The agreement of the blocs for an independent Montenegro and the union with Serbia on the conditions of the referendum on the status of the state is one of the key reasons that this process, despite deep divisions and tensions in Montenegrin society at the time, ended peacefully.
With these words, the interlocutors of "Vijesti" recall the events of 18 years ago, when Montenegro, after almost nine decades, restored statehood.
55,5 percent of citizens, or 230.661 of them, voted for it, while 44,5 percent, that is, for the survival of the union with Serbia. 185.002.
The referendum held on May 21, 2006 was preceded by many stormy events from the nineties, at the beginning of which the idea of an independent Montenegro was supported by only a few percent of the population. However, that changed at the end of those years, when there was a split in the then unified Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) and when that party, led by Milo Đukanović, turns his back on the then president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) Slobodan Milosevic.
Leader of the former bloc for a common state and former head of the Socialist People's Party (SNP) Predrag Bulatović, told "Vijesti" that after the split in the DPS, the idea of independence began to strengthen slightly, but that Đukanović and his party calculated on this "as an important factor in preserving power". That is why, he says, in the 1998 elections, the idea of a common state was also theirs, and he recalls that in July 1997, DPS MPs voted in Belgrade for Milošević to be president of the FRY.
LIBERALS PRESSURED DPS
Bulatović claims that the DPS kept all options open until the 2001 elections, and after the fall of Milošević, because, he says, then the SNP coalition "Together for Yugoslavia" and the Liberal Alliance won the majority.
"By giving them support for the minority government, the Liberal Alliance put pressure on the DPS to make a stronger commitment to independence. That's what happened, with which tensions, divisions and political confrontations began to grow. The fact that the DPS promotes independence more strongly after the fall of Milošević, after which a leadership with strong support from the West comes, speaks of the groundlessness of the need to separate from Serbia due to the character of the regime, but also testifies that Djukanović is interested in any state status in which he will be the undisputed ruler," he says. interlocutor.
Two years after the fall of Milošević and a year after his extradition to the court in The Hague on charges of war crimes, Montenegro and Serbia concluded the Belgrade Agreement, which transformed the federal state into the state union of Serbia and Montenegro (SCG). Soon after, the Constitutional Charter was adopted, which enabled the constituents of the community to call for a plebiscite on state status after the expiration of three years from the initialing of the document, which the official Podgorica did.
Bulatović claims that in Montenegro, from the Belgrade Agreement until the referendum, tensions grew, that "unilateral decisions of the DPS" threatened, as well as a boycott of the referendum with protests by the bloc for a common state. If this was not overcome, the country would, according to him, enter a period of sharp political conflict, which would negatively affect the stability of Montenegro in the long term.
"For the referendum to take place and for it to end without dramatic confrontations, it was crucial to reach an agreement and compromise between the two blocs. This was achieved with the mediating role of the EU, i.e. (the then EU High Commissioner for Foreign Policy) Javier Solana. I asked the EU for that mediating role, and that was my condition. I didn't want to negotiate directly with Đukanović, but neither with the personalities he would delegate," says Bulatović, adding that after the meeting with Solana, a meeting was held in the Ždrebaonik monastery, which, apart from the then Metropolitan of Montenegrin Amphilochia and other people of the Church, attended by party leaders and Čedo Vukmanović, later president of the Movement for the Preservation of the State Union.
"EVIDENCE AGAINST ĐUKANOVIĆ"
The leader of the bloc for a common state recalls that he met with Solana in Belgrade in December 2005, and says that he explained his refusal to talk to Đukanović with the words that "tycoons and criminogenic structures" were behind the head of the DPS at the time.
"I put on Solani's table only publicly available evidence for those claims, about 200 pages. On the first page was a photo of a man who was a champion of illegal transition and looting of wealth, otherwise close to Đukanović and his friend. To my surprise, Solana accepted the proposal and left me with no immediate answer regarding his mediating role. Since I came prepared for all options, I accepted it. He did not have it on the agenda, but immediately after the meeting he announced the decision to mediate in the press," adds Bulatović.
The European Union was initially against the idea of Montenegrin independence, but as the referendum approached, that began to change. This is confirmed by the Slovak diplomat Miroslav Lajcak, who was Solana's special envoy for the implementation of the referendum. Lajčak tells "Vijesti" that the EU was initially in favor of the survival of SCG, but that when the negotiations on the accession of that community to the Union began, it turned out that the structure of the economies of Serbia and Montenegro is different, that it is quite difficult to agree on a single model negotiations, which would suit both, etc.
"My experience is, not only then but also today, that if the member states see that you have a plan and that they can believe in that plan, then they accept it. And they saw that we have a plan, that we have a good analysis of the situation, so there were no problems - all the member states supported that process...", he states.
The key part of Lajčak's plan was related to the majority needed to win the plebiscite. According to the referendum law, which Montenegro adopted before the Belgrade Agreement and the Constitutional Charter, in order for the referendum to succeed it was necessary for more than half of the registered voters to vote, and a simple majority of those who voted was sufficient for the decision. The Venice Commission (VK) considered that solution and recommended that, in addition to the majority required for the validity of the referendum, a majority in relation to the total electorate required for making a decision should also be prescribed.
FORMULA 55:45
Then Lajčak enters the scene, who proposes a limit for the validity of the referendum, that is - that one of the options needs to receive 55 percent of the valid votes. The experienced diplomat says that this is his formula and explains how he came up with it.
"I had a team that I built, I had excellent experts from the OSCE, ODIHR, the Council of Europe, but especially people from ODIHR who followed every election in Montenegro, who had an excellent analysis of how many voters go to the polls , how many votes decide a party to win, etc. Then, with my team and experts from the European Union, we had a conversation about what was best... We went through a series of possibilities, but in the end it was clear that we needed to have a fairly large difference between the number of votes for and against independence, so that no one he would not be able to challenge the result of the referendum. We sat for hours, counted, calculated, thought, and in the end we came to the conclusion that 55 percent of all those who went to the polls are ambitious, but it is not impossible, and it is fair", says the interlocutor.
He reminds that the pro-independence bloc was dissatisfied with that formula, which referred to the law on the referendum in force at the time and said that it was the standard. He says that he answered them by saying that the EU needs the referendum to be accepted by everyone, and that he warned them that he could guarantee that, if it were to be followed according to the law at the time, that the other side would not accept the results.
"I had long conversations with Mr. Đukanović and Mr. Bulatović. I had to explain to them why exactly 55 percent, and that was not easy. In the end, they accepted it, because in fact they read that formula 55 as something very difficult, but not impossible, and that it is fair," he says.
When asked what kind of instructions Solana gave him at that time, Lajčak replied that the former EU High Commissioner told him that he was not interested in the result of the referendum, but that no one should ever challenge the process, "which must be fair and transparent".
“That was his key instruction. And then, during the process, I regularly informed him, at one stage we had separate meetings with Mr. Đukanović and Mr. Bulatović. This was after the adoption of the referendum law, the lex specialis, which, as you know, was practically accepted without any votes against, which was also a strong signal. Then I had a very detailed discussion with him, when I had to explain to him why 55 percent. He supported me...", Lajčak points out.
Coordinator of the former movement for independent Montenegro Rade Bojović, told "Vijesti" that the qualified and "atypical majority" of 55 percent was preceded by internal and international discussions five years before the referendum, recalling that the OSCE recommended a "special state-forming majority" back in 2001. This, he says, was the reason why Brussels, which was not in favor of Montenegro's independence, in February 2006 ultimately and unilaterally proposed formula 55.
"BRUSSELS MADE THE WAY DIFFICULT"
According to him, the Movement heard about it already at the end of 2005, mostly from various private international sources, and it was not, he says, unexpected.
"It was clear that Brussels would insist on a difficult path to independence. At the same time, the unionist side accepted the referendum with open arms on that condition, while we within the state-building movement were divided. DPS was the first to give in, so in the end we jointly decided that unity is more important than that formula, while we in the Movement also estimated that the threshold of 55 percent was not unattainable," adds Bojović.
Bulatović, on the other hand, claims that he first heard about the majority of 55 percent from the former US ambassador to Serbia and Montenegro. of William Montgomery, at one of their official meetings a few years before the referendum, while that diplomat was serving in Belgrade.
He says that he (Bulatović) from the bloc for a common state was asked to declare in favor of the decision on independence 50 percent plus one voter, and that some demanded a majority of 60 percent.
"That was impossible, because if it was the other way around - VK would have said it herself. Negotiations remain as an option. At the precise moment, when we were all on our side, Lajčak bilaterally transferred 55 to 45 percent of the valid ballots. Not 55 percent of those who came out, which did not affect the outcome. As a realistic politician, I believe that we have achieved a lot, and this is the result of our negotiation victory. The opposing bloc received an unattainable threshold in the conditions of a fair, democratic and equal referendum. It wasn't him. Even medium-sized irregularities did not guarantee reachability. However, it was a brutal theft after the polling stations were closed, which was supported by the West and verified by the then chairman of the Referendum Commission. Franitšek Lipka", claims Bulatović.
Formula 55 was included in the Law on holding a referendum on the legal status of Montenegro, which was adopted in March 2006. This marked the official start of the referendum campaign, which, according to Bojović, the Movement for an Independent Montenegro, which he coordinated with Branko Lukovac, launched at the beginning of 2005.
When asked which events during the campaign and how they affected its relatively peaceful course, and which and how they affected its final outcome, he replied that three events were decisive.
"The first is the formation of the Movement for an independent European Montenegro, which succeeded in uniting almost all political and social forces that advocated for the restoration of the state around the state issue. The second is the inclusion of the EU in the referendum process, which made it possible for the resolution of the state issue to have indisputable international legitimacy from the beginning. The third refers to the fact that the opposing parties remained faithful to the democratic and peaceful campaign until the end, which ultimately led to a legitimate referendum decision in which over 86 percent of the then electorate participated," he says.
THE GATHERING OF OPPONENTS
Bojović states that the Movement for an Independent European Montenegro was created as a core pre-referendum organization that brought together all relevant sovereignist parties, non-partisan figures, the academic community, non-governmental organizations and media such as "Vijesti", which was dedicated to the idea of a sovereign and pro-European Montenegro. According to him, this is the only example when political and social actors who were often in conflict pushed their differences to the background and assumed them for the restoration of the state.
"I would also emphasize the crucial material support that the Movement had from private companies and citizens from Montenegro, which amounted to over 700.000 euros. All this enabled the Movement to develop a broad and massive referendum campaign. By the way, the Movement had about 2.500 active members, of all nations and religions, who were involved in the field campaign in each of the Montenegrin municipalities, while the broad and narrow leadership brought together about 140 members. All members of the movement, from the leadership onwards, worked voluntarily for more than a year and without monetary compensation", adds the interlocutor.
As for the individual contribution to the campaign, Bojović says that he would not single out anyone in particular "because everyone provided a strong individual performance", but that he would mention Lukovac from the innermost leadership, and Dragan Kujović from the then DPS. He notes that among the state managers and politicians from the sovereignist bloc, Đukanović, the leader of the Social Democratic Party at the time, undoubtedly led the way in terms of personal bias. Ranko Krivokapic and former leader of the Liberal Alliance Miodrag Zivkovic.
Bojović says that the most significant support for the movement from abroad came from the Montenegrin diaspora and emigration from the USA, through Europe and the former Yugoslavia, and to Australia. The diaspora, he adds, made a strong contribution to the restoration of independence, and this was primarily reflected in public support and attendance at the referendum vote.
"Also, the activities of our Movement abroad were exclusively related to cooperation with emigrant organizations, whereby the diaspora also provided material assistance to the Movement in the amount of about six percent of our referendum budget, which totaled about 830.000 euros. In addition to the diaspora, the Movement had the most intensive political cooperation with parties, individuals and non-governmental organizations from Serbia that supported Montenegrin independence. This was the reason why Montenegrin and Serbian national flags were hung in the offices of the Movement throughout the campaign. I emphasize this because our state-building commitment was not directed against democratic Serbia, but was exclusively related to the right of Montenegro to decide its own destiny...", states the interlocutor.
SUPPORT OF SERBIA
Bulatović, on the other hand, says that the bloc for a common state had political support from Serbia, which, according to him, is support from a common state. He claims that they did not have the support of a foreign factor, and that the bloc for independence had the support of the USA, but also of Russia, "whose partner was Đukanović until then, and also later", recalling his meetings with the President of Russia Vladimir Putin before and after the referendum.
"Officials and party leaders from Serbia did not participate in the campaign in Montenegro. It was estimated that DPS would have received additional false arguments with a negative campaign, if our advocating was the drowning of Montenegro in Serbia. All leaders and all parties who were in favor of a common state, continuously and clearly communicated their support", he assesses.
The bloc he led had, he says from Belgrade, the support of the Movement for the Preservation of the Common State, headed by an academician Ljubomir Tadic, the father of the then president of Serbia Boris Tadić. That movement, he says, organized a rally of support in the Sava center a few days before the referendum.
"I was present there, but I also attended their management meetings on several occasions. An academician spoke on behalf of that movement at the final convention Matija Bećković", adds Bulatović.
He says that even today it is not entirely clear to him why at the end of 2004 in Belgrade, talks were started to form a Movement for the preservation of a common state in Montenegro, before any talk of a referendum and before the independence movement was formed.
"It is especially inexplicable that an attempt was made to exclude me, as well as the SNP. Especially because the SNP congress was scheduled to take place, at which I received a new mandate in February 2005. Those activities caused misunderstandings in the SNP, as well as minor personnel problems... Unlike the sovereigntists, who closed ranks, we opened misunderstandings without any essential need," states Bulatović.
AMPHILOCHIUS WAS NOT INVITED
As an example of a misunderstanding, he states that on the eve of the formation of the Movement in January 2005, in the "Maestral" hotel in Miločer, he spoke on that topic with Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro and the Littoral, but that neither he nor Amfilohije were in the "Maestral" the next day. .
"I am announcing all this to show that we had mutual misunderstandings and disagreements in the block. No one individually had the power to ensure unity, but everyone individually had to have the responsibility to contribute to unity...", he says.
Bulatović claims that he had offers to go to the USA and Moscow as the leader of the bloc, but that he refused.
"I certainly wouldn't meet Putin, and it wouldn't be better in the US either. I did not accept it, because it is more important than that inefficient formalism to be in Montenegro. Instead of all that, I had an important meeting in the Patriarchate in Belgrade with the patriarch Paul, May 17, 2006. Metropolitan Amfilohije was also present at that meeting. For me personally and the idea I represented, that meeting meant a lot. He (the patriarch) prayed for peace in Montenegro," he says.
Despite the fact that there were tensions and accusations of various abuses in the run-up to the vote, peace was not threatened. However, the interlocutors of "Vijesti" point to one event which, they claim, could have resulted in incidents. This refers to the decision of the Center for Monitoring and Research (CeMI) to announce the alleged results of the referendum, i.e. the triumph of the option for the independence of the state, shortly after the end of the voting. Supporters of independence then started celebrating, and in the opposite camp they began to gather and demand that a protest be organized.
Lajčak says that it was a very sensitive moment and that it worried him a lot.
"Because the leader of the coalition for a common state called me, Mr. Bulatović, and asked me to somehow stop those celebrations, because they are afraid that they could lead to a conflict. I then went to the DPS headquarters and spoke with Mr. Đukanović. I asked him, if possible, to stop those celebrations, because we really didn't have results and that could have provoked something. He understood that and I think he gave some instructions, orders to stop it as much as possible, and that defused the situation. Then I went to the headquarters of the other coalition, to the headquarters of the SNP, to inform them about it. I saw that it reduced the tension," he recalls.
FAIR RELATIONSHIP WITH ĐUKANOVIĆ AND BULATOVIĆ
Lajčak states that it was lucky for him, but also for Montenegro, that the two coalitions were led by Đukanović and Bulatović.
"I had very open and fair communication with one and the other. Of course, they fought for the interests of their coalitions and for the best conditions for the referendum, but they were aware of their responsibility and did not run away from it, so they could make decisions. This is not always the case, they also had radicals in their ranks, but really my communication was very fair with both of them until the end. I think they bear a huge amount of credit for the fact that the referendum passed as an example of democratic resolution of a very sensitive and serious issue," states Lajčak.
Bulatović says that the announcement of CeMI and the "synchronized fireworks" had raised tensions to a fever pitch.
"I organized the calculation center flawlessly, as well as the quick delivery of results. The data I had showed a deep so-called gray zone (more than 50 percent of votes, less than 55 for an option). Without a million chance of winning independence. I had strong pressure to fight back. I called Lajčak, who immediately came to our headquarters. I showed him the calculation data, that there is no chance of confirming the published result, and announced that both the fireworks and the announcement of victory are a provocation to start protests, and that on their side, the regime's parapolice criminogenic forces are ready for a conflict. At the same time, theft started after the vote... An Italian came with Lajčak Gentlemen, from Solana's cabinet", he reminds.
He says that, since the initial tensions have been stopped, he has called on supporters to refrain from taking to the streets. He added that he was convinced that such a call had to be made, regardless of what would turn out to be the case. If it had been done differently, he says, "they would certainly have entered into conflicts with a very uncertain outcome."
"Many of our supporters, who, like me, were deprived of a common state, by the violence of the regime and with the amen of the Western powers, reacted emotionally to my decision. I understand them, but I do not forgive those who wanted the collapse of the SNP and my own on this issue, with narratives that are untrue. Time will judge everything," says the leader of the former bloc for a common state.
UNQUESTIONABLE LEGITIMACY
Bojović assesses that the referendum took place peacefully and in a democratic spirit, but that, as the votes were counted and as it became certain that the state-building policy would win, the unionist parties began to file objections and point out irregularities with the aim of legally preventing the regularity of the outcome.
"However, European envoy Lipko, who by agreement was at the head of the referendum election commission, ultimately rejected all objections as an attempt to obstruct the results. I remind you that on that occasion the sovereignist policy received the support of 55,49 percent of the votes, i.e. the difference between the sovereignists and the unionists was about 11 percent or about 45.000 votes... This in itself speaks volumes about the unquestionable legitimacy of the referendum outcome," he reminds. .
The interlocutor says that the biggest burden within the state-building movement was Đukanović's DPS, and the fact that a significant number of citizens were against independence because of that party and their leadership, because, according to him, it was a party that had previously supported unionist politics for many years and which was already burdened by numerous corrupt and criminal affairs.
"Of course, it was about the party that was in power at the time and that had the support of about 40 percent of the electorate, so it was a decisive factor in the state-forming bloc. However, without the unity of sovereignists who knew that the state and the government are not the same, including numerous individuals, organizations and media who were proven opponents and critics of DPS, the referendum outcome would have been different. So the country was restored both thanks to the DPS and in spite of the DPS", he underlines.
Bulatović: Lipka ruled
Bulatović says that before the meeting with Metropolitan Amfilohi in the Ždrebaonik monastery, but even after it, the bloc for a common state did not have a unified position on holding the referendum.
"Our lack of coordination during 2005 and the absence of full involvement of all personalities, for various reasons, may have had an impact on the lower number of votes we received in the referendum".
He states that the bloc's success in negotiating a majority of 55 percent was "nullified by the foreign factor supporting the DPS for brutal illegalities."
"The so-called The 'white book' on the theft of the referendum, which was issued in 2007 and has about 1.300 pages, is a testimony that 55,5 percent of the vote for independence was achieved.
Bulatović told "Vijesta" that the question of the majority, "but relatively objective", was crucial for him. According to him, this could be a justified reason for radicalization after negotiations.
“And I was determined to do so, in that case. That's why we got this percentage to go deep into the process, and to determine the extent of the theft later. We immediately showed the significant ones to the state commission, and Lipka ruled there... Appreciating that this issue is important, I discussed it with Metropolitan Amfilohi. Priests Velibor Džomić and Radomir Nikčević were present at that meeting. The conversations I had with Amfilohi were not for him to get into our political issues, but for him to be informed and, from the aspect of preserving peace between people, to consult with each other".
Lajčak: Pointless accusations that the referendum was stolen
Asked how he views today, 18 years later, the accusations from the bloc for a common state, that the results of the referendum would never have been announced if it weren't for him and Lipka, Lajčak replied that he was convinced that those accusations were unfounded, "that they don't drink water".
He says that the referendum was a domestic decision of Montenegro, and that the block for the survival of the common state turned to the European Union and said - we don't believe that we can solve this process by ourselves, we don't trust the local people, we don't believe in their neutrality, etc., so they asked from the European Union to lead the whole process.
"Secondly, I came here with clear instructions, and my goal from beginning to end was to have a credible process. My personal and professional credibility was tied to having a process that was credible, and that was the main principle. Third, that the president of the Republic Referendum Commission should be a foreigner, a citizen of an EU member state, was a decision of domestic actors. I proposed three names in the first round, however, the representatives of both blocs could not agree, and they did not accept any of them. Then in the second round I suggested only one name, Mr. Lipko, who was the ambassador in the former Yugoslavia, the last Czechoslovak and the first Slovak, who speaks your language, knows excellent opportunities and whom I knew, that I have a guarantee that he is objective. It was accepted and voted in parliament by the votes of representatives of both blocs".
When we talk about voting on the day of the referendum and the credibility of the results, the most important, says Lajčak, are the minutes from the polling stations. In fact, he adds, they are the only official document on the voting process.
"The minutes from all the polling stations were signed by all the members of the commissions, one block and the other, and there were no facts recorded in those minutes that would dispute the voting process and its result. If there were serious problems, violations, then the minutes would not have been signed. The fact that there was a six-to-six vote at the level of the Republican Commission and that the vote of the president of the commission decided, does not change the result of the referendum, and that was in accordance with the Referendum Law and general standards".
Bajramspahić: Montenegro lacks better quality leadership
Montenegro welcomes the eighteenth anniversary of the restoration of independence in a fever, with huge opportunities and potentials, but without focus, said the civic activist Dina Bajramspahić.
"Just like an adolescent who could become anything he wants, but he can't decide what he wants, so he's a wild beast in all directions." "The promised political stability has not materialized, and the word 'reconciliation' has become trite," said Bajramspahić to "Vijesta".
He believes that Montenegro lacks better quality leadership and that the country has not moved on, but is constantly solving the same hundred-year-old issues, with society mobilized in two trenches.
It has been shown, as he says, that new, young faces do not mean new practices and progressiveness, but are sometimes more stubborn defenders of outdated ideas and far more dogmatic than the older generations, unprepared for breakthroughs.
"Instead of the courage to think rationally and rush forward, society is constantly groaning in unprecedented frustrations," said Bajramspahić.
Institutions, he adds, continue to be politicized and obedient to whoever they recognize as the most powerful or aggressive political actor at that moment.
It indicates that expertise and integrity are not decisive criteria, nor are they socially valued, but unquestioning loyalty to the party and the nation.
"Total dominance of collective identities over individuality, creativity, talent, competence. It lasts so long that it destroys the quality of all public policies, education, healthcare, security, the rule of law, culture..." she said.
According to her, parties and nations will not choose the best from among their ranks, but those ready to exploit common resources outside the rules for the benefit of only a few.
He reminds that it is so widespread that the parties perceive it as an injustice if they cannot indulge in the abuses of what they are passionate about.
As he says, the average person, who has no one behind him, has no chance to realize basic rights, neither common sense nor laws will help them, and all they have to do is to conform to the general atmosphere or to leave.
"The best and they leave. An independent state is a space where we can agree on how to live, so that everyone is well. The fact that Montenegro is geographically small is an advantage, thanks to which it is possible to reach every citizen and realize the ideals of the welfare state. The condition for this is the rejection of the policy of exclusivity and force, and the cultivation of criteria, standards in all areas and the principles of the civil state, with equal individuals with full rights and obligations", she said.
Bojović: The state outlived the DPS, and so will the current government
Asked which predictions, promises, warnings about the consequences of one or the other result from both campaigns have come true in these 18 years, and which have not, Bojović answers that it is clear that the hopes of the original pro-European sovereigntists were only partially realized, "although everyone who was more lucid knew that the strong progress of Montenegro is not possible with Đukanović's DPS, but he also knew that it is even less possible with the parties that were and remain at the behest of Belgrade and SPC (Serbian Orthodox Church).
"At the same time, the warnings of the unionists were correct regarding the kleptocratic and monopolistic nature of the DPS, but it is certainly not a valid alibi for opposing the idea of its own state. Otherwise, the sovereignist policy was initially successful in terms of foreign policy orientation, although, apart from joining the NATO pact, the pro-European policy eventually became a victim of the DPS's corrupt regime. As for internal politics, the DPS and its allies and satellites led a partitocratic and monopolistic policy, a right-wing and kleptocratic economic policy, they created a social populism where they turned the voters into serfs, while at the same time they marginalized education and culture and nurtured trade cooperation with the anti-Montenegrin and clerical-nationalist SPC".
Bojović says that, on the other hand, the victory of the unionists would lead to the complete provincialization and marginalization of Montenegro within "nationalist, pro-Putin and anti-European Serbia, and that would undoubtedly be a disastrous choice for Montenegro in every respect." This, he adds, is best confirmed by the political events after the removal of the DPS regime, "because Montenegro survives and will survive only thanks to the sovereignist state-building and foreign policy heritage".
"It shows that the state is not the same as the government, that the Montenegrin state managed to survive the DPS, so it will manage to survive the current government, which is half a reflection of the worst practices of the former regime, and half a reflection of the outgrown political spirit from the time when Montenegro was a province of Belgrade. I think that the future belongs to the ideas and values that motivated the Movement for an independent and European Montenegro. Everything else is either the past or a past that imagines it has a perspective like today".
Bulatović: Đukanović and the West used independence for their own goals
Bulatović says that he warned that for Đukanović, independence is a means for Montenegro to be his private state, "which he devastated and in which he destroyed the institutions".
"In the year of the coming of age of this independent Montenegro, key people of the police, prosecution and judiciary were accused of serious crime. We are waiting to see what will happen to some former state officials. It's a crash. It takes a long time for recovery, provided that it is led by people with clean hands and intentions".
The interlocutor says that independent Montenegro served the USA and the West to separate Kosovo from Serbia, and to bring Montenegro into NATO at a time when its expansion "was dead".
"Then Đukanović and the West used independence for their own goals. Montenegro and its citizens were not important".
Bonus video:
