He is not a friend of Montenegro

The duty and obligation of this generation is to make sense of the intention of those Greater Serbian nationalists, who are trying to identify Montenegro and Montenegrins with criminals and Montenegrin exclusivists, i.e. nationalists. Montenegrin nationalists and criminals must not be symbols of the Montenegrin state idea

42465 views 164 reactions 43 comment(s)
Nenad Neno Kaluđerović, Photo: Shutterstock
Nenad Neno Kaluđerović, Photo: Shutterstock
Disclaimer: The translations are mostly done through AI translator and might not be 100% accurate.

It is clearer than ever, although expected, who is the best ally of (Greater) Serbian nationalism in Montenegro. When I say the best, I don't mean loyalty or conscious alliance, but those groups and individuals who most effectively contribute to the realization of Greater Serbia's goals in Montenegro.

The Sky correspondences show and prove that the basic structure of the neocomite movement in Montenegro is deeply criminal and fully dependent on the Kavački clan, led by the fugitive Radoj Zvicer and, apparently, the main operative and "belvedere hero" Nenad Kaluđerović, who is on hiatus between burning bodies, he also worked on the organization of the movement, where he connected political parties, various intellectuals, politicians, civic activists, and even educational institutions, for joint action.

It is not difficult to identify these groups and individuals, because Kaluđerović lists them by name in his correspondence. Additionally, their relations confirm the public defense of Kaluđerović's character and deeds, after the prosecution accused him of the most heinous crimes. This in no way means that the motivation of the citizens who protested together with them, or supported that narrative, was based on the same motives as the bearers of that story, which is often tried to be blamed on everyone who criticizes these mighty heroes.

A non-negligible part of the Montenegrin public was successfully told the story that the only way to resist the undisguised ambitions of Greater Serbian nationalism is to create a bloc that will promote Montenegrin nationalism and exclusivism, and anyone who does not think that this is the best strategy for preserving the civic concept of the state (which they actually do not want ), should be declared an enemy, a traitor, a Chetnik, and a propagator of Vučić's or Putin's policies. Of course, some political parties, also known for their ties to crime, recognized their opportunity in such a concept, and incorporated into that narrative a platitude about themselves as the only guardians of Western values, all with the aim of abolishing the thirty-year regime and saving criminal businesses. The conclusion is obvious, for that team, Montenegro is loved and eternal only if it directly serves their private interests and goals.

To tell the truth, in informal conversations with some DPS MPs, it could be recognized that they were not enthusiastic about that idea, but nevertheless they massed those gatherings, gave them legitimacy, and thus became a de facto ally of this destructive phenomenon. It should be remembered that one of the essential problems of the DPS, since its foundation, was the inability to produce its own and authentic political idea, so they always automatically took over someone else's. Once very successfully, with the idea of ​​independent Montenegro, now extremely unsuccessful and disastrous for Montenegro, with the idea of ​​Montenegrin nationalism and exclusivism. This powerlessness was best illustrated by the recent interview of Milo Đukanović, who drew the story of his successes and merits from the events of the end of the last century and the beginning of this century, ignoring the current nationalist stumbling of his own party.

Montenegrin nationalism is essentially the antithesis of everything that could be subsumed under Montenegrin values, founded in the glorious history of the Montenegrin state. A friend of Montenegro cannot be one who, out of all the famous Montenegrin heroes, chooses a person who was a proven collaborator of the occupiers of this country as a symbol of resistance. This does not affirm the Montenegrin identity, but compromises it and distances a significant part of Montenegrins from it. Montenegrin nationalism did nothing to make the Montenegrin identity inclusive, but in some segments it even contributed to the new "re-tribalization" of Montenegro. It was he who promoted the idea that, for example, the people of Katunja are more loyal to modern Montenegro than Kuča, or that "what is possible in the rest of Montenegro is not possible in Cetinje". Fortunately, Montenegrin nationalism and exclusivism is not the same as Montenegro and Montenegro, no matter how much its propagators try to prove the opposite.

Also, he is not a friend of Montenegro, nor its patriot, the one who subordinated its institutions to criminal groups and proven monsters, so today there are more police officers than "ordinary" criminals on the indictments and in Sky correspondence. No one has the illusion that any country can completely eradicate crime, but it is one thing when it is a problem that the country struggles with, and completely different when the country allows crime to completely capture the institutions. The question of trust is one of the key elements of the relationship between citizens and the state. The one who pays taxes and thus finances the security services, does so, among other things, so that those services would protect him from those who want to harm him. Montenegro was in a situation where it was more difficult to imagine that a kidnapping happens when, as in the movies, cars without license plates intercept the target, than to imagine that it happens, as is hinted through the SKY correspondence, by a policeman abusing trust and powers, stops the victim's car in order to deliver it to the executioners.

Neither is a Montenegrin patriot who, in addition to the existing state or historical symbols, with which all citizens identify equally or approximately, uses alternative symbols that promote particularism and exclusivism, just because they can. Examples are neocomite flags, used on official occasions, or the green jerseys of the national team, which demonstrate the ideological-party privatization of public goods and political microtyranny.

He is not a friend of Montenegro and its ancient metropolitan chair to which the patriots appeal, the one who opposes the Serbian Orthodox Church and its ethnophiletism to another national church, which acts equally ethnophiletistically and nationalistically in its ambition, but does not have the power to produce consequences like the SPC can. I doubt that he is a friend of Montenegro and the one who, due to the alleged defense of the state and the nation, proposes resolutions in which journalists are brutally attacked, and therefore the freedom of thought and expression.

Neither is he a friend of Montenegro who, by promoting Montenegrin nationalism, disputes the right of others to be Montenegrins, if they do not fit into their concept of exclusive Montenegrinism. Those who regularly spread hate speech and national chauvinism via the obscure tabloid portal Aktuelno.me are not friends of Montenegro either, and are members of the Dukljan Academy of Sciences and Arts, professors of faculties financed from the budget and former correspondents of prestigious international multimedia stations.

Nationalism cannot be a friend of Montenegro, because one of the basic characteristics of nationalism is that it presents defeats as victories. An illustrative example is the national handball team that was celebrated only because it defeated Serbia, and that nationalistic enthusiasm and euphoria covered up the fact that, by all criteria, a bad result was achieved in that championship. That wrong image saved the coach, who then led us to an embarrassing defeat against second-rate Italy.

These false friends of Montenegro, who are morally very close to those two who justified cigarette smuggling by defending the cross and Orthodoxy, I especially point out because it is important to demystify their hypocrisy and harmful actions.

Professor Nikola Saranović brilliantly noted that neither the Law on Freedom of Religion nor the Basic Treaty answered the Montenegrin question, elaborating on the negative consequences of the so-called inclusive Serbia and exclusive Montenegrin. Criticizing the Basic Treaty, he reminds that this document has its origins in the strategy of preserving and strengthening relations between the home country and the diaspora and the home country and Serbs in the region as an official document of the Republic of Serbia in which the SPC is intended to play a "spiritual mission in the function of preserving national identity."

"The concept of inclusive Serbia includes the Serbianness of Montenegrins in the colloquially called "Serbian world" in which Montenegrin Serbs have the status of "Serbs in the region", whose home country is Serbia. However, the question arises as to whether inclusive Serbia would have its own group in Montenegro if exclusive Montenegrinism, based on the unquestioned Law on Freedom of Religion, did not exclude Montenegrin Serbianness from the Montenegrin national being. Don't these two concepts act in this way as the arms of one pair of scissors that recut historical sources, to their own extent, trying to place the Montenegrin national being in the Procrustean beds of the Serbian world and the anti-Serbian world. An inclusive Serbia can only be answered with an inclusive Montenegrin. It is an identity concept that treats the Serbianness of Montenegrins as an authentic endogenous expression of identity and a constitutive element of the Montenegrin national being. Only inclusive Montenegro can prevent one past from being divided into two histories, one future into two visions and finally - one people into two nations. Only with inclusive Montenegro, the Montenegrin nation can breathe on both key wings."

Therefore, the duty and obligation of this generation is to make sense of the intention of those Greater Serbian nationalists, who are trying to identify Montenegro and Montenegrins with criminals and Montenegrin exclusivists, i.e. nationalists. Montenegrin nationalists and criminals must not be symbols of the Montenegrin state idea. Because it is the fastest way for Montenegro to move away from its constitutional ideals and from its state survival.

Bonus video:

(Opinions and views published in the "Columns" section are not necessarily the views of the "Vijesti" editorial office.)