Centre for Civic Education (CCE) expresses serious concern over today’s guest lectures by Russian professors Ekaterina Entina and Mark Entin at the Historical Institute of the University of Montenegro (UoM), given their ties to Russian diplomatic and political structures, as well as the content of the messages delivered today from one of the organisational units of Montenegro’s state university.
The event was formally opened by Radenko Šćekić, Director of the Historical Institute, followed by the Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Montenegro, Aleksandr Petrovich Lukashik, who spoke of “strong Western pressure on Russia and the need for an even stronger response to the current geopolitical, economic and social turmoil”.
Dr Mark Entin, Professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), delivered a lecture entitled “The History of European and Eurasian Integration and Its Current State”. Alongside his academic career, Entin has extensive experience in Russian diplomacy, having held senior positions in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, served as Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the Council of Europe, and as Russia’s Ambassador to Luxembourg.
An even more direct institutional link to instruments of Russian public diplomacy is that of Dr Ekaterina Entina, who delivered a lecture entitled “Modern Russian Research on the Balkans and Possible Areas of Cooperation under Current Conditions”. She is a professor at National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University), Head of the Department for Black Sea and Mediterranean Studies at the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and an adviser to the Director of the Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund, which is under European Union sanctions. Yet today she proposed cooperation between the UoM Historical Institute and the Gorchakov Fund itself, which requires a clear explanation from the UoM leadership, particularly in view of Montenegro’s European path and the fact that this is a public university funded by citizens.
The lectures were, according to the observations of CCE representative Ivan Kašćelan, who attended the event, far removed from an academic presentation of different theoretical approaches. Speakers expressed “regret over the fact that relations between Montenegro and Russia have never been worse”, referred to “Western pressure on Russia”, while Dr Entina, presenting her research on political processes in the Balkans, spoke of the “demonisation of the Serbian population following the wars of the 1990s” and repeatedly used the term “Serbian World”. In a report she co-authored, Entina had previously stated that Western claims about Russian interference in elections in Montenegro and other forms of activity in the region had contributed to strengthening the perception of Russia as a great power among Balkan publics, concluding that such a perception “can and should be used”.
Criticising the existing model of European integration, Dr Mark Entin cited as “positive examples of integration practice in the Eurasian Economic Union and BRICS”, while describing the EU in terms of allegedly discriminatory mechanisms. He claimed that, based on his own experience, he “can confirm that the EU restricts academic freedoms, while they are respected in the Russian Federation”.
The unusually informal atmosphere for an academic institution added another dimension to the event. Over rakija, participants discussed and toasted geopolitics, Western pressure on Russia and Montenegro’s position, while Radenko Šćekić said, among other things, that “whether we like it or not, European integration has been imposed on Montenegro and is now its reality”.
CCE representative Ivan Kašćelan asked the Director of the Historical Institute to explain the announced deepening of cooperation with the Gorchakov Fund, given that it is under EU sanctions, after Šćekić responded positively to Dr Entina’s proposal and stated that such cooperation had existed before. Šćekić said that “academic cooperation must be preserved, regardless of all other circumstances”.
When Kašćelan asked Dr Entina why she repeatedly used the term “Serbian World” in a lecture on the Balkans, she replied that “when they publish books about the Montenegrin people, they will speak of a Montenegrin world”. One attendee, whom CCE believes to be from the Russian Embassy, added that “the Serbian World is part of the Historical Institute”, and there was no reaction from representatives of the Historical Institute or from its Director. Attendance at the event was modest. In addition to the lecturers, representatives of the Russian Embassy, the Director and the Institute’s technical staff, those present included associates Žarko Leković, Jelisaveta Blagojević Miljanić, and trainee Filip Vešović.
Kašćelan expressed the view that “although academic cooperation is immune to geopolitical circumstances, it is unacceptable to provide a platform to scholars who are deeply embedded in and part of the aggressor regime in Russia and who openly spread propaganda in this way”.
After pointing out that the windows needed to be opened because of the strong smell of rakija filling the room, Kašćelan was told that he should leave the event if it bothered him, which he did.
CCE publicly calls on Radenko Šćekić, Director of the Historical Institute, and Vladimir Božović, Rector of UoM, to explain to the public who initiated and funded this visit, who approved the event, the criteria by which the guests were selected, what specific cooperation is planned with the Gorchakov Fund, and whether the institutional and reputational risks of such cooperation were assessed in advance. According to information available to CCE, the UoM Rector was aware that the event was taking place. We therefore also expect his answer as to whether he gave his consent or direct support for its organisation.
As UoM’s key funder, we expect the Government of Montenegro to take a position on the announced cooperation between an organisational unit of the state university and a sanctioned Russian fund, and the competent authorities to clarify the relevant circumstances of these guests’ entry into and stay in Montenegro, if any special regimes or restrictions apply.
Academic freedom entails open dialogue and pluralism, but it does not mean an absence of accountability. This is particularly true at a public university in a country nearing the end of its EU accession negotiations, when institutional cooperation is being announced with an organisation sanctioned by that same EU.
Sara Čabarkapa, Coordinator of the Active Citizenship Programme