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.

General Staff Building between public interest and investment projects

The National Assembly of Serbia adopted a lex specialis for the General Staff complex, heavily damaged during the NATO bombings in 1999, thereby opening the way for commercial construction on one of the most valuable and urbanistically sensitive locations in central Belgrade. The decision concerns the area between Kneza Miloša, Masarikova, Birčaninova, and Resavska streets, which for decades has been a symbol of contemporary history, as well as one of the key points of conflict between public interest and state investment plans. Interest in constructing a hotel and accompanying facilities at this site was expressed in early 2024 by Jared Kushner, son-in-law of former U.S. President Donald Trump, giving the fate of the General Staff complex an additional political and international dimension.

Although the project was temporarily questioned due to an investigation into the legality of the documentation that revoked the General Staff’s status as a cultural monument, legislative intervention soon followed. Amendments to the Law on Special Procedures for the Revitalization of this area were adopted on November 7, with support from the majority of MPs, while a smaller portion of the parliament voted against or abstained. The Assembly simultaneously approved a proposal for the law to take immediate effect, ahead of the statutory deadline, thus declaring all procedures related to the project urgent.

This approach instructed the competent state authorities to issue all necessary permits and acts without delay, effectively removing administrative and institutional obstacles to the project’s implementation. The lex specialis, as a special law that takes precedence over general regulations in the same area, was again used in this case as an instrument to expedite politically significant investments. This mechanism has previously been applied by the current government in projects such as “Belgrade Waterfront,” the national stadium, and EXPO 2027, and its application in the case of the General Staff raises questions about the state’s approach to cultural heritage protection and the role of institutions in deciding on areas of special public importance.

“We Are a Living Wall”

Such a legislative approach quickly triggered public reaction, bringing the question of the General Staff’s fate from institutional frameworks to the streets of Belgrade. Thousands of students and citizens gathered under the slogan “We Are a Living Wall,” expressing opposition to plans to demolish the complex and allow commercial construction. The call for protest came from the Students in Blockade initiative, and the gathering had a strong symbolic dimension. Students spray-painted a red line around the General Staff parcels, while protest participants formed a “living wall” with their bodies around the buildings, signaling that they regard the space as part of shared cultural heritage rather than merely a construction resource.

During addresses to the crowd, student representatives clearly articulated their demands, calling for the repeal of the lex specialis, annulment of government decisions that revoked the General Staff’s cultural status, and clarification of the circumstances under which that decision was made. They also emphasized the expectation of the conclusion of the Organized Crime Prosecutor’s investigation into alleged document forgery, noting that the protest was only the beginning of a broader struggle to preserve the complex. “We will not give up the General Staff,” the crowd proclaimed, warning that resistance would continue if the demands were ignored.

Unlike the messages sent from the protest, some pro-government media tried to downplay its significance. The pro-regime newspaper Informer portrayed the gathering as a failure, focusing on arbitrary estimates of attendance and ignoring the reasons citizens had gathered. In its reports, the protest was described as a “fiasco,” claiming that few people participated, thereby deliberately diverting attention from the essence of public dissatisfaction.

Such reporting ignores the fact that the student protest was not aimed at an “ordinary building” but at a site with strong emotional and symbolic significance for a large part of society, especially for generations who remember the NATO bombing. Although the formal status of the General Staff was changed by a political decision, in collective memory it still functions as part of the city’s cultural and historical identity. Students recognized and articulated this dimension through the “living wall” symbol, signaling that history and memory cannot be erased by administrative measures or special laws passed urgently.

Possible Restoration of the General Staff

Official reasoning for demolishing the General Staff often assumes that the buildings are no longer safe and that restoration is not feasible. However, in technical documentation rarely mentioned publicly, a different approach is presented, which does not entail completely removing the complex. A team of experts engaged in technical project oversight proposed selective and controlled removal of the most severely damaged parts, while retaining structurally stable sections. This approach would allow the formation of “self-stabilizing” parts of the buildings, sufficiently removed from public roads and without the need for additional temporary safety measures, creating conditions for later full restoration instead of permanently erasing the complex from the city’s urban fabric.

One of the authors of this expert proposal, civil engineer and retired professor Dušan Najdanović, points out that claims about the impossibility of restoring the General Staff have no professional basis. According to his explanation, part of the complex is in a more favorable structural condition, while other sections could be restored by constructing new structures functionally and structurally connected to the existing ones, preserving the basic architectural and spatial logic of the buildings. Najdanović also disputes the argument that such an approach would be unreasonably expensive, comparing it to other state projects implemented without serious cost assessment. “Not at all. The National Stadium is terribly expensive,” he remarked, assessing that fully demolishing the General Staff would not only be a technical mistake but also a severe blow to the society’s cultural and historical memory.

Developments:

Meanwhile, new developments have further illuminated the course of the case. The company Afiniti Partner, owned by Jared Kushner, announced that it is withdrawing from the hotel construction project at the General Staff site in central Belgrade. A spokesperson for Kushner’s private investment firm stated that the decision was made because “significant projects should unite, not divide,” adding that, out of “respect for the people of Serbia and Belgrade,” the application is being withdrawn at this time.

Students in blockade reacted to this decision, warning that the withdrawal of one investor does not mean that the authorities are abandoning the contentious plan. With the message “If Trump’s son-in-law won’t do it, someone else will,” students highlighted the real danger that the regime will try to find a new investor and continue plans that involve destroying a cultural asset in the heart of Belgrade.

This development confirms that the question of the General Staff is not resolved with Kushner’s withdrawal but remains a symbol of the broader conflict between public interest, cultural heritage protection, and non-transparent investment projects, which continue to provoke strong resistance among parts of the expert and civic public.

Author: Nataša Stanojević