Is Vucic afraid of losing the elections?

Komunikolog Maro Alavanja has commented on the recent protest note sent by Serbia to Croatia and the subsequent reactions, stating that Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić has definitively lost control. In an interview with RTL Direkt, Alavanja noted that while he does not know if this represents panic, it is clear that Vučić has lost control and this is not pleasing to him. This loss of control is evident in all other activities taking place, and Alavanja drew parallels to Hungary's Viktor Orbán, recalling their conversation just before the Hungarian elections when panic led to strong measures being taken that had previously been unnecessary. Alavanja questioned whether the claim from Serbia that Croatian reporting is one-sided and unobjective simply means that Vučić is not used to criticism. He suggested that Serbian media should reflect the reality of many Serbs working and studying in Croatia and consuming Croatian media, which might explain why there is a concern over what people could learn from Croatian media. He confirmed that a large number of media outlets in Serbia are regime-aligned, and the few critical voices prior to the elections have either changed hands or been suppressed, referencing the end of Zoran Kesić’s show as an example. Regarding Kesić, Alavanja pointed out that humor has always been the greatest enemy and threat to such systems and regimes. However, he was pleased that Kesić still maintains a strong following on YouTube and social networks, indicating that his messages are reaching people despite the suppression. The Croatian National Council (HND) warned today that this is an alarming attempt at intimidation. Alavanja speculated that the upcoming weekend, when elections take place, might see Croatian journalists barred from entering Serbia to report on the elections. While he acknowledged that Vučić would likely try to delay them at the border, he believed Vučić would avoid creating too much trouble in Europe, given the close monitoring of these elections and the involvement of a PR agency focused on improving his image towards the West. He referenced a similar situation during the burial of Ratko Mladić, where Serbia received explicit instructions from the European Union not to hold military honors for the burial, yet it proceeded anyway. Alavanja raised questions about how long EU leaders would tolerate Vučić’s actions, particularly regarding press freedom. Many analysts suggest that the current situation in Serbia is highly tense, and anything could happen if the election results are neck-and-neck. Alavanja emphasized the importance of institutions being able to convincingly state what happened during the elections, noting the lack of transparency in vote counting processes in cities like Belgrade or rural areas in Šumadija. Given the heightened tensions, he predicted potential civil unrest, which would not be surprising. He concluded that if this is not a suitable time to overthrow the regime, when all pro-European leaders have gathered behind this cardiologist, he does not know of a better moment for such a change. He also highlighted the distinction between interference in elections and critical reporting, suggesting that interference involves hidden advertising or financing in media and selecting editors close to the regime, which is more concerning than the critical coverage by Croatian media. He noted that even his own program critically addresses students and their mistakes, acknowledging that this is the nature of Vučić’s Serbia. Alavanja was aware that this discussion would be censored in Vučić-friendly media tomorrow, referencing his last public statement.