Connect with us

World

Montenegro pursues values-driven EU enlargement process

Published

on

Montenegro pursues values-driven EU enlargement process

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

The President of Montenegro outlines four scenarios in which candidate countries may engage with EU enlargement, with only one – in which both sides play their role fully in the democratisation process – is ideal.

ADVERTISEMENT

It is encouraging that one of the seven priorities of the new European Commission explicitly focuses on enlargement, envisioning a Europe that is not only larger but also stronger on the world stage.

 From the perspective of candidate countries, we are encouraged by the renewed momentum in Brussels and across the EU. This momentum has sparked a genuine appetite for new member states, and I find this inspiring. When I was elected President of Montenegro last year, I set an ambitious yet achievable goal: Montenegro, as a frontrunner among the candidate countries, to become the 28th EU member state by 2028.

 Montenegro is the country that already holds NATO membership, has been in line with the EU’s common foreign and security policy for the last decade, has the euro as a currency (though unilaterally), and what I like to stress: has a strong civil sector and free, independent media. The country naturally has challenges and political turbulence, as any other democratic, pluralistic society has, but these are part of a democratisation process, rather than the consequence of its failure.

 The reforms in Montenegro have been strongly driven by the promise of EU membership and the legitimacy that political parties derive from it. In fact, most, if not all, political parties in Montenegro are publicly committed to EU integration. Although one may question the sincerity of these commitments and whether they are merely declarative or truly substantive, nevertheless, considering that more than 80 percent of the population supports EU membership, it is clear why EU accession is such an important source of political legitimacy in Montenegrin politics.

Advertisement

However, the transformative power of the EU pathway is not unique to Montenegro; we have seen similar effects in other countries—Croatia (our only approximate neighbour that is already a member), Slovenia, another country with whom we shared a joint history for some time, as well as many other countries throughout Central and Eastern Europe. During my previous career as an economist at the EBRD, I observed first-hand the EU’s transformative power in these countries, a power unmatched by the influence of any other external actors.

In considering how enlargement might unfold, there are four main scenarios, each with lasting consequences for both the EU and the candidate countries:

Scenario One: The candidate country fails to utilize the EU accession process for democratic or institutional progress, and as a result, the EU does not admit it. The outcome is a clear lose-lose, leaving the EU with incomplete democracies at its borders and the candidate country without the benefits of EU membership, with de-democratisation forces taking the lead forward. It goes without saying that this scenario is also welcomed by the EU’s adversaries, who can then fully exert their influence.

Scenario Two: The candidate country uses the accession process productively—building institutions and advancing democratic standards—yet is still not accepted by the EU. History shows that this scenario often leads to regression and the reversal of democratic gains. Here, too, both sides ultimately lose in the long run. Yet some may be more capable of continuing along a positive path and building a stable democracy rooted in the rule of law. Unfortunately, history teaches us otherwise.

Scenario Three: The candidate country shows insufficient democratic progress, yet the EU admits it anyway based solely on geopolitical considerations. Some advocate for this approach, regardless of the state of reforms. While this might appear to satisfy both the EU’s enlargement drive and the candidate countries’ ambitions, especially for bigger sources of funding for development, in reality, it is not sustainable. Over the long term, both the EU and the country suffer, as core values like the rule of law and effective governance are sidelined. Moreover, this scenario could also benefit adversaries, providing them with opportunities to exert influence within the EU.

Advertisement

Scenario Four (The Win-Win Scenario): Both parties do their part. The candidate country leverages the accession process to achieve genuine democratic progress and build robust institutions, while also depoliticizing its public administration, enabling a free media environment, and focusing on sustainable economic development, and then is welcomed into the EU. This is the ideal outcome—one that ensures shared growth, resilience, and stability. It is this scenario that I believe we must all strive to achieve.

This is precisely what I envision for Montenegro. We have to use the EU accession process—this powerful external anchor—to drive reforms and fortify our democracy, ensuring that we join the EU as a fully prepared and committed member state. It is therefore essential to make the most of the accession process now.

For this aim, enlargement should not only be about financial gain—as there are countless global avenues for attracting investment with perhaps fewer conditions required. What we should value most about the EU is the set of principles it upholds. We seek to build a society anchored in the rule of law, good governance, and equal opportunities. These core values make EU membership a goal worth pursuing.

As President of Montenegro, I am committed to guiding my country through this critical phase of our European journey. I hope that both the EU and candidate countries will work together to achieve a truly win-win scenario—one that not only enhances the Union’s strength and unity but also helps candidates become responsible, democratic members of the European family.

I am deeply convinced that Montenegro’s accession to the EU is a political milestone greater than itself; it would show that the process is alive, that reforms truly pay off, that new political culture pays off, and could become a success story and an example for all other candidate countries, if we all commit to the genuine reform agenda ahead.

Advertisement

World

How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran

Published

on

How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of an Iranian Shahed-136 drone, a device with two triangle-shaped wings attached to a central fuselage. It has an engine the size of a small motorcycle’s and carries 110 pounds of explosives.

Engine the size of a small motorcycle’s

Advertisement

Carries 110 pounds of explosives

One of the biggest takeaways of the war with Iran is that it has proven itself to be a surprisingly capable adversary against the United States. In addition to its willingness to go on the offensive, Iran has forced the U.S. and its regional allies to confront the rise of cheap drones on the battlefield.

Advertisement

Iranian drones, made with commercial-grade technology, cost roughly $35,000 to produce. That is a fraction of the cost of the high-tech military interceptors sometimes used to shoot them down.

Note: Estimated price of munitions per unit. In practice, multiple interceptors are fired when targeting a drone. For instance, with the $80 bullet fired by the Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (C-RAM), 75 rounds are fired in a second. Sources: Department of Defense, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Open Source Munitions Portal, SRC Inc, U.S. Army and U.S. Navy.

Advertisement

Cheap drones changed the war in Ukraine, and they have enabled Iranians to exploit a gap in American defense investments, which have historically prioritized accurate but expensive solutions.

Countering drones has been a major priority for the Pentagon for years, according to Michael C. Horowitz, who was a Pentagon official in the Biden administration. “But there has not been the impetus to scale a solution,” he said.

Advertisement

In just the first six days, the U.S. spent $11.3 billion on the war with Iran. The White House and Pentagon have not provided updated estimates, but the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, estimated in early April that the U.S. had spent approximately between $25 and $35 billion on the war, with interceptors driving much of the cost. Many missile defense experts also fear interceptor stockpiles are now running dangerously low.

Here is a breakdown of some of the ways the U.S. and its allies have countered Iran’s drones, and why it can be so costly.

Air-based strikes

Advertisement

In an ideal scenario, an early warning aircraft spots a drone when it is still several hundred miles out from a target, and a fighter jet, like an F-16, is dispatched from a military base. The F-16 can then use Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) II rockets to shoot a drone from about six miles away.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of an F-16 fighter jet firing an APKWS II rocket from under one wing. Two to three rockets are fired per drone, as per air defense protocol. Two APKWS II rockets and an hour of F-16 flight cost approximately $65,000, a little less than twice that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Two to three interceptors fired per drone

Advertisement

Source: U.S. Navy, Department of Defense

Advertisement

These types of defensive air patrols are cost-efficient, but haven’t always been available because of the vast scope of the conflict. Iran has also targeted early warning aircraft that the U.S. needs to detect a drone from that distance, according to NBC News.

The other option for detecting and shooting down drones is a variety of different ground-based detection systems, but these systems are all at a disadvantage, as their ability to spot low-flying drones is limited by the curvature of the earth.

Advertisement

Anti-drone defense systems

One ground-based defense system the U.S. and its allies have built specifically to counter drones at a shorter range is the Coyote. It can intercept drones up to around nine miles away.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Coyote Block 2 interceptor, which looks like a three-foot tube with small rockets at one end. Two Coyotes cost approximately $253,000 or about seven times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Coyote is significantly cheaper than many of the other ground-based defense systems available to the U.S. and its allies and historically effective at defending important assets. But despite being both effective and cost-efficient, relatively few Coyotes have been procured by the U.S. military in recent years.

When Iran-backed militias launched attacks on U.S. ground troops in the region in 2023 and 2024, there were so few Coyotes available that troops had to shuffle the systems between eight different bases in the region almost daily, according to a report from the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank.

Advertisement

Ship-based anti-missile defenses

Many of the longer-range ground-based defense systems the U.S. and its allies can use to combat drones are more expensive, as they are designed to shoot down aircraft and ballistic missiles, not drones. A Navy destroyer’s built-in radar system, for instance, can detect drones from 30 miles away and shoot it down with Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) interceptors. As in the air-based strikes, military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of the deck of a Navy destroyer firing an SM-2 missile from a built-in launcher, which looks like a 15-foot missile launching from a grid of openings on the ship’s surface. Two SM-2 missiles cost approximately $4.2 million, about 120 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Advertisement

This misalignment between America’s defense systems and current warfighting tactics started after the Cold War, when the anticipated threats were fewer, faster, higher-end projectiles, not mass drone raids.

Iran often launches multiple Shahed-136 drones at a time, given their low price tag. The drones are also programmed with a destination before launch and can travel roughly 1,500 miles, putting targets all across the Middle East within reach.

Advertisement

“This category of lower-cost precision strike just didn’t exist at the time that most American air defenses were developed,” said Mr. Horowitz.

Ground-based anti-missile defenses

The Army’s standard air-defense system is the Patriot. Typically stationed at a military base, it can shoot down a drone from up to around 27 miles away with PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptors. Military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.

Advertisement

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Patriot launcher loaded with 17-foot PAC-3 MSE missiles, which looks like a tilted shipping container with scaffolding. Two PAC-3 MSE missiles cost approximately $8 million, about 220 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Patriot missile defense system

Advertisement

Advertisement

Air defense training teaches service members to prioritize using longer-range defense systems first to “get as many bites at the apple as you can,” but those are the most expensive, said Stacie Pettyjohn, a senior fellow and director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security.

But a costly defense can still make economic sense to protect a valuable target, especially those that are difficult to repair or replace, such as the nearly $1.1 billion radar at a military base in Qatar and the $500 million air defense sensor at a base in Jordan that were damaged early in the conflict.

Advertisement

Ground-based guns

Finally, there is what one might call a last resort: a ground-based gun. When a drone is about a mile away or less than a minute from hitting its target, something like the Centurion C-RAM can begin rapidly firing to take down the drone.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Centurion C-RAM, which looks like a gun mounted to a rotating, cylindrical stand. The gun fires 75 rounds of ammunition per second. Five seconds of firing the gun costs $30,000, slightly less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortar

Fires 375 rounds of ammunition in 5 seconds

Advertisement

Advertisement

Even though it is fairly cost-effective, the Centurion C-RAM is not the best option because it has such a short range.

Interceptor drones

Advertisement

There’s also what one might call the future of fighting drones: A.I.-powered interceptor drones. Interceptor drones like the Merops Surveyor can theoretically hunt and take down enemy projectiles from a short range.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Surveyor drone, which looks like a three-foot tube with wings and a tail. The Merops drone costs approximately $30,000, a little less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Merops system: Surveyor drone

Advertisement

Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive, founded a company to develop the Merops counter-drone system in conjunction with Ukrainian fighters, who have already been combatting Iranian drones in the war with Russia for years.

The U.S. sent thousands of Merops units to the Middle East after the conflict began, but it is unclear whether they have been deployed. The military set up training on the system in the middle of the war, as reported by Business Insider.

Advertisement

Other attempts to lower the cost-per-shot ratio of taking out a drone have failed.

The Pentagon invested over a billion dollars in fiscal year 2024 researching directed energy weapons, or lasers, that would cost only $3 per shot and have a range of 12 miles. Those systems have yet to be used in the field.

Advertisement

Despite the cost imbalance, the real fear for many in the defense community is the depleted stockpile of munitions.

“What scares me is that we will run out of these things,” said Tom Karako, the director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Not that we can’t afford them, but that we’ll run out before we can replace them.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Moscow-born gunman dead after Kyiv shooting rampage leaves at least 6 dead, 14 wounded: Zelenskyy

Published

on

Moscow-born gunman dead after Kyiv shooting rampage leaves at least 6 dead, 14 wounded: Zelenskyy

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A Russian gunman was killed by special forces Saturday in Ukraine after opening fire at a supermarket in Kyiv, killing six people and wounding 14 others — including a 12‑year‑old boy.

The 58-year-old shooter long resided in the Donetsk region and was born in Moscow, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko.

He took at least four hostages, killed one of them, and fatally shot four others on the street, Zelenskyy said. Another woman died at a hospital from her injuries.

Graphic video captured by witnesses showed the gunman shooting at a victim within close range on the street. Other bodies were seen lying on the pavement and in courtyards.

Advertisement

The gunman was seen walking with a weapon on the street. (Obtained by Will Stewart)

MANHUNT UNDERWAY AFTER GUNMEN STORM CHICK-FIL-A LEAVING 1 DEAD

Ukranian special forces stormed the convenience store after 40 minutes of failed negotiations, according to Klymenko.

At least fourteen people were wounded in the attack, though officials cautioned the number may rise as people continue to seek medical assistance.

Among the injured is a 12‑year‑old boy and a supermarket security guard, according to Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko.

Advertisement

The gunman was pictured dead in the convenience store. (Obtained by Will Stewart)

NINE DEAD, 13 WOUNDED IN SECOND TURKISH MASS SHOOTING IN TWO DAYS

Zelenskyy said the shooter also set fire to an apartment prior to the attack, though it is unclear if any injuries resulted from the arson.

“My condolences to the families and loved ones of the victims,” Zelenskyy wrote in an X post. “…We wish all the wounded a swift recovery.”

The gunman had previously been prosecuted for criminal offenses, but held a valid weapons permit, according to authorities. Investigators from the National Police and the Security Service of Ukraine are investigating.

Advertisement

The gunman was seen holding and shooting a weapon in the street. (Obtained by Will Stewart)

GUNMAN OPENS FIRE AT HIGH SCHOOL IN TURKEY, WOUNDING AT LEAST 16

Ukraine’s security service labeled the attack an act of terrorism.

“All available information about him and the motives behind his actions is being thoroughly investigated,” Zelenskyy said. “Every detail must be verified.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

One of the shooter’s neighbors, Hanna Kulyk, 75, described him as an “educated, refined man,” who lived alone and did not socialize often.

“You’d never guess he was some kind of criminal,” Kulyk told The Associated Press.

Continue Reading

World

Iran navy says any ship trying to pass Strait of Hormuz will be targeted

Published

on

Iran navy says any ship trying to pass Strait of Hormuz will be targeted

Top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf says US naval blockade of Iran’s ports is ‘a clumsy and ignorant decision’.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGC) says the Strait of Hormuz is closed and that any ship that attempts to pass through the waterway will be targeted, a dramatic reversal less than 24 hours after the critical shipping lane was reopened.

In a statement carried by Iran’s Student News Agency, the IRGC navy said on Saturday the strait will be closed until the United States lifts its naval blockade on Iranian vessels and ports. It said the blockade was a violation of the ongoing ceasefire agreement in the US-Israel war on Iran.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

“We warn that no vessel of any kind should move from its anchorage in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman, and approaching the Strait of Hormuz will be considered cooperation with the enemy, and the offending vessel will be targeted,” it said.

Advertisement

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker and a senior negotiator in talks between Washington and Tehran on ending the war, said in a television interview that “the Strait of Hormuz is under the control of the Islamic Republic”.

“The Americans have been declaring a blockade for several days now. This is a clumsy and ignorant decision,” he added.

The reassertion of control came just hours after Iran had briefly reopened the strait, in line with a 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. Oil prices dropped on global markets after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that the waterway was “completely open for all commercial vessels.”

More than a dozen commercial ships passed through the waterway before the IRGC reversed course.

Iranian gunboats reportedly fired on two commercial ships on Saturday, according to United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO). India’s Ministry of External Affairs also said that two Indian-flagged ships were involved in a “shooting incident” in the strait.

Advertisement

Some merchant vessels in the region received radio messages from the IRGC Navy, warning that no ships were being allowed through the strait.

US President Donald Trump said Tehran could not blackmail Washington by closing the waterway and warned that he would put an end to the ceasefire if a deal before its expiry on Wednesday is not reached. Trump added that the naval blockade would “remain in full force”.

Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, meanwhile, said the navy was ready to inflict “new bitter defeats” on its enemies.

‘Two competing blockades’

Al Jazeera correspondent Zein Basravi said that Iran and the US are back where they were the previous day.

“Less than 24 hours ago, world leaders were praising what they thought was a breakthrough in this conflict, hoping Iran was signalling a confidence-building measure by opening the Strait of Hormuz, potentially leading to a ceasefire deal and a permanent end to the war,” he said.

Advertisement

“As disappointed as people may be, this isn’t entirely surprising. What we’re seeing now is a return to square one,” he added, saying there are now “two competing blockades in place”.

Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem, reporting from Tehran, said Iran was using the strait to send a message.

“It’s clear that Iran is dealing with a situation in which they are not sure what’s on the table. So the Strait of Hormuz is once again the only space for engagement, even if it’s a negative engagement. And it’s the space where they are sending and conveying messages to the Americans, showing their leverage,” he said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending