Violence erupts at anti-government protests in Serbia (VIDEOS)
Scuffles between protesters and police have been reported at a large anti-government demonstration on Saturday in Belgrade, Serbia.
The new round of protests comes as the Serbian government refused to heed an ultimatum previously issued by protesters demanding the dissolution of the parliament and new elections. A deadline of 9pm on Saturday evening had been set for the government to take action.
Footage from the scene shows rowdy protesters, many of whom have their faces covered, pelting law enforcement with various projectiles, including stones and flares.
The police have deployed armored vehicles to the streets of Belgrade and were seen charging the violent crowd.
Riot police armed with shields and batons were seen pushing the protesters away from the government quarter, securing the area around the parliament building.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Why the next revolution in this country might start in a cathedral
On the morning of June 27, the sound of hymns and prayers at the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin in Vagharshapat, Armenia, was interrupted by shouts and cries of protest. Worshippers had placed themselves between the church and security forces in an attempt to stop the arrest of Archbishop Mikael – one more in a growing list of clergy taken into custody in recent days. In recent months, the conflict between the Armenian Apostolic Church and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's government has escalated into open confrontation. What once amounted to an exchange of accusations has now turned into raids, criminal charges, and arrests. The authorities are no longer hiding the fact that they see the Church as a political threat. In the past century, the Armenian state has clashed directly with the Church only twice – during the final years of the Russian Empire and under Stalin. Today, a third confrontation is unfolding in the heart of Yerevan. Why now? And where could this crisis lead? RT takes a closer look. The events of June 27 – when worshippers at Etchmiadzin tried to block the arrest of Archbishop Mikael Adjapahyan – marked a new peak in the intensifying standoff between the Armenian Apostolic Church and the country's leadership. Although protesters attempted to stop him, Archbishop Mikael voluntarily appeared before the Investigative Committee. He was arrested on charges of publicly calling for the overthrow of the constitutional order. The next day, a Yerevan court ruled to keep him in pre-trial detention for two months. That evening, demonstrators gathered outside the courthouse – where, notably, the building's exterior lights were abruptly shut off. Two days earlier, on June 25, Archbishop Bagrat (civil name Vazgen Galstyan), the leader of the Sacred Struggle movement, had also been detained, along with several other opposition figures – including members of the clergy. According to the Investigative Committee, they were suspected of planning 'terrorist acts aimed at seizing power.' The authorities conducted searches of their homes, and on June 26, a court ordered Bagrat's arrest for two months. In parallel, Pashinyan posted a link on his Telegram channel to an article from the pro-government outlet which described a 'massive plot by the criminal oligarchic clergy.' the prime minister echoed the article's claims, effectively accusing the Church of trying to destabilize the country. This marks the first time in recent years that the conflict between the state and the Church has entered the realm of open criminal prosecution. The clergy and their public allies are now being targeted by law enforcement, while the government's rhetoric shows a willingness to escalate – with no sign of compromise. The confrontation between the Armenian Apostolic Church and Pashinyan's government didn't appear out of nowhere – it has deep roots in a longstanding clash of values and worldviews. 'From its very first day in power, this populist government has targeted the elites – and the Church has always been one of the most elite institutions in Armenian society. Populist rule and the Church are natural antagonists: one, the Church, stands for tradition and national identity; the other, Pashinyan's government, turns those values into a target, eroding identity and dismantling social ethics,' Artur Vanetsyan, leader of the opposition I Have Honor parliamentary bloc and former head of Armenia's National Security Service, said in an interview with RT. The rift became especially visible after the 2020 war in Nagorno-Karabakh. In the wake of the ceasefire agreement, the Church openly backed public protests against the terms of the settlement and against Pashinyan personally. Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin II called on the prime minister to resign 'to avoid unrest and tragic consequences.' For the first time in recent history, the Church was openly aligning itself with the opposition – and the government took notice. The conflict deepened further in 2024, when protests erupted in Armenia's Tavush Province over the demarcation of the border with Azerbaijan. Following the transfer of four villages to Azerbaijani control, a grassroots movement called Tavush for the Homeland emerged – led by Archbishop Bagrat, who was arrested this week. Opposition politicians, students, and ordinary citizens joined a multi-day protest march from Tavush to Yerevan. The movement eventually evolved into the Sacred Struggle initiative, which became the main vehicle for the Church's open resistance to the government. For Pashinyan, the movement posed not just a political challenge, but a symbolic one. The Church, drawing on its historic authority and cultural legitimacy, stepped into the role of societal counterweight to the state. Crucially, it remained institutionally independent and outside the formal opposition, which made it an especially difficult rival for the government to contain. By mid-2024, the relationship between Armenia's Apostolic Church and Pashinyan's government had entered a sharply radicalized phase. What once was a war of words about the Church 'interfering in politics' evolved into a broader anti-clerical campaign – with explicit threats, legislative efforts to restrict the Church's autonomy, and increasingly personal attacks on the clergy. In May 2024,Pashinyan accused the Church of acting as a 'foreign influence agent since historical times' and promised to 'deal with the issue in two or three months.' Parliamentary Speaker Alen Simonyan suggested imposing taxes on the Church, while members of the ruling Civil Contract party proposed seizing Church property 'for various state needs.' That same spring, Armenian police, for the first time in the country's history, attempted to prevent Catholicos Garegin II – the spiritual leader of the Armenian Church – from attending a national ceremony in Sardarapat. The government cited 'security concerns,' but the message was clear: it no longer recognized the Church's symbolic standing. At the time, Pashinyan insisted he had no intention of removing the Catholicos, citing the constitutional separation of church and state. But by May 2025, he had reversed course – arguing that the government should have 'decisive authority' in the selection of the next Catholicos, and that all candidates should undergo background checks. In practical terms, this amounted to direct political interference in the affairs of a constitutionally autonomous institution. Pashinyan's rhetoric also grew increasingly aggressive. He described the Church as a 'dusty closet full of junk,' made crude comments about clergy members, and even questioned the Catholicos' celibacy – suggesting publicly that Garegin II could not lead the Church if he had a child. The verbal attacks soon turned into political maneuvers: the prime minister proposed forming a task force to remove Garegin II and select a replacement. In response, the Armenian Apostolic Church issued a rare and strongly worded statement, calling the government's actions a direct threat to national statehood. Political opponents accused Pashinyan of tearing the country apart, while a group of public figures called for him and his wife to be excommunicated – a step previously unthinkable in Armenian public life. Historically, conflicts of this magnitude between the Church and state in Armenia have been exceedingly rare. As Nikolay Silayev, senior fellow at the Center for Caucasus and Regional Security Studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, pointed out, the last comparable clashes occurred more than a century ago. In 1903, on the orders of tsarist official Prince Golitsyn, the Russian Empire moved to nationalize the Church's assets – a move that helped spark revolutionary unrest. The second case came in 1938, when the sitting Catholicos died under mysterious circumstances. Many in Armenia believe he was assassinated. 'Outside of those two moments, I can't recall another time in the last hundred years when the Armenian Apostolic Church has come under such attack,' Silayev told RT. 'And keep in mind – Golitsyn was an imperial Russian official. It's astonishing to see the prime minister of independent Armenia following a similar path.' Amid growing pressure from the state, the Armenian Apostolic Church and its supporters have taken on a more assertive role in public life. While the Church formally remains a nonpartisan institution, its clergy, allied public figures, and opposition politicians increasingly treat it as a de facto center of political opposition. In May 2024, Archbishop Bagrat took the stage at a rally outside the government building and announced that the opposition blocs Armenia and I Have Honor were prepared to initiate impeachment proceedings against Pashinyan. Later, Bagrat's name was floated as an alternative candidate for prime minister. Although he refused to enter the political arena directly, he called for Pashinyan's 'peaceful resignation' and urged nationwide pressure on the government. The effort ultimately fell short – the impeachment motion failed in parliament. But a year later, in June 2025, following the arrest of Archbishop Mikael Adjapahyan, lawmakers revived the idea of putting a cleric forward as an alternative leader. Independent MPs Hovik Agazaryan and Hakob Aslanyan proposed nominating Mikael for prime minister and launching a new impeachment initiative. The move was backed by the Armenia and I Have Honor blocs, which are tied to former presidents Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan, respectively. As with Bagrat before him, Archbishop Mikael declined to play a formal political role. Yet the fact that senior clergy were once again being positioned as political alternatives underscored a larger shift: in times of national crisis, the Church is increasingly seen as a legitimate political actor – whether it seeks that role or not. In June 2025, Russian-Armenian businessman and philanthropist Samvel Karapetyan, president and founder of the Tashir Group, publicly came to the defense of the Armenian Apostolic Church. In a sharply worded statement, he accused the Armenian government of waging a political campaign against the clergy. 'A small clique,' he said, 'has turned its back on Armenian history and launched an assault on the Armenian Church and the Armenian people.' He added that 'if political leaders fail to stop this, we will intervene in our own way.' That same day, Armenian law enforcement officers searched Karapetyan's home. Within days, he was detained and charged with publicly calling for the overthrow of the government. Karapetyan dismissed the accusations as fabricated and politically motivated. According to local media, the head of Armenia's National Security Service, Armen Abazyan, refused to authorize the arrest, calling it unjustified – and was promptly removed from his post. The Armenian Apostolic Church publicly stood by Karapetyan, denouncing the case against him as politically driven and calling for an immediate end to what it described as 'unlawful actions.' The episode revealed just how far-reaching the conflict between the Church and state had become. It was no longer limited to formal institutions inside Armenia. Around the Church, new forms of support were beginning to coalesce – from grassroots solidarity to backing by members of the diaspora and economic elite. Figures like Karapetyan, unaffiliated with any political party, were becoming part of a broader wave of resistance to Pashinyan's agenda. Although the Armenian Apostolic Church is formally separate from the state, its role in public life goes far beyond religious ritual. For a large portion of the population, the Church serves not only as a faith institution, but as a cultural and historical anchor – a symbol of continuity and collective resilience. According to Vanetsyan, the government's attempt to bring the Church under its control is widely perceived as an assault on the Armenian people's very sense of self. 'It stirs not only religious believers, but secular citizens as well,' he told RT. 'The Church is our cultural and historical foundation. For us Armenians, it is not just about faith – it is the cornerstone of our national identity, forged across centuries. The Armenian Apostolic Church is one of the pillars that helped preserve our people through genocide, exile, occupation, and statelessness.' In a time of political instability, economic pressure, and geopolitical uncertainty, the Church is seen as the last autonomous institution with true moral authority. Its efforts to remain independent from the state carry special weight – and growing public support. The mass demonstrations in defense of Archbishops Bagrat and Mikael were striking not for their political slogans – but for their symbols: crosses, icons, and banners bearing the image of the Etchmiadzin Cathedral. For many Armenians, the Church is not a conventional opposition force. It is something more instinctive – a source of order, legitimacy, and historical continuity. Vanetsyan sees this as a reflection of the deeper psychological state of Armenian society. 'Most people today are genuinely demoralized,' he said. 'The Church still offers hope for recovery. That's why this attack on it has triggered such a visceral response. And it's crucial that this response is thoughtful, measured, and proportionate. Because if the Church breaks under the weight of Pashinyan's authoritarianism, the damage to Armenian society will be profound. It won't take years to recover – it will take decades.' The political stakes of the standoff between the Armenian government and the Church are rising, with parliamentary elections scheduled for 2026. Analysts suggest that, given the declining approval ratings for Pashinyan and his ruling Civil Contract party, the campaign against the Armenian Apostolic Church is becoming part of a broader strategy – one aimed at eliminating any form of alternative, even symbolic. 'The prime minister's and his party's ratings are falling. There's a year left before the election, and they have nothing substantial to show for it,' said political analyst Nikolai Silayev. 'That's why Pashinyan and his team are getting nervous and trying to suppress anyone who could even theoretically pose a challenge. Not even necessarily by running in the elections – just by offering a different point of view.' The government's public pressure on the Church – through arrests, criminal charges, and accusations of plotting a coup – risks galvanizing not only religious supporters of the clergy, but a broader swath of the population disillusioned with the country's current direction. This is especially true at a time when the traditional opposition parties have failed to present a viable alternative. 'Pashinyan has no real public support on this issue,' said political scientist Grant Mikaelyan in an interview with RT. 'But what helps him is the fact that his opponents are disorganized, and the Church itself has chosen not to act aggressively. That's why the government faces little direct resistance for now – but public sentiment is overwhelmingly negative.' According to Vanetsyan, the government is dangerously underestimating the fallout, especially as frustration is already running high in society. 'Pashinyan's reputation is already in tatters due to his team's disastrous policies – their failure to address external threats, their authoritarian tendencies at home, aggressive fiscal measures, and the decline in people's purchasing power,' Vanetsyan told RT. 'Escalating the fight with the Church could be political suicide for him, especially if the elites and the broader public begin to unite in defense of national values and a more dignified future. This wouldn't just be a crisis – it would be a point of no return.' Against this backdrop, the battle with the Church no longer looks like a dispute over religious autonomy. It has taken on the contours of a deeper crisis of confidence in Armenia's entire secular power structure. The outcome of this confrontation will depend not only on the decisions of Pashinyan and his critics – but also on where Armenian society ultimately stands, at a moment when traditional political boundaries appear to be breaking down.
Russia Today
5 hours ago
- Russia Today
Lavrov compares Ukrainian Nazis with Third Reich
Nazis in both Ukraine and World War II-era Germany killed people based on their ethnicity, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said, in reference to the 2014 Odessa massacre. Speaking after talks with Kyrgyz Foreign Minister Jeenbek Kulubaev on Sunday, Lavrov drew direct parallels between the Third Reich and modern Ukraine with regard to their treatment of people they seek to subjugate. 'The Nazis burned Jews simply because they were Jews, and the Ukrainian Nazis burned Russian people in Odessa on May 2, 2014 simply because they were Russian,' he stated. The Russian foreign minister was referring to violent clashes in Odessa in the early days of the Ukraine crisis, when street battles between pro-Ukraine and anti-Maidan activists ended with a fire at the city's Trade Unions House, which claimed dozens of lives. Moscow described the incident as a massacre by Ukrainian nationalist groups. Lavrov also criticized German Chancellor Friedrich Merz for calling for Ukraine's defense capabilities to be strengthened and for warning European countries against repeating the appeasement policies of the 1930s by negotiating with Russia on its terms. 'A stunning comparison for a person who expects to be taken seriously as chancellor of Germany,' Lavrov said, adding that Moscow is seeking a just settlement of the Ukraine conflict. 'But of course, we are not ready for the fraudulent approaches that some European leaders are pushing us toward,' he stated. Moscow has denied that it has any plans to attack NATO countries, and has for years sounded the alarm over the resurgence of Nazi ideology in Ukraine, as well as the suppression of Russian culture by Kiev. The Kremlin has listed 'denazification' as one of the key goals in the Ukraine conflict.
Russia Today
5 hours ago
- Russia Today
US lifts Russia sanctions that blocked key NPP construction in EU state
The US has lifted sanctions that barred financial transactions via Russia's Gazprombank related to Hungary's Paks-2 nuclear power plant. A general license issued by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on Friday grants Gazprombank and a host of other Russian banks permission to conduct transactions 'related to civil nuclear energy.' Paks-2, launched in 2014 under a bilateral agreement, involves two reactors constructed by Russia's Rosatom and includes a €10 billion ($11.7 billion) Russian loan to cover most of the estimated €12.5 billion cost. The project, deemed critical to Hungary's energy security, was scheduled to start last year near the existing Paks NPP, the country's only nuclear power station, which supplies about half of the nation's electricity. However, US sanctions on Gazprombank – through which the project was financed – forced construction to pause. Budapest repeatedly appealed to Washington for a waiver. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto confirmed on Sunday that the US has now lifted the restrictions. 'The US made numerous decisions on political grounds that placed our country in an extremely difficult situation,' Szijjarto said in a statement. 'One of these decisions sought to undermine Hungary's energy supply by imposing restrictions on the construction of the Paks-2 NPP, making it virtually impossible for construction to continue.' He added that 'fortunately, since January, there has been a president in Washington who views Hungary as a friend.' 'In light of this, the US government has lifted sanctions related to the Paks nuclear power plant investment,' Szijjarto stated. He stressed that Paks-2 'guarantees Hungary's secure energy supply,' and will allow the country to cover most of its electricity needs by the mid-2030s. Hungary has opposed Western sanctions on Russian energy since the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022, arguing the imports are essential for national security. It maintains a long-term gas deal with Gazprom. Hungary gets the bulk of its oil and gas from Russia under exemptions it secured from EU restrictions. Budapest recently blocked a European Commission proposal to phase out Russian gas imports by 2027, warning the move would 'destroy Hungary's energy security' and raise costs sharply. The OFAC license also lifts restrictions on civil nuclear-related transactions from the Russian central bank and the country's largest lender Sber Bank, along with Vnesheconombank, Alfa-Bank, VTB, Otkritie, Rosbank, and several others. The move follows a thaw in relations between Russia and the US amid diplomatic efforts toward a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine conflict.
