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.
Media reporting on sanctions against NIS in pro-Russian media
Sanctions against the Petroleum Industry of Serbia (NIS) came into force on 9 October. After being postponed eight times over the past few months, the United States introduced sanctions against NIS, a company majority-owned by the Russian state company Gazprom and its subsidiaries.
The majority stake in NIS was sold to the Russian state company in 2008, while the Serbian state retained its ownership share. Speculation about possible sanctions against all companies in the energy sector—oil and gas—that are majority-owned by Russia and based or operating in European countries has circulated since the start of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in 2022.
The outgoing Biden administration announced U.S. sanctions against NIS in January 2025, after which the U.S. Treasury under the Trump administration repeatedly postponed their entry into force until the second week of October. During this period, despite ongoing negotiations, no adequate solution was found to remove the grounds for sanctioning NIS—something that would have required eliminating the Russian ownership stake.
Sanctions against NIS directly threaten Serbia’s energy security, as they put at risk the supply of oil and oil derivatives and, at the same time, negatively affect the national economy in which NIS is one of the central pillars. The persistent rigidity of the Russian side—according to statements by certain officials and findings of investigative media—its refusal to compromise or sell its share, at a time when Serbia is potentially facing a severe energy crisis, has triggered sharp criticism of Russia among parts of the Serbian public, including circles close to the government.
In domestic pro-Russian media, reporting has focused on defending the Russian position regarding NIS and promoting anti-Western narratives. One illustrative example is a report published by the Serbian edition of the Russian state outlet Sputnik under the headline: “Everyone knows who is to blame for NIS: Many now want to ‘hit’ Moscow and seek to break ties between Serbia and Russia.”
The article claims that “U.S. sanctions against NIS have given many in Serbia an opportunity to shoot a few poisoned arrows at Russia, undermine our bilateral relations, and twist the narrative—so that the blame lies with the sanctioned party, not the one imposing sanctions.” Sputnik’s interlocutors argue that “the Americans tried to shift the responsibility for the sanctions onto Russia, presenting themselves as supposedly well-intentioned toward us.”
The article adds that “the best outcome for both us and Russia would be a mutually satisfactory solution,” noting that Russia has broader issues in its relations with the U.S. Sputnik’s sources argue that Serbia is “forced to navigate between the winds blowing from all sides… though some of them are not ill-intentioned—for example, Russia is our historical ally.” The article concludes that “the Americans may have overplayed their hand… expecting Russia to use Serbia’s weakened position to bind it even more tightly, but that did not happen.”
A nearly identical tone appeared in the Serbian service of another Russian state media outlet, Russia Today (RT), in an analysis titled “Spins about NIS: Why the idea of nationalization is being pushed.” RT claims that the sanctions against NIS represent “an attempt to push a major Russian company, the owner of the Petroleum Industry of Serbia, out of this market, and in doing so, to drive out Russian political, economic, and all other interests from Serbia.” RT also states that some pro-Western Serbian media are producing content that “falsely claims Moscow is to blame for sanctions imposed on Russian companies… yet none of them mention Washington as the main generator of the crisis.”
The Russian state media service in Serbia attempts to interpret the sanctions and Serbia’s resulting difficult position by arguing that the hidden goal of the U.S. (and the West) is to prompt the nationalization of NIS—“to get Serbs to do it themselves, so that Russia retaliates, irreversibly damaging Serbia–Russia relations and, for the first time in history, bringing two brotherly nations to the brink of hostility.” An RT interlocutor argued that Serbian media “failed to condemn the imposition of U.S. sanctions” and that “pushing the idea of nationalization is an attempt to create an anti-Russian atmosphere in public opinion by portraying Serbia as wronged.” Another Russian source in the same text claimed that “the goal of pro-Western media in Serbia is to push Russia out of the region… and for all problems in Europe they still blame Russia… the U.S. openly uses sanctions to remove Russia from the European market.”
Strong anti-Western narratives concerning the complex situation around NIS continued to dominate pro-Russian media coverage in Serbia throughout October. Sputnik wrote that “the U.S. goal, announced last year during preparations for sanctions, is the complete withdrawal of Russian capital and the reduction of Russia’s presence in Serbia and the Balkans.” They also conveyed the message of Russia’s ambassador to Serbia that “the Western agenda boils down to continued pressure on Serbia to join anti-Russian sanctions.” Ambassador Aleksandr Bocan-Harcenko told Sputnik he was “surprised at how Serbian media interpret the issue of U.S. sanctions against NIS, as the debate mostly revolves around what Russia will do and how they will affect our bilateral relations,” arguing that “the U.S. sanctions against NIS are also a blow against Serbia, likely because it did not impose sanctions on Russia.”
Among various pro-Russian actors on Serbia’s political and public scene who remained highly vocal throughout the NIS saga—criticizing the West and defending Russia while repeating long-standing anti-Western talking points—the most prominent is former Minister of Defence and Interior, and former director of the Security-Information Agency, Aleksandar Vulin. Vulin told Sputnik that “nothing should be done without agreement and consent from the Russian Federation… all this will pass, and Serbia and Russia will continue to exist; we must not allow ourselves to lose our history and future over a shortage of fuel.”
In a more extensive mid-October interview for RT Serbia, Vulin repeated that “neither Russia nor Serbia is to blame for the sanctions… the goal is to create the same narrative as in 1999—it doesn’t matter that the Americans bombed us, but rather that the Russians did not prevent the bombing.” According to him, “these sanctions are imposed on Serbia to permanently, in a historical sense, damage relations with Russia… if Serbia were forced to nationalize NIS, Moscow could not tolerate it, and for the first time we would enter into conflict.”
Articles published by Sputnik Serbia and Russia Today, as well as statements by pro-Russian figures in Serbia, seek to downplay Russia’s uncompromising stance during negotiations on potential solutions for NIS—a stance acknowledged even by some Serbian government officials. At the same time, they completely ignore Russia’s use of the (new) gas agreement as a direct lever of pressure on Serbia.
A swift resolution to the NIS issue is in Serbia’s national interest, as the current situation directly jeopardizes the country’s energy security and economic stability. Continued delays and Russia’s inflexible position therefore have profoundly negative and harmful effects.
Author: Igor Mirosavljević
