Montenegro stands at a crossroads, torn between two starkly different visions for its future—one that aligns with the democratic, civic values of the West, and another that envisions the country as a satellite within a Greater Serbia, part of a resurgent Eastern Bloc led by Russia. This ideological conflict is not merely a domestic issue but part of a broader geopolitical struggle that reflects the deepening global divide between the West and Russia, a divide that is expected to sharpen further as the war in Ukraine grinds on. What we are witnessing in Montenegro today is not just a local power struggle but a positioning for the future Cold War.
The division within Montenegro is ideological at its core. On one side are those who believe in the sovereignty and independence of Montenegro, who see their country's future as part of the European Union and the broader community of Western democracies. These Montenegrins, represented by civic parties, uphold the principles of democracy, rule of law, and human rights—values that are foundational to the West.
On the other side are those who advocate for Montenegro to be integrated into a Greater Serbia, effectively pulling it into an Eastern Bloc sphere of influence, dominated by Russia. This faction is driven not by ethnic identity but by a nationalist ideology that sees Montenegro as a natural extension of Serbia. These pro-Serbian forces are closely tied to Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, who has long sought to expand Serbia’s influence in the Balkans, often with the backing of Russia. They are supported by the Serbian Orthodox Church, which acts as a cultural and political arm of Serbian nationalism, and by media outlets that promote the Greater Serbia narrative.
The stakes in this ideological battle are high, especially as the conflict in Ukraine continues to polarize the global order. As Russia and the West move closer to a prolonged Cold War, Montenegro’s internal divisions are increasingly reflective of this larger clash. The outcome of Montenegro’s political struggles will have significant implications, not just for the Balkans but for the balance of power in Europe.
Serbia’s influence in Montenegro is not just a matter of political rhetoric; it is a well-funded campaign to reshape the country’s identity and align it with the Eastern Bloc. This influence is exerted through various means, including financial support to pro-Serbian political parties, control of media outlets that push a pro-Russian agenda, and the pervasive presence of the Serbian Orthodox Church, which is a powerful tool of Serbian nationalism.
It is crucial to recognize that the division in Montenegro is not about ethnic identity—many who identify as ethnic Serbs in Montenegro still consider themselves Montenegrin. Instead, the divide is about the country's future orientation: Will Montenegro remain a sovereign, independent state aligned with the West, or will it be subsumed into a Greater Serbia and drawn into Russia's orbit?
Preventing foreign interference in Montenegro’s political process is now more critical than ever. It is imperative to halt the flow of campaign funds from Serbia and to address the unlawful influence of the Serbian state in Montenegro’s elections. The international community, particularly the European Union and NATO, must take a stand to support Montenegro’s sovereignty and ensure that its democratic processes are protected from external manipulation.
As Montenegro’s local elections in Podgorica and Budva approach, and with the possibility of early parliamentary elections on the horizon, it becomes increasingly clear that the West's policy of appeasement towards Serbia is failing to deliver the intended results. Rather than fostering stability and democracy, this approach appears to embolden Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, whose actions are destabilizing the Balkans. The West's focus seems to be shifting away from upholding democratic values and the rights of smaller nations in the region, with strategic interests—particularly in securing access to lithium reserves—taking precedence.
In Montenegro, this dangerous shift is being exploited by domestic political actors aligned with Vučić. The President of Parliament, who operates under Vučić's direct influence, is using every opportunity to push for constitutional changes to transform Montenegro from a civic liberal state into a state defined by ethnic nationalities. This move threatens to undermine Montenegro’s existing identity and shift the country towards a divisive model similar to that of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has struggled with ethnic-based governance and instability for decades.
Recent efforts to alter the electoral process, redefine land ownership rights, and, most troublingly, modify the decision-making structure of the Supreme Council responsible for security and wartime decisions all point towards an agenda of ethnic partitioning. These changes are not just technical adjustments but part of a broader strategy to reshape Montenegro’s political landscape in a way that favors ethnic divisions over civic unity.
This situation places Montenegro’s upcoming elections at the center of a larger geopolitical struggle. The outcome will not only determine the future of this small state but will also test the effectiveness of the West's strategy in the Balkans. If Western powers continue to prioritize short-term strategic interests, such as access to resources, over the long-term stability and democratic integrity of the region, they risk fueling greater divisions and instability across the Balkans. The consequences of such a miscalculation could extend far beyond Montenegro, reshaping the geopolitical landscape of Europe and beyond.