Montenegro’s planned Adriatic-Ionian highway could require more than 3 billion euros in new borrowing, former lawmaker Branko Radulović warned, accusing the government of using agreements with foreign partners to bypass public tenders. He questioned the project’s economic case and said toll revenue would not cover even its routine maintenance.
Radulović’s criticism centres on how Montenegro selects companies and sets terms for large infrastructure projects. In his assessment, intergovernmental agreements and memorandums avoid transparent procedures and competition, preventing the state from comparing contractors and securing the most favourable conditions. He described the proposed highway as an “economic, technical, environmental and sociological failure”.
The European Commission warned in its latest report on Montenegro that the implementation of intergovernmental agreements must not conflict with European public procurement rules or serve to circumvent them. Radulović linked that concern to Montenegro’s arrangements with the United States, the United Arab Emirates, Hungary, France and Spain. Such arrangements could allow non-transparent deals and harm Montenegro’s economic interests, in his view.
His warning about the highway concerns a potential debt burden, not financing already agreed for its construction. Radulović called the project the “first phase of Montenegro’s colonisation” and argued that “Montenegro’s poor” would repay the borrowing. The government has put the road forward under its cooperation with the United States, alongside a digital infrastructure control project, but the facts provided do not specify a highway construction contract or financing package.
US cooperation and the proposed highway
Montenegro and the United States signed an intergovernmental agreement on 24 July 2026 covering cooperation on strategic projects. Its scope includes transport infrastructure, energy capacity, technology and telecommunications, exploitation of critical minerals, and security. Montenegro’s parliament unanimously adopted the agreement as a law on 31 July 2026, giving the cooperation framework a legislative basis.
The Adriatic-Ionian highway and digital infrastructure control were the first two strategic projects Montenegro’s government submitted for implementation under the US cooperation. Their inclusion identifies the government’s initial priorities within the framework; it does not, on the facts available, establish the cost of either project, the source of financing or the choice of a construction contractor. Those are among the terms Radulović wants subjected to scrutiny.
Radulović argued that the US agreement leaves room for undisclosed arrangements on alignment with American strategic priorities, the selection of investments and expansion of project lists. He also raised questions about unknown prices and financing, the selection of contractors and subcontractors, and exemptions from value-added tax and customs duties. His objection was that such commercial terms could be settled without open competition.
The intergovernmental agreement followed an economic cooperation memorandum between Montenegro and the United States, designated G2G, signed on 21 October 2024 as a foundational document for targeted investments. Separately, Montenegro’s government, US company Bechtel and Turkish company Enka signed a memorandum of understanding on 29 July 2025. That document covers master planning, finding development solutions for key infrastructure and energy projects, and their implementation.
Enka frequently partners with Bechtel on projects in the Balkans, and Radulović cited their consortium’s regional work when discussing the proposed Montenegrin highway. The memorandum with the companies covers a wider range of infrastructure and energy work than the highway alone. No construction price or borrowing terms for the Adriatic-Ionian project are specified in the facts provided, making Radulović’s figure a warning about potential new debt rather than a contracted amount.
Prime Minister Milojko Spajić had advocated involving Bechtel in the Adriatic-Ionian highway since 2021, when he was Montenegro’s finance minister, according to Radulović. The former lawmaker recalled that Spajić personally sought his view of the road that year and that he called it a “total failure”. Radulović’s account places the disagreement over the project’s economic merits before the later US agreements and the memorandum with Bechtel and Enka.
In a further allegation, Radulović described Spajić radically changing the highway route with two Bechtel employees on an A3-format map after becoming prime minister. The episode was photographed, according to the former lawmaker. He also recounted Spajić later saying that he had “endorsed” the new corridor with Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama at a one-day summit in Tirana.
Those comments concern the proposed route as well as the way a contractor might become involved. Radulović did not provide a construction cost for the revised corridor in the facts given. His financial warning instead focused on borrowing of more than 3 billion euros and his assessment that toll receipts would be insufficient even for ongoing highway maintenance, before any repayment of that borrowing.
Radulović also characterised the “America First” doctrine as a form of US imperialism. He argued that, in Montenegro, it could take the form of political control and financial and economic colonialism through finance and technology companies. The remarks form part of his broader criticism of strategic partnerships; they are his assessment, not stated terms of the US agreement.
He contrasted the reaction to the US framework with that to Montenegro’s agreement with the United Arab Emirates on investment in a megaproject at Velika Plaža, which he linked to Mohamed Alabbar. The UAE agreement prompted reactions from the public and the Constitutional Court, according to Radulović, while the US agreement was met with silence. He cited that contrast while questioning the scrutiny applied to foreign partnerships.
Other agreements and investment projects
Montenegro’s agreement with Hungary, signed on 1 July 2025, covers cooperation in road and rail transport. Viktor Orban was Hungary’s prime minister at the time. Under the agreement as Radulović described it, Hungarian companies could be engaged directly as main contractors and operators without a tender, making it another example in his criticism of how large transport projects may be awarded.
The governments of Montenegro and France signed five agreements and memorandums on 4 June 2026 across several fields, including the design and construction of infrastructure. Montenegro and Spain signed a framework agreement on financial and technical cooperation the following day, 5 June 2026. Radulović included both sets of arrangements in his wider objection to using bilateral documents for major projects instead of competitive procurement.
A memorandum of understanding between Montenegro’s government and the UAE’s Abu Dhabi Port Group, signed on 6 May 2026, concerns modernisation of the Port of Bar. Radulović maintained that port employees had so far forestalled it. The port document is distinct from the UAE investment agreement concerning Velika Plaža, though he cited both when discussing the government’s dealings with foreign partners.
The Spanish framework was followed by a project-level memorandum at the EU–Montenegro Investment Conference in Portonovi on 20 October 2026. Monteput and Spanish company Cention signed a cooperation memorandum on construction of the Tološi–Farmaci road section. The facts describe a memorandum, not an awarded construction contract, and give no price or financing terms for that road section.
For Radulović, the concern extends beyond whether any one memorandum immediately awards a contract. He argued that memorandums and bilateral agreements can avoid transparency and tender competition while limiting the choice of a cooperation model. In his assessment, that could prevent the most qualified companies from winning work and stop Montenegro from obtaining the most favourable terms.
At the Portonovi conference, Spajić said Montenegro would become the “Singapore of Europe”. He reported 14 partnership projects launched during the previous year, alongside ten adopted memorandums and four strategic partners presented. The figures were part of the prime minister’s account of the country’s investment activity; they did not specify the financing or procurement terms of the highway proposal.
Spajić also put foreign direct investment in the first seven months at 544 million euros, with more than half invested in real estate. That breakdown identifies property as the destination for most of the reported inflow. It does not provide an investment figure for the Adriatic-Ionian highway or the other transport projects covered by the memorandums cited by Radulović.
Challenging the prime minister’s Singapore comparison, Radulović asked whether Montenegro would instead become the “Madagascar, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of the Congo or Sudan of Europe”. He characterised those African countries as having sold resources or granted long-term concessions through bilateral agreements. The comparison was part of his argument about potential risks to Montenegro’s resources, rather than a forecast supported by project figures in the facts provided.
Radulović identified the United States, China, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom as the largest buyers in countries he portrayed as selling off resources. He also pointed to Ghana and Gabon as countries that had tried to halt what he called colonisation through legislative changes. His examples were intended to support his criticism of bilateral deals, not to quantify Montenegro’s exposure under its current agreements.
As an earlier Montenegrin example, he referred to Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska and the sale of state property, saying such cases dated back to the period of the Democratic Party of Socialists. He gave no amount for that example in the facts provided. His present objection is directed chiefly at the selection and financing of new infrastructure projects, particularly the proposed Adriatic-Ionian highway.
Bechtel–Enka contracts in the region
Radulović cited a Croatian highway completed in 2005 as one comparison for Bechtel’s regional work. The US company built 147 kilometres for 990 million dollars, according to the former lawmaker. The comparison supplies a historical contract value, although the facts given do not establish a like-for-like cost estimate for Montenegro’s proposed Adriatic-Ionian route.
Jure Radić, a former Croatian minister of reconstruction, said the Croatian highway’s price could have been one-third lower if an international tender had been held. Radić attributed the decision instead to a goal of strengthening political relations between Croatia and the United States. His assessment is one of the examples Radulović drew on in arguing that competition can affect both contractor choice and the price paid by a state.
The Bechtel–Enka consortium signed a highway construction contract with North Macedonia’s government in 2023. It covers 109 kilometres for 1.3 billion euros, excluding land expropriation and design costs. The exclusions mean those two categories are outside the stated contract figure. Radulović cited the project as a more recent regional example involving the same companies named in Montenegro’s infrastructure memorandum.
North Macedonia chose direct negotiations with the consortium rather than a tender, a decision opposed by the country’s anti-corruption commission. Protests and lawsuits by local residents further slowed the work. Those circumstances formed part of the regional procurement comparison in Radulović’s criticism, but the facts do not establish that Montenegro has awarded an equivalent construction contract or encountered the same obstacles.
The consortium was also engaged on the Priština–Tirana highway, valued at more than 820 million euros, and the Priština–North Macedonia border highway, valued at more than 600 million euros. Radulović referred to both roads when discussing Bechtel and Enka’s record in the region. The figures are values of those projects, not estimates for the proposed highway through Montenegro.
Palj Ljekaj, a former Kosovo infrastructure minister, was convicted over the award of an additional 53 million euros. The facts provided do not give details of the judgment. Radulović raised the case alongside the regional highway contracts as he argued for scrutiny of public spending decisions involving large transport projects.
Montenegro’s next commercial terms for the Adriatic-Ionian highway remain the central open question in Radulović’s warning. The government has submitted it as a strategic project under US cooperation, while the facts provided identify neither a final construction price nor agreed financing. Radulović’s stated concern is that proceeding without competitive selection could leave the state with borrowing exceeding 3 billion euros for a road whose tolls, in his assessment, would not cover routine maintenance.
