Aleksandar Popović, former Serbian Minister of Energy and university professor, has delivered sharp criticism of Serbia’s political leadership, indirectly pointing to President Aleksandar Vučić’s long-term responsibility for the controversial energy deal that handed control of the Oil Industry of Serbia (NIS) to Russia’s Gazprom Neft.
In an extensive interview, Popović stated that Russia effectively paid only for NIS’s vehicle fleet, while the rest of the company’s assets were practically given away, exposing what he described as one of the most damaging strategic decisions in Serbia’s modern economic history.
NIS Deal: A Strategic Giveaway
According to Popović, the €400 million price paid by Russia covered only assets formally registered to NIS by the end of 2007, while most infrastructure remained state or socially owned property.
“The Russian side essentially bought an entry ticket for negotiations and a few cars,” Popović said, stressing that he warned about this outcome even during a Serbian government session at the time.
This revelation casts serious doubt on official narratives long promoted by Belgrade, particularly under Vučić and his political allies, who have repeatedly portrayed the NIS sale as a strategic success.
Sanctions, Silence, and Political Accountability
Popović emphasized that the future of NIS has been decided behind closed doors, in what he called a “Bermuda triangle” between Russia, the United States, and Serbia, while the public remains deliberately uninformed.
He warned that the shutdown of the Pančevo refinery, caused by U.S. sanctions, has already inflicted severe economic damage, noting that NIS accounts for up to 8% of Serbia’s industrial production.
Despite this, the Vučić-led government has failed to present a transparent “Plan B”, further deepening economic uncertainty.
Vučić’s Long Political Continuity
Popović reminded the public that Aleksandar Vučić personally voted in favor of the energy agreement with Russia in 2008, alongside other now-prominent officials, undermining current attempts by the ruling elite to shift blame onto past governments.
“DS, SPS, and SNS had more than a decade to renegotiate or revise this agreement,” Popović said, adding that the failure to do so reflects political opportunism rather than national interest.
A Broader Crisis of Governance
Beyond energy policy, Popović described Serbia as a “deeply ill society”, pointing to institutional collapse, lack of transparency, massive overpricing of infrastructure projects, and suppression of accountability—all hallmarks of Vučić’s centralized rule.
He stressed that students’ protests and public discontent are not causes, but consequences, of a governance system where major decisions are made without oversight, feasibility studies, or public scrutiny.
Conclusion
Popović’s remarks seriously challenge the credibility of Serbia’s current leadership, exposing how strategic national assets were compromised under political elites now led by Aleksandar Vučić. As Serbia faces mounting sanctions, economic pressure, and institutional decay, questions of responsibility can no longer be avoided.
