Church, academy, media: How do Russia and Serbia affect identity alienation and politics in Montenegro?

Following the political turmoil of 2020, Montenegro finds itself at a crossroads, facing an ongoing institutional crisis that has changed the contours of its political landscape. For more than three decades, the country was ruled by one dominant party and its leader. This marked an era characterized by a mix of authoritarian practices, personalization of politics, links to corruption and organized crime, and a strong commitment to a transatlantic and pro-European foreign policy agenda – on the one hand.

However, the transformative events of 2020 led to a seismic shift. An election campaign characterized by the powerful protest movement of the Serbian Orthodox Church and fueled by the controversial law on religious freedom led to the end of the long political hegemony of the DPS and Milo Đukanović. The vacuum left by this change brought with it a new reality for Montenegro, characterized by uncertainty and challenges.

The contours of this new reality are defined by a government consisting of many personalities closely linked to the Serbian Orthodox Church, who use certain tactics to stabilize and consolidate a conservative Serbian agenda in Montenegro. This shift has not only raised doubts about Montenegrin national identity, but has also raised questions about constitutional order, as alternative narratives emerge that position Montenegrin identity as merely a sub-ethnicity of the “great nation of Serbia”.

Montenegrin analyst Ljubomir Filipović has published an article in which he analyzes the impact of Russian-Serbian influence operations on Montenegrin society and politics, particularly through the formation of political constituencies.

This article examines the complex web of Russian-Serbian influence operations in Montenegro and explores their multi-layered nature and their profound impact on the country’s politics and society. The article examines the joint efforts of Serbia and Russia in shaping narratives that significantly influence the social dynamics of Montenegro, its political processes, identity politics, religious identification and interethnic relations.

The first case study focuses on the news site IN4S, founded in 2008, which is known as an important platform for spreading Kremlin propaganda while at the same time questioning Montenegro’s independence and separate identity.

The second study examines the role of Aleksandar Rakovic, a prominent Serbian historian associated with the Serbian Orthodox Church. Raković strategically uses the academy to disseminate narratives that question Montenegrin identity and citizenship, reinforcing its importance within the landscape of Russian-Serbian influence.

The third case study examines Bishop Metodije, a high-ranking official of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro. Bishop Methodius is known for supporting pro-Kremlin events and narratives. He and his associates promote a network of pro-Russian Serbian nationalist and radical Orthodox clerical organizations. These groups actively participate in protest campaigns and have influence at the decision-making level in Montenegro.

Filipovic said that this article contributes to the development of the concept of cognitive warfare. He proposes a conceptual link between influence operations and cognitive warfare and raises a critical and important question: are Serbia and Russia involved in any form of “special military operation in Montenegro”?

Cognitive warfare is a strategy that aims to change the way a target group thinks and therefore acts.

According to the study, these are the conclusions that Filipovic published in his article.

The study of Russian-Serbian influence operations in Montenegro reveals a multi-layered landscape of strategies based on media manipulation, academic discourse and religious dynamics. Two compelling case studies, the news site IN4S and Aleksandar Raković, provide insight into coordinated efforts to reshape the political and cultural fabric of Montenegro.

In the context of this research, we assume that there is a connection between these operations and the concept of cognitive warfare, which invites scholars to critically question the possible categorization of Serbia and Russia’s activities in Montenegro and the Western Balkans as cognitive operations of war.

IN4S, whose roots lie in anti-NATO activism and the alignment with Serbian nationalist sentiments, proves to be an important actor in shaping the narratives that influence the political development of Montenegro.

The deliberate dissemination of propaganda by the Kremlin, coupled with the support of Serbian Orthodox Church figures, creates a favorable environment for cognitive warfare. The manipulation of information and narratives on the IN4S platform contributes to a cognitive battlefield where perceptions and beliefs are strategically shaped to align with Russian and Serbian geopolitical objectives.

The academic sphere, epitomized by Aleksandar Raković, serves as another battleground for influence operations. Raković’s association with the Serbian Orthodox Church, alignment with Russian interests and promotion of narratives that challenge Montenegrin identity suggest a concerted effort to wage a cognitive war. By utilizing historical narratives and academic findings, his work contributes to the erosion of Montenegro’s distinct identity and highlights the interplay between influence operations and cognitive warfare.

When examining Russian-Serbian influence on Montenegrin society and political reality, it is important to note that Bishop Metodije, Raković and IN4S present paradigmatic examples and not isolated cases. Their activities serve as illustrative case studies and shed light on the diverse methods used in influence operations. Raković and In4s are symbolic of a broader trend and demonstrate the complex strategies used to shape Montenegro’s socio-political narrative. By examining their roles and methods, we gain valuable insights into a larger framework of external influence affecting Montenegro and emphasize the need for a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics at play in the region. In light of these findings, researchers are encouraged to investigate the extent to which Serbia and Russia are involved in cognitive warfare operations in Montenegro and the wider Balkan region.

The convergence of media, academia and religious institutions as conduits for influence operations raises questions about the systemic nature of these efforts. Understanding the dynamics of conflict warfare is critical to developing effective counter-strategies to protect the autonomy and identity of nations facing external pressures.

This study underscores the urgency of a comprehensive examination of the dimensions of influence operations and paves the way for future research that addresses the complex links between media narratives, academic discourse, religious influence and the broader concept of cognitive warfare in the geopolitical landscape of Montenegro and the Balkans./The Geopost/