Tensions escalated between Serbia and Montenegro following comments made by Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, who implied that Andrija Mandić, a key opposition leader in Montenegro, could destabilize the current government at any moment. This statement came in response to Montenegrin Prime Minister Milojko Spajić‘s proposition for the simultaneous EU membership of Western Balkan nations. Analysts are now scrutinizing the implications of these remarks for regional stability and EU integration.
Vučić’s comments were delivered ahead of meetings with high-ranking EU officials in Brussels, including Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, and Antonio Costa, President of the Council of Europe. During these discussions, Vučić reiterated a long-standing vision of integrating the entire Western Balkan region into the EU simultaneously, a concept he has championed for over 15 years. He stated, “If one country is left out, what do we do with that country? We should all join together.”
Spajić welcomed the idea of EU membership for the region but emphasized that Montenegro is prepared to join by 2028 and urged Serbia to expedite the accession process for its neighbors. He conveyed this message through social media, underscoring Montenegro’s readiness to embrace its European future.
In a swift rebuttal, Vučić expressed his disappointment at Spajić’s reaction, suggesting that it lacked depth on more pressing issues affecting the region. He asserted, “I would have liked to hear Spajić’s response on far more important matters,” implying that the Montenegrin leader should focus on issues such as the investigation into the crisis surrounding the Montenegrin citizens.
Vučić framed his proposal as “responsible and wise,” reflecting on the collective future of the region rather than individual national interests. He criticized what he perceived as Spajić’s urgent and hasty response, arguing his intention was to facilitate cooperation rather than to sow discord.
The Serbian leader’s remarks also included strong criticism of Croatia, suggesting a covert antagonistic stance towards Serbia. He claimed, “Croatia acts deceitfully, working behind closed doors against us,” indicating a complicated relationship amid ongoing regional tensions.
The responses from Montenegrin politicians varied, with Miodrag Laković from the Movement for Europe Now (PES) stating that Serbia would negotiate with Montenegro as an EU member, while Ivan Vujović, leader of the Social Democratic Party, pointed out Vučić’ previous derogatory remarks about European parliamentarians. He characterized Vučić’ recent proposal as insincere, suggesting that it revealed his true intentions regarding Montenegro’s EU aspirations.
Political analyst Davor Đenero expressed skepticism regarding Vučić’ motivations, interpreting his comments as a veiled threat towards Montenegro’s political stability. He highlighted the historical context of Serbia’s EU accession attempts, noting that while Croatia has been a member for over a decade, Serbia has yet to align its policies sufficiently to progress in negotiations.
Looking ahead, Đenero suggested that Montenegro could conclude its EU accession talks as early as late next year, contingent upon a dedicated ruling coalition. He warned that a change in government following parliamentary elections could jeopardize these efforts, stressing the need for a consistent pro-European administration to secure stability during critical phases of the EU integration process.
In conclusion, the complex interplay of politics between Serbia and Montenegro underscores the challenges both nations face as they navigate their paths toward EU integration. As regional leaders continue to engage in dialogue, the stakes remain high for both countries and their aspirations for European membership.
