding the interests of Republika Srpska and as a steadfast political leader resisting external pressures and Western interventionist policies in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In reporting by portals such as Večernje novosti, Informer, and Alo, Dodik was depicted in May 2025 as an unyielding defender of the Serbian entity in BiH — someone who refuses to accept “imposed solutions” and openly challenges the legitimacy of High Representative Christian Schmidt, while simultaneously promoting political partnership with Russia and highlighting friendly relations with Serbian officials.
The dominant media narrative relies heavily on presenting Dodik as a leader with a clear vision and the courage to say “no” to the West, emphasizing his speeches at international forums, visits to Russia, and meetings with President Aleksandar Vučić. Večernje novosti report almost daily on his statements, which are often directed against Schmidt, the European Union, and NATO, and rhetorically attribute to him the role of a “protector of the truth,” a “guardian of peace in the Balkans,” and a man who “remains faithful to the Dayton Peace Agreement.” At the same time, Dodik is portrayed as an active domestic leader — allocating financial resources to municipalities, attending commemorations, and continuously emphasizing the “unity of the Serbian people.”
Informer and Alo, although more brief and sensationalist in tone, also consistently promote Dodik as a fighter against the “international protectorate” and the “false moralism of the West,” often using dramatized headlines and asserting that he is the “target of special warfare” because of his loyalty to Russia and Republika Srpska. In this context, Dodik is rarely problematized in these media outlets — his political decisions are not subjected to serious critique, and any attempt to challenge his position is generally framed as a coordinated external attack, usually coming from Sarajevo, Brussels, or Washington.
The overall media framework in Serbia creates an atmosphere in which Dodik is presented not only as the legitimate leader of Republika Srpska but also as a pillar of regional stability and national unity. Reporting almost entirely omits or marginalizes the internal controversies that follow him within BiH, including accusations of corruption, authoritarianism, or political polarization, placing him instead in the position of a victim of foreign interference and political persecution. In doing so, domestic media in Serbia actively participate in reinforcing Dodik’s political legitimacy while concealing or downplaying the aspects of his rule that are subject to more serious criticism at the international level.
Moscow as the pillar of Dodik’s political strategy
In May 2025, the President of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, visited Moscow at the invitation of Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin on the occasion of Victory Day commemorations. The visit carried both symbolic and political weight, as Serbian media portrayed it not merely as a gesture of diplomatic protocol, but as an act of deeper identity alignment and geopolitical positioning. Dodik stated that his trip to the Russian capital was an opportunity to meet with “the most important people” from the worlds of politics and spiritual life, including a potential meeting with Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia. He also planned to address Russian youth on the preservation of historical memory and the idea of a multipolar world.
During his stay in Moscow, Dodik met with Patriarch Kirill, emphasizing that experiencing the strength of their “glorious faith” and receiving words of support for the Serbian people in the Russian capital was a special blessing never to be forgotten. He underlined the strong spiritual ties between the Russian and Serbian peoples and the importance of preserving faith, tradition, and unity in a time of detachment from one’s roots.
News of Dodik’s participation in the Victory Day celebrations in Moscow, alongside his meetings with President Putin and Patriarch Kirill, forms part of a broader narrative frequently promoted by Serbian pro-government media—one steeped in strong anti-Western sentiment. While reports highlight Dodik’s political courage to attend despite pressure from the European Union, they also reinforce the image of alliance with Russia as natural, historical, and spiritual.
Messages about the “defense of the Dayton Agreement” via Russian channels, and the emphasis on religious unity with Patriarch Kirill, serve as powerful symbols of resistance to Western influence. The meeting in Moscow between Dodik and Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić also drew significant attention, particularly after Vučić posted a photo on Instagram with the caption: “Serbian meeting in the Kremlin with President Dodik.” The encounter was used to reinforce the narrative of unity between Serbia and Republika Srpska under the umbrella of close ties with Russia. In the media, such messages serve as symbols of Serbian solidarity and defiance of external pressures, portraying alliance with Russia as a guarantor of stability and the preservation of national interests on both sides of the Drina River.
Meanwhile, the religious aspect is used as a political tool to strengthen a sense of belonging and unity, while also deepening division by portraying the West as “alienated” and “hostile.” These narratives are rarely subjected to critical scrutiny in domestic media, thereby contributing to social polarization, the spread of nationalist rhetoric, and the consolidation of Dodik’s image as a leader of resistance and protector of Serbian identity in the modern geopolitical context.
Serbia’s role in the relations between Republika Srpska and Russia
Despite the fact that Serbia is not formally involved in the direct line of relations between Russia and Republika Srpska, Serbian media often construct narratives in which Belgrade plays a prominent role in this alliance. Rather than accurately portraying Serbia’s actual political position, these narratives are typically shaped through an anti-Western lens—depicting Serbia, Republika Srpska, and Russia as a unified bloc of resistance against Western hegemony. This framing was evident in how domestic media reported on Putin’s statement from Moscow, in which he praised the “courage” of leaders from Serbia, Republika Srpska, and Slovakia, stating they were “leaders by conviction,” not merely by duty.
This symbolic alignment of Serbia with Republika Srpska and Russia often functions as a tool for promoting anti-European narratives. Within this framework, the European Union is portrayed as a force of pressure, blackmail, and historical revisionism, while Russia is positioned as the guardian of traditional values, sovereignty, and identity. Serbia, in this context, is not presented as an EU accession candidate but rather as part of a cultural-civilizational alliance that stands in opposition to the West. Such narratives do not necessarily reflect foreign policy realities, but are instead intended for domestic political consolidation and the production of a sense of threat and resistance.
It is important to note that President Vučić frequently distances himself from Dodik’s unilateral actions—such as the enactment of new laws outside the framework of the Constitutional Court of BiH. The Serbian president consistently affirms his support for the Dayton Agreement and its implementation. In this context, the alignment of Vučić’s and Dodik’s policies is largely a product of media manipulation rather than actual foreign policy alignment.
The complexity of their relationship is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that Vučić reportedly supported the opposition in Republika Srpska during the previous elections. Additionally, in early 2023, Dodik’s UNA television channel broadcasted the opposition-led “Serbia Against Violence” protest, only for Dodik to later appear at Vučić’s counter-rally in May of that same year.
This pragmatic relationship was especially evident during the All-Serbian Assembly held on June 9, 2024, under the slogan “One Nation, One Assembly – Serbia and Srpska,” where both governments jointly adopted the Draft Declaration on the Protection of National and Political Rights and the Common Future of the Serbian People. Media coverage emphasized the symbolic importance of the event for the Serbian nation, but it also served as a platform to amplify anti-Western narratives and Serbian nationalism.
Dodik’s challenge to Schmidt’s legitimacy
Milorad Dodik’s narrative challenging the legitimacy of Christian Schmidt, the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, is clearly interwoven with disinformation and political manipulation. Dodik claims that “Republika Srpska wants to find a solution through dialogue, not through anyone’s diktat” and that it “completely rejects the actions of the illegal Christian Schmidt.” This rhetoric attempts to portray Schmidt as an imposed foreign actor, while ignoring the fact that his mandate was established in accordance with the Dayton Peace Agreement and approved by the UN Security Council.
Dodik further asserts that “the House of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH did not confirm Schmidt’s decision as law” and that he will “not accept any of his decisions.” This is an attempt to delegitimize the Office of the High Representative and the legal framework that ensures stability in BiH. The statement that “Schmidt will be arrested if he comes to Republika Srpska” is not only baseless but also has the potential to escalate tensions in the region.
Such discourse serves to politically strengthen Dodik through polarization and rejection of international oversight, while simultaneously ignoring the legal and constitutional obligations of BiH. Rather than fostering dialogue, these narratives deepen divisions and make compromise increasingly difficult.
Author: Nataša Stanojević
