The central finding is that the antagonism in the Serbian sample is directed inward rather than outward. Authoritarian and anti-democratic narratives form the largest category (43.1%), narrowly ahead of ethno-nationalist and identitarian content (38.6%); political opponents framed as “traitors” are the most common target, ahead of ethnic groups. Ethno-nationalist material is less frequent, but it is not lesser in consequence, since a larger share of it sits at the radicalising or mobilising end of the continuum. On the surface, moreover, little of this content appears overtly propagandistic. Radicalising ideas are conveyed through humour, lifestyle advice, calm “explanatory” videos, television and podcast clips, and short montages built around music and archival footage, formats designed to entertain or inform, not to provoke. The underlying intention, however, is often precisely to make hierarchy, hostility or distrust look ordinary: something to laugh at, something to admire, or simply something “everyone knows”. The Serbian digital landscape captured here is therefore shaped by two overlapping fault lines: a present-day struggle over who counts as a legitimate political actor and an older one over war, nationhood and historical memory, delivered in forms that rarely announce themselves as political at all.

It is this ordinariness, more than any single extreme post, that makes the Serbian sample difficult to police through conventional content moderation, and it is also what the two focus groups found hardest to see consistently. Participants active in civil society organisations tended to decode framing, aesthetics and manipulation almost on sight, while participants from the general youth population more often engaged with the surface topic and treated the content as harmless, silly, or relevant only to “other” people, usually older or less educated audiences. Neither group is simply resilient or simply vulnerable; the difference lies in what each was trained, by circumstance or exposure, to notice. It is this gap, and not a lack of scepticism as such, that media literacy programmes will need to close.

The findings of this report speak directly to Serbia’s European path. Legitimate opposition, independent media and a functioning space for public disagreement are among the political conditions the process is designed to build and protect. A digital environment in which everyday disagreement is routinely recast as betrayal works against exactly that objective, regardless of who currently benefits from it politically. For policymakers and practitioners working on Serbia’s EU path, this report’s findings suggest that resilience to digital radicalisation deserves the same sustained attention as the rule-of-law reforms it is meant to accompany.

Članak Radicalising the Everyday: Digital Narratives and Youth Perceptions on TikTok in Serbia se pojavljuje prvo na European Policy Centre.

Following the oath of Vice President Vance and President Trump, a thirty-minute speech ensued, the longest in modern U.S. history. At the beginning of his address, after the introductory remarks, Trump declared that “the golden age of America begins right now.” The main message of the speech—putting America first—aligns with Trump’s earlier campaign. This idea implies not only economic but also political sovereignty, further emphasized by criticizing the government for neglecting issues at the southern border and the interests of its citizens. Such rhetoric has a strong populist tone, relying on the polarization between the “common people” and the “inefficient establishment.” Trump’s stance toward the government and establishment, which he accuses of a crisis of trust and poor management, continues to underscore his image as an outsider in the political system, even though he has not been one for years. This is also an attempt to shift responsibility for social problems onto previous administrations, thereby solidifying the narrative of the need for change through his administration. Interestingly, despite his critical tone toward the establishment, Trump spoke of a peaceful transition of power and called January 20 “Liberation Day.” Additionally, he praised last year’s election process and everything that followed leading up to the inauguration. In doing so, he conveys a message of unity, using emotional and religious rhetoric (“we will not forget our God”) to connect with various social groups. However, the contradiction between calls for unity and polarizing content raises the question of how inclusive that message truly is.

Donald Trump took the oath of office at the 60th presidential inauguration in the US Capitol’s Rotunda in Washington. (AP pic)
Trump announced a series of executive orders to demonstrate decisiveness and swift action. Declaring a state of emergency at the southern border and his firm stance on illegal immigration reflects his “America First” policy and focus on national security. While such measures appeal to a segment of the electorate, they also spark controversy due to potential human rights violations. Plans to eliminate the “Green New Deal” and subsidies for electric vehicles highlight his desire to prioritize traditional industries, such as automotive. At the same time, his proposals to reform the trade system through tariffs and duties reflect strong economic protectionism. Establishing the External Revenue Service to collect all tariffs, duties, and revenues can be seen as an attempt to institutionalize these policies and signal increased state intervention in the economy.

One of the most controversial parts of the speech was his stance on “social engineering of race and gender.” Announcing the abolition of policies recognizing multiple genders and insisting on the existence of only two genders sparked societal polarization. “From today, it will now be the official policy of the U.S. government that there are only two genders, male and female,” Trump concluded. Such positions resonate strongly with the conservative segment of the population but raise questions about minority rights and discrimination.

The speech continued in the same tone, addressing highly topical and controversial issues from the past weeks. Renaming locations, such as changing the Gulf of Mexico to the American Gulf and restoring the name William McKinley to Mount Denali, points to symbolic policies to restore American identity. His statements about the Panama Canal and criticism of Chinese influence further highlight his dissatisfaction with the global power distribution, while rhetoric about “reclaiming the canal” evokes nostalgia for the U.S.’s past geopolitical influence. Beyond Panama, Trump’s speech ventured outside the realm of our planet Earth, briefly announcing the plan to send the first humans to Mars.

Trump’s speech concluded with a call for national pride and optimism, emphasizing the courage and dreams of the American people. Trump declared that “our golden age has just begun.” However, behind this optimism potentially lies polarizing rhetoric and policies that will cause deep divisions within the country and in international relations. His inaugural message combined a vision of renewed sovereignty with a clear message of a conservative counter-revolution that, for now at least, enjoys widespread support and roots in the public.

Članak Trump 2.0: Toward a Conservative Counter-Revolution se pojavljuje prvo na European Policy Centre.