For almost ten years, I travelled to Bratislava for GLOBSEC’s flagship annual gathering, which had become one of the most important political events in Central Europe. European Western Balkans reported on it year after year. We interviewed officials, followed discussions and met colleagues from across Europe. But we were impressed not only by the speakers and panels. We also admired the synergy between the organisers and the Slovak state.
The government provided political and logistical support without appearing to control the discussion. With the help of the state, an independent think tank had created something that promoted both Slovakia and the entire region. It seemed like an example of how cooperation between governments and civil society should work.
That is why what happened later mattered. After returning to power, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico claimed that at GLOBSEC’s conferences one could not hear “a single good word” about countries east of Slovakia and that “everything is just Western propaganda”. Andrej Danko, leader of the Slovak National Party and deputy speaker of parliament, went even further, demanding that GLOBSEC receive “not one Euro” from the state.
This was not ordinary political criticism. It was a clear message that a pro-Western think tank was no longer considered a partner of the Slovak government. GLOBSEC itself did not leave Slovakia, but after 18 editions, it moved the GLOBSEC Forum, its flagship gathering, from Bratislava to Prague.
The decision was understandable. No independent organisation should be expected to hold a major international event in a country whose government portrays it as an instrument of foreign propaganda, associates it with Soros and the opposition, and threatens to withdraw public support. GLOBSEC recognised such behaviour for what it was: political pressure on an independent organisation.
Its approach in Serbia has been rather different.
The first BELTALKS (Belgrade Economic Talks), organised by GLOBSEC, was held in Belgrade in December 2025. Its most prominent participants included Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, Prime Minister Đuro Macut, Parliament Speaker Ana Brnabić and several senior ministers. The gathering was supported by several European embassies and international organisations, as well as Serbian state-owned companies. Its second edition will take place in Belgrade on 9 and 10 September 2026.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a think tank speaking to a government, even an authoritarian one. Policy organisations should engage with people in power, including those with whom they disagree. The question is not why GLOBSEC invited Serbian officials, but how it can cooperate so closely with a government that systematically targets organisations and individuals belonging to the same professional community as GLOBSEC.
The choice of media partners makes this question even more difficult to avoid. A lobbying and media network closely intertwined with the Serbian authorities and state-owned companies was presented as a partner of the first gathering. Its outlets form an important part of the government’s propaganda machinery and have been among the loudest attackers of independent journalists, critical media, activists and think tanks.
These are not attacks on a distant or unrelated group. Their targets are GLOBSEC’s professional counterparts, some of whom were previously its project partners.
This context cannot be separated from the political environment in which the first gathering took place. By December 2025, Serbian police had already raided the offices of prominent civil society organisations over their foreign funding. Government officials and pro-government media had spent years labelling independent organisations foreign agents, mercenaries and participants in an alleged colour revolution. Independent journalists, activists and think tanks had been threatened, publicly targeted and exposed to coordinated smear campaigns.
Yet none of the independent organisations from Serbia with which GLOBSEC had previously cooperated appeared among the speakers. Nor did we see the people who could have explained what it means to work as an independent think tank or media outlet under the current Serbian government. Instead, the stage was dominated by representatives of the Serbian authorities, alongside foreign participants who may not have known this history and international organisations and embassies that appeared willing to overlook it.
The issue is not simply who was invited. It is whose knowledge and experience GLOBSEC considered important enough to put on stage. Serbian officials were invited to explain Serbia to Europe. The Serbian organisations that had worked with GLOBSEC, and that now face pressure from those same officials, were not given the opportunity to explain Serbia to anyone.
GLOBSEC knows what political pressure against a think tank looks like. When Fico’s government attacked it, associated it with Soros and the opposition, and threatened to withdraw state support, GLOBSEC understood that this was not normal democratic criticism. When similar and often much harsher methods are used against its colleagues in Serbia, however, it offers no visible solidarity. Instead, it organises an event with the government responsible for those attacks and partners with a media network whose outlets help carry them out.
The announced list of speakers for the second edition shows that this was not an oversight. GLOBSEC has repeated the same choice. Vučić, Macut and Brnabić are there again, together with representatives of the same pro-government media network. Once again, there is nobody from independent civil society or independent media, including GLOBSEC’s former Serbian partners.
Senior guests from Brussels are also expected, although their possible attendance is still being discussed mainly in diplomatic circles. Their presence would give the gathering additional European legitimacy, but it would not make it more representative of Serbian society.
On 10 September, the agenda promises to tackle the questions shaping Europe’s next decade: whether differentiated integration can provide access to the EU before full membership, how six fragmented markets can become one investable Western Balkans, how the region can strengthen its energy resilience and whether it can compete for data centres and digital infrastructure. These are all important questions. But one obvious question is missing: can European integration remain credible when the people defending its fundamental values are absent from the stage, while those attacking them are invited to explain Serbia’s reforms and European future?
Solidarity is easy when it is written into a mission statement. It becomes meaningful only when it costs access, a partnership, a panel or a photograph with power.
The real question is not why GLOBSEC moved its flagship gathering from Bratislava to Prague. That part is easy to understand. The question is why an organisation that expected solidarity when it came under pressure in Slovakia has shown so little solidarity with its colleagues in Serbia.
Why does political pressure against GLOBSEC in Bratislava demand a response, while political pressure against GLOBSEC’s former partners in Belgrade is treated as background noise?
What happened to GLOBSEC?