DISINFO RADAR: Watch and Warn
Western Balkans Watch and Warn: External drivers of EU-related disinformation narratives
Through the end of May 2026, the Western Balkans are likely to face increased disinformation risks driven by external developments affecting EU integration, particularly political messaging around enlargement, shifting dynamics within the European Union, and broader geopolitical tensions.
EU–Western Balkans Summit: enlargement and conditionality narratives
The upcoming EU–Western Balkans Summit in Montenegro (June 5) is likely to act as regional trigger for disinformation activity in May, particularly in the weeks preceding the high profile event. Montenegro’s role as host positioned as frontrunner in the accession process (with Albania as second in line), as well as the EU’s assessment that Serbia remains insufficiently aligned with its foreign and security policy (sanctions on Russia) and stalling of North Macedonia’s accession process (dispute with Bulgaria) are likely to be used to reinforce narratives of unequal treatment, political pressure, and geopolitical conditionality. Disinformation portrays the enlargement process as insincere or coercive, and accession as requiring unacceptable concessions on sovereignty and identity.
Narrative recalibration regarding the political shift in Hungary
The electoral defeat of Viktor Orbán is likely to trigger a recalibration of disinformation narratives across the Western Balkans. While the change weakens a visible source of intra-EU support for illiberal governance, it may also be instrumentalized to reinforce claims that the European Union targets dissenting governments and suppresses political alternatives. Such narratives may be adapted to suggest that governments in the region could face similar pressure if they resist alignment with EU policies.
Global spillover: U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict and economic narratives
The ongoing U.S.–Israel war with Iran is likely to influence the Western Balkans primarily through economic and geopolitical spillover, particularly rising energy prices, inflation risks, and broader uncertainty. These developments may be used to reinforce narratives portraying EU and Western alignment as sources of instability and economic hardship, while promoting alternative geopolitical partners as more stable or pragmatic. This dynamic risks amplifying skepticism toward EU integration and weakening trust in democratic institutions.
Albania: Cybersecurity review and economic concerns likely to drive political narratives in May
Albania’s information environment is likely to be influenced by cybersecurity developments and politically sensitive historical memory events in late April and early May. Reported Iran-linked cyberattacks and subsequent institutional responses may be framed through competing narratives portraying the state either as vulnerable to foreign interference or as instrumentalizing security threats for political messaging. At the same time, delayed oil reserve law and rising fuel prices risk fueling disinformation and economic anxiety. These dynamics may be amplified through selective interpretation, emotional framing, and politicization, increasing polarization and affecting public trust in institutions and reform processes.
A follow-up government and parliamentary-level review of cyber resilience is expected after reported Iran-linked cyberattacks targeting Albanian Post in March. The discussion is likely to take the form of institutional briefings and public communication focusing on national cyber defense capacity, protection of critical infrastructure, and continuity of public services. Given Albania’s previous exposure to high-profile cyber incidents attributed to Iran, the issue is likely to be framed in terms of foreign interference risks, institutional preparedness, and alignment with NATO cyber defense standards. These developments may be selectively interpreted or amplified to support competing narratives on state vulnerability, government competence, or geopolitical alignment.
Continued increases in fuel prices, combined with long-standing delays in adopting the oil reserve law, are likely to fuel disinformation and public distrust. Despite repeated promises by Prime Minister Edi Rama the country still lacks a functional state oil reserve, limiting its ability to respond to global price shocks. As global oil prices rise due to geopolitical instability, domestic price increases are being directly passed on to citizens, with visible impacts such as higher transport costs and pressure on public services. In this context, disinformation is likely to frame price hikes as the result of government manipulation or hidden agreements with market actors, rather than external market dynamics and structural policy gaps. The repetition of unfulfilled policy promises such as the creation of reserves, task forces, or regulatory mechanisms creates additional space for narratives portraying institutional failure or deliberate inaction. At the same time, the absence of clear communication may enable panic-driven claims about shortages, uncontrolled inflation, or broader economic crisis.
Overall, the combination of rising costs, policy delays, and high public sensitivity creates a permissive environment for disinformation, increasing the risk of economic anxiety, erosion of trust in institutions, and distortion of public understanding of the energy market.
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Competing geopolitical narratives likely to drive disinformation around U.S. influence related Banja Luka events
The information environment in Bosnia and Herzegovina is likely to be shaped by competing geopolitical narratives surrounding the Gold Institute summit and the visit of Donald Trump Jr. to Banja Luka. These developments may be instrumentalized to frame EU integration as declining or obstructive, while promoting alternative external influence networks linked to U.S. political and business actors. Diverging narratives are expected to portray external engagement either as strategic partnership or as covert political influence, reinforcing domestic political positions and externalizing internal disputes. This dynamic risks amplifying polarization, weakening trust in institutions, and further fragmenting the country’s information space.
The Gold Institute for International Strategy summit , associated with Michael Flynn, has drawn scrutiny due to limited transparency regarding its May 28 agenda and participants. Flynn’s prior advisory and lobbying engagement with authorities in Republika Srpska, as reported in U.S. FARA registry data, contributes to narratives suggesting about structured external influence operating outside formal EU institutional frameworks. These elements may be selectively interpreted or amplified to support claims of alternative geopolitical alignment and to question the relevance of EU integration pathways.
The April visit of Donald Trump Jr. to Banja Luka, used for public criticism of the EU, has contributed to reinforcement of anti-EU narratives and perceptions of increased U.S.-linked engagement in Republika Srpska. At the same time, Republika Srpska leadership, particularly Milorad Dodik, continues engagement with U.S.-linked actors, reinforcing narratives around competing external alignments.
Overall, the combination of low transparency, high-profile political engagement, and pre-existing institutional fragility increases the risk of disinformation amplification, selective interpretation, and further polarization in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Kosovo: Disinformation risks following presidential election failure and early elections
Kosovo’s information environment is likely to face increased disinformation risks following the Parliament’s failure to elect a president within the constitutional deadline on April 28 and the prospect of early elections in June. The resulting institutional uncertainty creates a permissive environment for narratives portraying political instability, democratic fragility, and declining international support, with risks of deepening polarization and undermining trust in institutions.
Disinformation is likely to frame the institutional deadlock as evidence of systemic political failure, including exaggerated claims of “constitutional collapse,” elite infighting, or prolonged instability. Narratives may also speculate about unrest or security deterioration, particularly in sensitive regions such as northern Kosovo, while portraying the political system as incapable of sustaining democratic governance without external intervention.
At the same time, the anticipated electoral process is vulnerable to delegitimization through narratives questioning its credibility and fairness. These may include fabricated or misleading claims about political divisions, voter manipulation, or institutional bias, with the potential to discourage voter participation and weaken confidence in electoral outcomes.
Geopolitical narratives are also likely to intensify, linking domestic developments to broader shifts within the European Union. Diplomatic messaging may be selectively interpreted to portray Kosovo’s EU and Euro-Atlantic trajectory as uncertain or weakening, referencing internal EU dynamics, including the rise of far-right actors, to suggest declining support or shifting recognition policies. Diplomatic engagement may be misrepresented to reinforce perceptions of isolation or stagnation.
Disinformation tactics are expected to include fake or manipulated public opinion polls, continuation of the identified trend of increased activity on platforms such as Telegram, and the growing use of AI-generated content to amplify misleading narratives. These methods are likely to accelerate in the pre-election period, reinforcing existing divisions and amplifying uncertainty.
Overall, the intersection of internal political uncertainty and external geopolitical framing creates a highly permissive environment for disinformation, with competing narratives portraying Kosovo as politically dysfunctional or internationally isolated, thereby increasing polarization and undermining public trust.
Montenegro: Arms trade debate with Israel likely to drive disinformation amid geopolitical polarization
Montenegro’s information environment is likely to be influenced by disinformation narratives following a public letter by civil society actors demanding transparency on potential arms trade and military cooperation with Israel. The issue is highly susceptible to emotional and geopolitical framing, with narratives likely to portray the government either as complicit in international crimes or as a target of coordinated external pressure. In the absence of clear official communication, selective interpretation of legal arguments, amplification of unverified claims, and misrepresentation of documents are likely to shape public discourse. These dynamics risk increasing polarization and undermining trust in institutions, particularly in the context of broader debates on Montenegro’s foreign policy alignment.
The letter, addressed to Prime Minister Milojko Spajić and relevant ministers, references prior reporting, institutional silence, and international legal obligations, framing any potential cooperation as contributing to violations of international law. Such framing, combined with references to civilian casualties and international court rulings, increases the emotional and political sensitivity of the issue. In this context, disinformation risks include the circulation of unverified claims about arms deals, the reuse of outdated or information taken out of context, and the simplification of complex legal arguments to support polarized positions.
Competing narratives are likely to reinforce opposing portrayals of the issue, framing Montenegro either as participating in controversial international activities or as being subjected to external political pressure and disinformation campaigns. The involvement of multiple institutions and reference to international agreements further increases complexity, making the issue vulnerable to distortion and politicization.
At the same time, the debate is likely to be linked to broader geopolitical narratives, where Montenegro’s alignment with EU and NATO standards may be portrayed either as moral inconsistency or as externally imposed policy. These interpretations may be used to reinforce polarization around foreign policy orientation and to question institutional credibility, including discrediting political parties whose officials oversee security institutions, in the context of de facto campaign for the 2027 elections.
Overall, the combination of high public sensitivity, legal complexity, and limited institutional response creates a permissive environment for disinformation amplification, with risks of distorting public understanding and deepening societal divisions.
North Macedonia: Language dispute over jurisprudence exam likely to fuel sovereignty and inter-ethnic disinformation narratives
The information environment in North Macedonia is likely to be shaped by disinformation narratives surrounding the dispute over the use of Albanian language of the jurisprudence exam, with increasing potential to inflame inter-ethnic tensions. The issue is likely to be framed not only as a legal or administrative matter, but as a broader threat to state sovereignty and constitutional order, including claims of “federalization.” At the same time, opposing narratives may portray the refusal to allow the exam in Albanian as systemic discrimination, reinforcing polarized and mutually exclusive interpretations. These dynamics risk amplifying ethnic divisions, increasing hate speech, and undermining social cohesion and trust in institutions.
The debate intensified after Albanian-speaking law students petitioned for the exam to be offered in Albanian, arguing that the current practice is discriminatory. The Ministry of Justice maintains that the exam tests knowledge of Macedonian as a legal requirement, while existing legal provisions on language use allow for differing interpretations. This institutional ambiguity creates space for selective interpretation and narrative manipulation, particularly when legal arguments are simplified or taken out of context.
Disinformation narratives increasingly frame the issue as a threat to national unity (“federalization”), sovereignty, and constitutional order, transforming a procedural dispute into a perceived security concern. Such narratives are amplified through political rhetoric, including statements by Prime Minister Hristijan Mickoski suggesting risks of destabilization and external pressure. In parallel, counter-narratives emphasize discrimination and unequal rights, reinforcing a polarisation.
Ongoing public debate, combined with the possibility of protests, is likely to sustain disinformation dynamics, including the spread of ethnic-based rhetoric and hate speech. The continuation of sovereignty-related framing and conflicting interpretations risks further escalating tensions and deepening polarization in North Macedonia.
Serbia: EU funding pressure and protest dynamics likely to drive disinformation narratives
Serbia’s information environment is likely to experience an intensification of disinformation narratives driven by potential EU funding restrictions, ongoing protest dynamics, and broader concerns about democratic backsliding. These developments are highly susceptible to manipulation through competing narratives portraying the EU as coercive, protests as externally orchestrated, and domestic institutions as either fully legitimate or in systemic collapse. The convergence of these dynamics risks deepening polarization and weakening public trust in both democratic institutions and the EU integration process.
Reports that the European Commission is considering suspending significant funding, tied to set of laws passed in January (Mrdić laws), are likely to be framed as political coercion aimed at forcing Serbia’s alignment with EU foreign policy positions, particularly regarding sanctions and relations with Russia. Such narratives may selectively interpret or misrepresent EU conditionality, portraying it as punitive or illegitimate interference, rather than as part of accession-related governance requirements.
The risk is reinforced by continued international assessments pointing to democratic backsliding, including pressure on independent media, opposition actors, and civil society, as well as concerns related to protest management and the conduct of the partial local elections held on March 29 in 10 municipalities. Government actors are likely to use these election results as proof of legitimacy and as a springboard for the anticipated parliamentary election campaign in late 2026 or early 2027. At the same time, critical findings are likely to be selectively dismissed or amplified in ways that reinforce polarized interpretations of the political environment.
EU criticism related to judicial reforms, media freedom, police conduct during protests and threats to civil society remains highly vulnerable to reframing as external political pressure aimed at undermining Serbia’s sovereignty. Disinformation narratives may portray the EU as a hostile orhypocritical actor, reinforcing existing anti-EU and sovereigntist narratives and reducing public support for integration.
Domestic developments are also likely to be instrumentalized through narratives portraying protests—particularly those linked to electoral irregularities— as externally orchestrated destabilization efforts. These narratives may minimize concerns about media freedom and institutional accountability, while framing civil society and opposition actors as foreign proxies. Conversely, alarmist narratives suggesting imminent democratic collapse may also be amplified, contributing to oversimplified and polarized interpretations of complex political dynamics.
Additional risks include fabricated or exaggerated claims about EU “ultimatums,” selective or misleading use of statements by EU officials, and distorted interpretations of funding conditionality as political blackmail. Narratives may also link EU pressure to Serbia’s relations with Russia, reinforcing geopolitical framing and distrust toward European institutions. In parallel, broader geopolitical developments—including economic narratives related to global conflicts and Serbia’s energy dependence on Russia—may be incorporated into disinformation messaging to further amplify uncertainty and grievance.
Overall, the convergence of protest dynamics, democratic governance concerns, and potential financial measures creates a highly permissive environment for disinformation amplification, with risks of deepening polarization and weakening trust in democratic institutions and the EU integration process.
