Accessibility links

Breaking News

Wider Europe

Montenegrin Foreign Minister Ervin Ibrahimovic (left) and his Croatian counterpart, Gordan Grlic Radman, meet aboard the Jadran sailing ship in Bar, Montenegro's main sea port, in January 2025.
Montenegrin Foreign Minister Ervin Ibrahimovic (left) and his Croatian counterpart, Gordan Grlic Radman, meet aboard the Jadran sailing ship in Bar, Montenegro's main sea port, in January 2025.

Welcome to Wider Europe, RFE/RL's newsletter focusing on the key issues concerning the European Union, NATO, and other institutions and their relationships with the Western Balkans and Europe's Eastern neighborhoods.

I'm RFE/RL Europe Editor Rikard Jozwiak, and this week I am drilling down on two issues: Croatia’s demands before giving the green light to Montenegro’s EU accession and Georgia’s growing irrelevance in Brussels.

please wait

No media source currently available

0:00 0:12:45 0:00

Briefing #1: Croatia’s Many Demands On Montenegro Ahead Of Potential EU Membership

What You Need To Know: Montenegro’s hopes of finishing its European Union accession talks by the end of the year and joining the club by 2028 have taken a hit after its neighbor and the most recent country to join the bloc, Croatia, presented its final eight demands to Podgorica and fellow EU member states.

Croatian officials said that they had communicated them to Montenegro during the summer, and in early October they circulated a paper in Brussels, seen by RFE/RL, titled “Outstanding Issues Between Croatia And Montenegro.”

The document states that “certain unexpected unilateral actions by the Montenegrin authorities have rekindled historical tensions and unnecessarily strained bilateral relations, risking the erosion of broad political support for Montenegro’s accession in Croatia.”

Not surprisingly, many of the issues hark back to the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s and matters that remain unresolved, with the text stating that “Croatia sincerely wishes to turn the page on this painful chapter of shared history and build a forward-looking relationship with Montenegro. Yet mutual trust and genuine, lasting reconciliation cannot be built without resolving these issues.”

Deep Background: During the EU summit in Brussels on October 15-16, Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic also fleshed out what Croatia is still demanding from Montenegro before giving its green light to the country’s EU accession.

While diplomats from many member states told RFE/RL that they have privately expressed annoyance with Zagreb’s position, which they describe as “unhelpful” and coming at the “eleventh hour” when many are keen to get Montenegro onboard, EU leaders were more understanding of Plenkovic’s position -- perhaps suggesting that enlargement isn’t really the top priority of the union after all.

They said that the Croatian leader was “excellent” in communicating what his country wants to see from Montenegro and that he received very little pushback.

This was also reflected in the final EU summit conclusions adopted by the European Council, which brings together the bloc’s leaders. The text states that the council “notes the intention of the Irish Council Presidency to work towards the provisional closure of the remaining negotiating chapters, subject to the implementation of the corresponding reforms by Montenegro.” There was no enthusiastic endorsement or warm welcome, with the emphasis instead firmly on Podgorica delivering on its commitments.

So far, Montenegro hasn’t reacted publicly to the Croatian demands, making it even harder to gauge how serious the situation is and how long it may take to resolve the outstanding issues.

Ireland, which holds the rotating council presidency until the end of the year, is still hoping to close the remaining 12 accession chapters out of the 33 Montenegro needs to become a member, but hardly anyone thinks Dublin will succeed.

A Lithuanian diplomat with knowledge of the file thinks that even Vilnius, which takes over the presidency for the first half of 2027, will struggle to get the talks over the line now.

Drilling Down

  • So, what exactly is Croatia asking for? Two of the eight demands concern the Morinj camp, where over 300 Croatian nationals were detained between October 1991 and August 1992, following the occupation of part of the Dubrovnik region by Serbian and Montenegrin forces.
  • The first is compensation. The paper states that Zagreb “expects a comprehensive settlement of the issue of compensation for Croatian nationals who were detained and subjected to ill-treatment.” No figure has been mentioned, however.
  • The second demand concerns a memorial plaque at the site. The plaque was jointly unveiled by Croatian and Montenegrin ministers in 2022, but the paper notes that Montenegrin nationalist groups have called for its removal and that “a larger metal frame has since been installed around it, apparently to accommodate a removable panel that could conceal the plaque except during official commemorations.”
  • The third demand also has indirect links to Morinj. It concerns the name of a swimming pool in the Montenegrin city of Kotor that Zagreb wants to change. It is named after Zoran Gopcevic, a former internationally renowned water polo player, who also served as a guard at Morinj. The paper adds that it is “unacceptable for a sports facility to bear the name of an individual associated with the ill-treatment and torture of Croatian detainees.”
  • Another demand involves securing the full “cooperation of the Montenegrin authorities in efforts to establish the fate of 14 Croatian nationals who went missing during the war of aggression against Croatia in the early 1990s”
  • Perhaps the trickiest demand is the fifth, which is closely related to the previous one and concerns the prosecution of war crimes. The document notes that “to date, no convictions have been secured on the basis of command responsibility. In the Morinj case, four members of the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) were convicted of war crimes by final judgments and received sentences totaling twelve years’ imprisonment. However, these convictions did not encompass crimes committed against civilians detained at the camp.”
  • Zagreb is also calling on Podgorica to settle property disputes dating back to the early 1990s involving 51 Croatian families that lived in Montenegro at that time.
  • Then there is perhaps the most publicly prominent dispute -- the potential restitution of the ”Jadran” sailing ship. The three-masted vessel, built in 1933, was historically based in the Croatian coastal city of Split, but when the war broke out, it was in Montenegro, where it has remained ever since. Podgorica maintains that the ship's presence on its territory at the time of Yugoslavia's dissolution gives it legal ownership.
  • Finally, Croatia is also calling for “continued and intensified dialogue on the delimitation of the border between the two countries.” According to the document, this should result in a treaty that “formally confirms that Montenegro has no territorial claims against Croatia.”
  • Interestingly, the maritime border between the two countries also remains unresolved, but the document does not make clear whether settling that dispute is also a condition for Montenegro's EU accession. Instead, it notes that “once the land border issue has been resolved, Croatia would be prepared to convene regular meetings of the expert and intergovernmental commissions responsible for maritime delimitation, without setting specific deadlines.”


Briefing #2: Georgia Fading Further From Brussels’ Radar

What You Need To Know: If there is one piece of evidence to show how little Georgia matters in Brussels these days, it is surely the debate on the South Caucasus republic held by foreign ministers at their monthly council gathering in Luxembourg on October 12.

Initially slated to be a full discussion point, it was relegated to a short “any other business” (AOB) item on the agenda at the very start of the gathering, with not even all foreign ministers taking the floor.

And the main conclusion of that short discussion was even more telling -- ministers agreed to return to Georgia as a full discussion point, but not until January.

In the meantime, the European Commission will publish its annual enlargement report on November 4, in which it is expected to reiterate last year's assessment that Georgia is an EU candidate country “in name only,” without stripping it of its candidate status.

Deep Background: However, a diplomatic note from the foreign affairs meeting, seen by RFE/RL, shows that many of the member states that took the floor, including Estonia, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands, and Poland highlighted the deterioration of the political situation in Georgia, including what they described as “democratic backsliding” and growing pressure on civil society. They also noted that the Georgian authorities had not shown any willingness to engage with the EU.

The debate came as the ruling Georgian Dream party was pushing to outlaw five opposition parties, although that specific move was not touched upon in the note.

Another issue absent from the discussion was Georgia’s visa liberalization status, with a decision to be made on the issue in the first months of next year at the latest.

As a direct result of the controversial parliamentary elections in Georgia in the autumn of 2024 and the subsequent deterioration of the political climate, Brussels suspended visa liberalization for holders of Georgian diplomatic passports earlier this year.

The most likely scenario is that the suspension will be extended by another 12 months, or potentially even 24. Extending the suspension to ordinary Georgian citizens, however, is still not being seriously entertained, with many EU member states reluctant to punish the population for the actions of its government, even if the political situation deteriorates further

Still, several EU officials with knowledge of the file, speaking on condition of anonymity, maintain that the EU can’t kick the can down the road forever and that, should Brussels eventually suspend visa-free travel more broadly for any country, Georgia would be the most likely candidate.

Drilling Down

  • Another measure that was introduced regarding Tbilisi was the scaling down of political contacts at the EU level (even though member states are still free to bilaterally receive Georgian ministers or make official visits to the country).
  • In keeping with that policy, the foreign ministers agreed that Georgia would be invited to a ministerial meeting organized by the bloc on cross-regional security and connectivity in November but not at the highest political level, meaning that a civil servant most likely will represent Georgia.
  • What the EU has failed to agree on so far is sanctions, which require unanimity. And judging from the discussions among foreign ministers, as well as an earlier preparatory meeting of EU diplomats, divisions appear too deep for the bloc to agree anytime soon on restrictive measures targeting Georgia's political leadership.
  • According to the diplomatic note, Croatia, Greece, Portugal, and Slovakia stressed the importance of keeping “channels of communication open” with Tbilisi to ensure Georgia remains “anchored to the EU.” Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, and Slovakia also emphasized the same message in the preparatory meeting.
  • During the ministerial meeting, Sweden asked the EU’s diplomatic corps, the European External Action Service (EEAS), to revisit an earlier sanctions proposal targeting the Georgian judiciary, which had handed down what Brussels viewed as “disproportionate” sentences against anti-government protesters.
  • Stockholm also urged the EEAS to propose new restrictive measures. Whether this will happen remains unclear, however, given the apparent lack of unanimity among member states.
  • Sweden is not alone in calling for more sanctions. During the preparatory phase, Germany, Ireland, and Poland also suggested sanctions as part of “a dual track” approach, under which human rights abuses should be punished with sanctions but that the EU should also be pragmatic and seek cooperation on “issues of mutual interest,” such as regional security, connectivity, and the fight against organized crime.


Looking Ahead

The European Commission will publish its new “Arctic Strategy” on October 20. Among other things, the document is calling for greater European icebreaker capacity, increased investment in Greenland -- including a submarine cable connecting the giant island with mainland Europe -- and the establishment of an EU polar research hub.

That's all for this week!

Feel free to reach out to me on any of these issues on X @RikardJozwiak, or via e-mail at jozwiakr@rferl.org.

Until next time,

Rikard Jozwiak

If you enjoyed this briefing and don't want to miss the next edition subscribe here.

Welcome to Wider Europe, RFE/RL's newsletter focusing on the key issues concerning the European Union, NATO, and other institutions and their relationships with the Western Balkans and Europe's Eastern neighborhoods.

I'm RFE/RL Europe Editor Rikard Jozwiak, and this week I am drilling down on one issue: the upcoming EU summit, with a focus on Ukraine, Russia sanctions, and EU enlargement.

please wait

No media source currently available

0:00 0:11:49 0:00

The Briefing: The EU’s October Summit -- Sanctions, Enlargement, And Financing Ukraine

As European Union leaders gather in Brussels on October 15-16, the main media focus will most likely be on the almighty EU budget battle as the 27 prime ministers and presidents make their first real stab at finding a consensus for the next long-term EU budget for 2028-2034.

They will fail, as summits are already planned for November and December to potentially seal the deal. But there is no guarantee that they will strike an agreement then either, as the draft proposal of 1.6 trillion euros ($1.78 trillion) is dividing northern “frugals,” who want more cuts, and the rest, who want the budget to increase or at least stay the same.

The fight over cash in Brussels tends to be the fiercest and most drawn-out, and will divert much of the EU’s attention away from the bigger international issues confronting the bloc, such as the war in Ukraine and even its own process of admitting new members.

Yet, the draft EU summit conclusions, seen by RFE/RL, still offer some hints about what the bloc hopes to do on a number of foreign policy issues in the coming months.

Financing Ukraine

There was a sudden political storm brewing in both Brussels and Kyiv when Ukrainian officials began warning in early September of a military funding shortfall of as much as $27 billion.

Much confusion ensued as various other numbers were cited, and Ukrainian and European officials started studying what the issue was and whether the 90 billion euros ($100 billion) that the EU had agreed to lend Kyiv earlier in the year for 2026 and 2027 -- with 45 billion euros earmarked for each year -- would need to be restructured, notably by bringing forward some of the money allocated for 2027.

EU sources familiar with the discussions told RFE/RL that the changing estimates of Ukraine’s needs reflect the rapidly evolving situation. They explained that the cost of the military equipment Ukraine intends to purchase is rising, as are expenditures on military personnel salaries and compensation payments for the families of fallen soldiers.

However, through national budget reallocations and financial support from other international partners, Kyiv has been finding ways to cover its most urgent needs.

This was also confirmed in the draft EU conclusions, which note that the European Council “welcomes the ongoing disbursements to Ukraine from the EUR 90 billion Ukraine Support Loan for 2026 and 2027, including the recent disbursements of EUR 5.34 billion. It welcomes the fact that the means to cover Ukraine’s budget and defense needs for 2026 have been identified.”

But this is not the end of the story.

While 2026 is covered for now, EU diplomats believe that Ukraine will use up the remaining 45 billion euros in the first half of 2027, meaning that the gap avoided this winter will likely reappear a year later. That means the EU will have to find more money, as the bloc’s next long-term budget, which is expected to include more funding for Ukraine, won’t kick in until 2028.

It is therefore very possible that the discussion about using the billions in frozen Russian assets held in the bloc will come into play again at some point. This definitely won’t happen at this week’s summit, but the issue could return to the agenda at the summits scheduled for November and December and is almost certain to resurface early next year.

Symbolic Sanctioning And Estonian Embarrassment

The draft summit conclusions mention that “the European Union remains determined to further increase pressure on Russia so that it stops its brutal war of aggression and engages in meaningful negotiations towards peace. The European Council welcomes the recent adoption of the 21st sanctions package and of a substantial number of further listings of individuals and entities.”

Despite what initially looks like a straightforward call for more sanctions on Moscow, there is a subtle but important difference here.

In previous years, and at earlier summits, EU leaders have consistently pushed for further measures, meaning additional sanctions packages. But after the difficulties that dogged the 21st round of sanctions, which were only approved after a lot of wrangling in July, it is clear that the bloc is inching away from adopting new economic sanctions and is instead now essentially just adding more names to its blacklist.

And while the headline figure of almost 1,600 new listings, officially approved on October 12, sounds impressive -- marking the largest-ever addition to the EU sanctions list -- those targeted are hardly household names. In fact, they all belong to Russia's domestic military-industrial complex, which has hardly any assets in the bloc to begin with.

But not everything has been plain sailing, even with these seemingly straightforward listings.

Embarrassingly, Estonia, a sanctions hawk, asked for one company and one person to be removed from the originally proposed list seen by RFE/RL. The entity was the Solikamsk plant, which exports rare earth materials and the individual was its CEO, Ruslan Dimukhamedov.

With most of the company’s EU exports going to Estonia, the Baltic state confirmed that it had pushed the bloc not to sanction it.

In a statement given to RFE/RL, the Estonian EU representation noted that “the company provides NPM Silmet, which is based in Estonia, with strategically important materials for Europe. European industries who are reliant on NPM Silmet include electric vehicle manufacturers, wind turbine producers, and the electronics, automotive, and aviation sectors across the European Union.”

The statement also noted that “NPM Silmet is actively looking for alternative sources for the materials it imports from Russia. Estonia will revisit listing the Russian company and person next year.”

The whole affair illustrates how even the most ardent supporters of Ukraine in the EU have national economic interests tied to Russia that they simply won’t compromise on, making a mockery of the bloc's push for tougher sanctions on the Kremlin.

Visas For Russians

While traditional sanctions policy appears to be taking a backseat for now, the issue of restricting more Russians from entering the EU is gaining traction in Brussels.

The EU is still working on banning Russians who have fought in Ukraine from entering the bloc on Schengen tourist visas, with the draft summit conclusions calling for “the swift implementation of the measures concerning Russian ex-combatants.”

This is the most obvious sign that even Mediterranean countries like France, Italy, and Spain, which rely heavily on tourism, are moving closer to agreeing to measures that could require Russian applicants to submit military service documents when applying for Schengen tourist visas in the future.

Interestingly, the text also mentions the need for “reviewing and tightening visa requirements and policy regarding Russian nationals.”

According to EU officials, this means work is also underway to restrict the territorial validity of Russian tourist visas, so that visa holders would no longer be allowed to travel freely throughout the Schengen zone but would instead have to remain in the country that issued their visa.

There is also a push to stop recognizing non-biometric Russian travel documents, including diplomatic and service passports.

When it comes to Russian diplomats already in the EU, efforts are also afoot to restrict their movements. Currently, Russian diplomatic and consular personnel in EU countries are generally only required to notify authorities when traveling to another member state, but the proposal would introduce a requirement to obtain prior authorization from the country they intend to visit.

A limit on how long Russian diplomatic personnel can remain in their host countries is also under consideration, as European counterintelligence services are keen to curb long-established spy networks, in which diplomats stationed in one place for extended periods often play a key role.

The Clock Is Ticking For Montenegro

This week will be hailed as yet another momentous one for EU enlargement, with Albania set to close another EU accession chapter on October 13, the same day that Moldova and Ukraine are due to open talks on a whopping 17 chapters, bringing their total to 24 out of 33, after overcoming yet another initial Hungarian red light.

Perhaps the most interesting country to watch now, however, is the absolute frontrunner Montenegro, which is entering a crunch period in its quest to become the EU's 28th member state by 2028.

The draft EU summit conclusions note that “the European Council welcomes the ongoing work on drafting the accession treaty with Montenegro and notes the intention of the Council Presidency to reach an agreement on the provisional closure of all negotiating chapters by the end of this year, based on the implementation of the corresponding reforms by Montenegro.”

This sounds promising, but not everything is going swimmingly.

The drafting of the accession treaty, which the European Commission and Podgorica are hoping to have fully negotiated by spring and signed by the summer, is not progressing quickly enough so far.

The working group dealing with the drafting is still meeting only once a week in Brussels. By now, meetings should be taking place more frequently, suggesting that not all EU member states are equally keen to accelerate Montenegro's accession process.

The goal of closing all chapters by the end of the year also seems to be hanging by a thread.

Yes, the country closed talks on three chapters on October 12, taking its “tally” to 21 out of 33, but those chapters had already been slated to be closed in September.

There had also been hopes of closing another four chapters this month, but that now looks unlikely to happen before November.

Croatia is behind most of these delays, as it still has a lot of bilateral scores to settle with its smaller neighbor.

On transport policy, for example, Zagreb initially raised concerns about “cabotage,” the right of a transport company from one EU country to provide services in another, amid fears that cheaper Montenegrin truckers would undercut Croatian competitors. That issue has since been resolved, but Zagreb is now raising concerns about the way Montenegro’s maritime agency operates.

Most of the disputes, however, concern historical issues, which would normally be addressed under Chapter 31, covering foreign policy. But with Montenegro yet to close that chapter, these disputes threaten to spill over into negotiations on other chapters as well. Worryingly, talks on closing Chapter 31 haven’t even begun.

The Croatian demands include several issues stemming from the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s.

Take, for example, the Zoran Gopcevic swimming pool in the Montenegrin city of Kotor. Zagreb is demanding that the facility be renamed, as Gopcevic was a guard at the Morinj camp during the conflict, where hundreds of Croatian prisoners were held in inhumane conditions and even subjected to torture.

Then there is the issue of the “Jadran,” a three-masted sailing ship built in 1933 that was historically based in the Croatian coastal city of Split and which Zagreb wants returned to Croatian control. When the Yugoslav wars broke out in 1991, the “Jadran” was in Montenegro, where it has remained ever since, with Podgorica claiming that the ship's presence on its territory at the time of Yugoslavia's dissolution gives it legal ownership.

On top of this, there are also land and maritime border disputes between the two countries and discussions over billions of dollars in war reparations, which could slow down the accession talks even further.

That's all for this week!

Feel free to reach out to me on any of these issues on Twitter @RikardJozwiak, or via e-mail at jozwiakr@rferl.org.

Until next time,

Rikard Jozwiak

If you enjoyed this briefing and don't want to miss the next edition subscribe here.

Load more

​
XS
SM
MD
LG