Does Spajić trust the public more than the services: Lunić on the Prime Minister's claims about hybrid actions against the state?

While public attention is focused on the question of which two countries the Prime Minister is talking about Milojko Spajic talked about last week when he claimed that the continuation of negotiations with the EU will be accompanied by hybrid action, what remains unanswered is what is, from a national security perspective, much more important: why does the top executive branch of an EU candidate country trust the public more than its own institutions in defending information about threats to that same country?

This question is asked by a consultant in the field of geopolitics and security. Nikola Lunic commenting for "Vijesti" on the Prime Minister's recent message that officials from at least two countries in the region are involved in hybrid actions against Montenegro's European path.

Spajić made these allegations citing "serious security operational information".

"According to our knowledge, such activities aim to destabilize Montenegro, with the expected support of certain political actors and part of the media scene in our country. We know about these intentions and are aware of their goal. Attempts at destabilization will not change our course, nor stop Montenegro's European path, which is greater than the daily interest of any political structure," he wrote last Thursday on the "Iks" network.

Lunić told the newspaper that the head of the Montenegrin government reacted in a way that is rarely seen among the holders of executive power, even in countries with a much longer tradition of open security discourse. He explained that operational knowledge about foreign interference is usually processed through national intelligence mechanisms, shared with allies when necessary, and only after verification - if at all - translated into public communication.

"The Prime Minister skipped that order, and it is precisely this decision, more than the content of the announcement itself, that deserves a more careful reading," the source claims.

Prevention, defense, suspicion...

He said that the first explanation that arises is that this is preventive political communication - an attempt to immunize the public in advance against the discrediting campaign that the government believes is coming. Lunić assessed that this would be a legitimate, albeit unusual, use of security language for public purposes.

"However, when the Prime Minister's announcement is placed in the context of allegations from the security sector about a high-ranking government official who is under the influence of persons connected to criminal structures - the picture becomes more complex. If it is true that the criminal milieu has compromising material about a politician who could therefore stage a split and leave the coalition, this represents the destabilization of the country and the further division of society," Lunić asserted.

The interviewee pointed out that what now appears to be a warning of an external threat could just as well be a pre-prepared defense against internal disarray: if, he says, a conflict at the top of the executive branch is already looming, it is much more appropriate for the public to experience that conflict as a consequence of someone else's, hand-guided destabilization, than as an admission that trust within one's own coalition no longer exists.

Lunić says that the most serious explanation for Spajić's move concerns the security apparatus itself. According to him, if the prime minister doubts the loyalty or professional autonomy of parts of his own services, the public space remains the only channel in which he can act without the risk of information being intercepted, distorted, or sabotaged from within.

"In that case, the public announcement is not a sign of a security strategy - it is a symptom of an institutional crisis that has long since transcended the boundaries of a single affair or a single mandate," he underlined.

Controlled leak message

Last week, “Vijesti”, citing sources from the security sector, announced that certain power centers in the region are currently not satisfied with Montenegro’s rapid progress in European integration, and therefore believe that internal political instability could be one way to slow down this process. The editorial source said that a high-ranking government official is under the strong influence of individuals connected to criminal structures, who allegedly have compromising information about him, and that political cracks are constantly being sought that could lead to early parliamentary elections.

Although the Prime Minister did not name the countries he claims are acting hybridly against Montenegro last week, the editorial office announced that they were Serbia and Albania.

When asked why Spajić did not list the countries he was referring to, Lunić replied that publicly naming two neighboring states, one of which is a NATO member and both are candidates for EU membership, as participants in coordinated hybrid action against Montenegro's sovereign decision on its own European path - represents a diplomatic act of the highest seriousness.

The interlocutor emphasizes that such a move would practically be equivalent to a formal accusation of interference in internal affairs, and that therefore such a statement requires accountability, i.e. a threshold of proof that goes beyond "operational knowledge" or assessments of unnamed sources and usually implies verified findings - as a rule shared with NATO and EU partners before they become public.

"Everything that has been made public so far - including the Prime Minister's statement and allegations from the security sector - has been explicitly presented as an assessment, not as an established fact. Not naming countries is, in this sense, the only way to stay within the limits of what can realistically be defended," he reminded.

However, Lunić says that not naming countries also has another, less defensive, function - it allows the prime minister to send a message without formally closing diplomatic space - especially towards Serbia, with which Podgorica has maintained a long-standing relationship of alternating tension and normalization, and towards Albania, a partner within NATO.

He adds that at the same time, when the same countries are named in the media, the Prime Minister receives the effect of a direct appointment without formal responsibility for it - the burden of proof and possible diplomatic consequences shift to the media, not the Government.

"This pattern - a message delivered through a controlled leak instead of an official statement - is not a Montenegrin specificity, but it deserves to be recognized and named as a political instrument, and not passed over as a coincidence," Lunić assessed.

Why is the target vulnerable?

What makes this particular episode relevant far beyond Montenegrin borders, for Lunić, is a question recently raised by a retired admiral and former Chief of the General Staff of the Montenegrin Army, Dragan Samardzic.

"The greatest danger, (Samardžić) told 'Pobjeda', does not come from the intention of the external actor, but from the internal weaknesses of the system that makes that intention achievable. That is a precise diagnosis, and it shifts the discussion from the question of 'who is attacking' to the question of why the target is vulnerable in the first place," Lunić said.

He points out that Montenegro, on the eve of NATO membership in 2017, faced much more serious and explicit attempts at destabilization than anything that is being hinted at today, and that it overcame those attempts, not because external pressure had ceased, but because the institutions, at that moment, functioned cohesively enough to absorb the blow.

According to him, this cohesion is not taken for granted today.

"The distrust between the president and the prime minister, the open question of loyalty within the government itself, and the willingness to use security language as a tool within the coalition struggle rather than as an instrument of national defense - all of these are weaknesses that no regional power center creates, but which every regional power center, if it exists, is happy to find already exposed," Lunić noted.

He claims that this is the essential message that applies to the entire region - hybrid action is rarely the cause of a crisis. It is, says Lunić, almost as a rule, its symptom and intensifier.

"While public attention is focused on the question of which two countries are in question, the question that remains unexamined is, from a national security perspective, much more important - why the top executive branch of an EU candidate country trusts the public more than its own institutions to defend information about a threat to that same country. The answer to that question, not the names of the two neighboring countries, should be the next headline in the media," he said.

Serbia and Albania deny involvement

Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić said last week that he was "certain" that Spajić was referring to Croatia, and that he did not know which other country was operating hybridly in Montenegro.

On the other hand, Albanian Foreign Minister Ferit Hoxha stressed that Tirana is neither, nor can it, be part of any destabilizing scenario.