According to “Serbian Economist”, in the first half of 2026, Serbia became the largest source of foreign capital directed toward real estate purchases in Montenegro, according to data from the Central Bank of Montenegro (CBCG).
From January through June, foreign investors invested 237.77 million euros in Montenegrin real estate, which is 3.89% more than during the same period last year. Overall, gross foreign direct investment inflows into the country totaled 457.37 million euros, meaning real estate accounted for about 52% of all FDI inflows.
Serbia took the lead with 55.75 million euros, or 23.45% of all foreign investment in Montenegrin real estate.
Germany took second place with 22.9 million euros, and the United States came in third with 20.84 million euros. Switzerland contributed 18.5 million euros toward real estate purchases, and Turkey contributed 16.34 million euros.
Against this backdrop, the continuing decline in the role of Russian capital is particularly noticeable. In the first half of the year, only 5.37 million euros came from Russia for the purchase of Montenegrin real estate, placing it in tenth place. Poland and Belgium, among others, now rank higher than Russia in the list.
This trend began to take shape as early as last year. In the first quarter of 2025, Russia fell out of the top five largest markets for real estate buyers in Montenegro for the first time and ranked sixth. For 2025 as a whole, the volume of Russian investment across all sectors of Montenegro’s economy fell to 33.98 million euros, of which approximately 17.8 million euros went to real estate. By comparison, in the years 2020–2024, Russian capital was traditionally among the country’s largest sources of foreign investment.
However, it is not entirely accurate to refer directly to “Serbian citizens” or “Russians who purchased real estate” based on these figures. The CBCG methodology considers the country from which the payment originated, which may not correspond to the citizenship of the ultimate buyer or beneficiary. For example, a Russian citizen may pay for a property from an account in Serbia, the UAE, or another country. Therefore, the data primarily reflects a shift in the geography of financial flows in the real estate market.
According to “Serbian Economist”, Ukraine ranked sixth among Montenegro’s foreign tourism markets in July 2026 in terms of the number of overnight stays in collective accommodation facilities, as evidenced by new MONSTAT data published on August 27.
Ukrainian tourists spent 43,400 nights in hotels, tourist complexes, hostels, and other collective accommodations. In total, approximately 7,350 tourists from Ukraine stayed at such accommodations during the month.
Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Poland, the United Kingdom, and Russia ranked ahead of Ukraine in terms of the number of overnight stays. Ukrainians accounted for about 4.4% of all overnight stays by foreign guests.
At the same time, the flow of tourists from Ukraine remains fairly stable. The number of tourists from Ukraine has remained virtually unchanged compared to July of last year, while the number of overnight stays decreased by approximately 3%.
Serbia remains the leader in Montenegro’s tourism market, accounting for about a quarter of all foreign overnight stays. At the same time, the influx of Russian tourists rose sharply in July: the number of overnight stays by Russians increased by more than 60% year-over-year.
In total, 244,800 tourists and 1.08 million overnight stays were registered in Montenegro’s collective accommodation establishments in July. Foreigners accounted for over 90% of overnight stays.
However, the actual role of Ukrainians in Montenegro’s tourism sector is greater than what the July hotel statistics indicate. MONSTAT does not include private apartments and vacation rentals—which Ukrainian tourists actively use—in this monthly report. As of 2025, Ukraine accounted for 4.7% of foreign overnight stays in Montenegro’s private sector.
Montenegro and Albania have been included in Forbes’ list of the best overseas destinations for retirement in 2026, according to the Experts Club information and analysis centre.
Forbes published its annual review, The Best Places To Retire Abroad In 2026, on July 31, later updating it on August 5. The publication selected 96 recommended places in 24 countries on five continents, with half of the countries represented located in Europe.
When compiling the list, Forbes took into account the cost of living, the quality and cost of healthcare, taxes, crime levels and political stability, transportation accessibility, the possibility of obtaining long-term residence status, the prevalence of the English language, as well as risks associated with climate change and natural disasters.
At the same time, no ranking from first to 24th place was compiled — the countries are presented in alphabetical order. Therefore, for example, Albania’s position near the beginning of the list does not mean that Forbes recognized it as the best country for retirees.
The list includes Albania, Argentina, Austria, Belize, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Montenegro, Panama, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Thailand, Uruguay and Vietnam. Mauritius and Vietnam were included in the annual list for the first time.
In Montenegro, Forbes highlighted Podgorica, Bar, Perast and Tivat. The publication estimates the cost of living in the country at less than half the U.S. average, the level of serious crime as low, and the political situation as stable.
Forbes assesses the quality of healthcare as adequate, although it notes that foreigners with complex medical problems often turn to specialists in Italy or Germany.
A separate advantage of Montenegro is the possibility of obtaining a residence permit through the purchase of real estate. According to the conditions cited by Forbes for American retirees, the path to permanent residence begins with a renewable one-year residence permit, for which it is necessary to confirm pension income of more than $19,000 per year.
At the same time, Forbes draws attention to the risks of wildfires, floods and earthquakes — an especially relevant factor against the backdrop of major fires on the Adriatic coast in the summer of 2026.
In neighboring Albania, Forbes recommends considering Tirana, Durrës, Sarandë and Vlorë.
According to the publication, the cost of living there is approximately half the U.S. level. Among the advantages cited are the Mediterranean climate, the seacoast, a relatively low crime rate and a relatively simple procedure for legalizing residence.
For Americans, it is particularly convenient that they can stay in Albania for up to a year as tourists, which provides enough time to arrange a longer-term status. Forbes states that for retirement immigration, a couple will subsequently need to confirm about $20,000 in annual income from abroad.
Among the traditional European destinations, Forbes retained Portugal, Spain, Italy, France and Greece.
Portugal is assessed as a country where the cost of living is approximately one-third lower than in the United States, with relatively affordable healthcare and a comparatively simple D7 program for financially independent foreigners to reside in the country.
In Spain, expenses, according to Forbes, are approximately 30% lower than in the United States, while healthcare is characterized as high-quality and inexpensive. At the same time, the publication pays particular attention to wildfires, extreme heat and flooding. As a result, some areas, including the Costa del Sol, were removed from the list of specifically recommended locations this year, while in France, Bordeaux was removed.
Vietnam became one of the most affordable destinations: Forbes estimates living expenses at approximately one-quarter of the U.S. level. However, a significant disadvantage is the absence of a dedicated retirement visa, which means foreigners have to use successive 90-day electronic visas.
Mauritius entered the list for the first time thanks to its relatively low cost of living, affordable healthcare and a special permit for foreign retirees. Forbes estimates the cost of living at more than 50% below the U.S. level and states that a couple must confirm about $18,000 in annual retirement income.
Thus, one of the notable results of the list for the Balkans was the inclusion of both Albania and Montenegro, while Serbia was not included in the Forbes 2026 list. At the same time, this does not mean that the publication considered it less suitable for retirees: Forbes compiles an editorial selection rather than a comprehensive comparative ranking of all countries in the world.
The study itself is primarily aimed at US citizens – Forbes compares expenditure with US levels, takes into account tax treaties with the US, Social Security rules and eligibility for Medicare. For citizens of other countries, the financial, tax and immigration conditions may differ significantly.
According to information from “Serbian Economist”, as of July 31, 2026, nearly 100,000 foreign citizens were legally residing in Montenegro, with Ukrainians remaining one of the country’s largest foreign communities, according to data from the Montenegrin Ministry of the Interior and previously published detailed statistics from the ministry.
According to data from the Montenegrin Ministry of Internal Affairs, 67,344 foreigners hold temporary residence permits, while another 29,783 hold permanent residence permits. Thus, the total number of foreigners with regulated status exceeds 97,000. Of those with temporary residence permits, 40,907 hold permits for temporary residence and work.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs identifies citizens of Serbia, the Russian Federation, and Turkey as the three largest groups of foreign residents. The ministry did not provide a complete breakdown by citizenship as of July 31, 2026, in its published response; therefore, it is currently impossible to determine Ukraine’s exact current ranking based on this data.
However, the latest available comprehensive table from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which allows for a comparison of the main national groups, shows that as of October 31, 2023, Ukrainian citizens ranked fifth among foreigners with temporary or permanent residence in Montenegro.
At that time, the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ records listed:
Russia — 27,032 people;
Serbia—22,661;
Turkey—9,467;
Bosnia and Herzegovina—7,733;
Ukraine—5,208;
Kosovo—3,821;
Albania—3,027;
Belarus—1,288.
At the same time, the size of the Ukrainian community has been growing since 2023. An article in the Montenegrin publication Dan, cited by Niksic Radio and Television in March 2026, reported that in December there were over 9,000 Ukrainian citizens in the country with residence permits. By comparison, the number of Turkish citizens was approximately 13,000.
Ukrainians residing in Montenegro under temporary protection should be considered separately. This status is legally distinct from a standard temporary residence permit; therefore, data on individuals granted temporary protection and those with standard residence permits cannot be mechanically combined when compiling a ranking of foreign residents.
In March 2026, the Montenegrin government extended temporary protection for individuals from Ukraine until March 4, 2027.
The scale of the Ukrainian presence is also clearly evident in migration statistics. From January through early August 2025 alone, 69,826 Ukrainian citizens entered Montenegro, while 67,561 departed.
Thus, based on the available data, it can be confidently stated that Ukrainians are among the largest foreign communities in Montenegro.
The growth in the number of foreign residents is of significant economic importance to Montenegro.
With a population of approximately 624,000, the nearly 97,100 foreigners with legal residency account for about 15–16% of the country’s population. Foreign residents are particularly noticeable along the coast and in Podgorica, and they influence the real estate market, the rental market, services, employment, and consumer demand.
https://t.me/relocationrs/3458
According to “Serbian Economist”, owners from Ukraine own 21 yachts registered under the Montenegrin flag, placing Ukraine fifth among all countries in terms of the number of vessels in the Montenegrin registry and fourth among foreign owners.
As of August 12, 2026, the Montenegrin Yacht Registry contained a total of 576 vessels, according to an updated list from the country’s Maritime Safety Authority. Only 79 yachts are registered to individuals or legal entities from Montenegro itself, while owners from other countries own 497 yachts, or 86.3% of the total fleet.
Serbia remains the clear leader. Individuals and legal entities from Serbia own 193 yachts, or 33.5% of the total registry. Russia ranks second with 112 yachts and a 19.4% share. Together, owners from these two countries own 305 vessels—nearly 53% of all yachts flying the Montenegrin flag.
The ranking of the largest owner countries is as follows:
Rank Owner Country Yachts Share of the Register
1 Serbia 193 33.5%
2 Russia 112 19.4%
3 Montenegro 79 13.7%
4 United States 27 4.7%
5 Ukraine 213.6%
6 Bosnia and Herzegovina 18 3.1%
7 Israel 11 1.9%
8 Germany 10 1.7%
9–10 Switzerland 9 1.6%
9–10 Estonia 9 1.6%
11 United Kingdom 8 1.4%
The number of Ukrainian-owned yachts in the Montenegrin registry has increased significantly in just the last three months.
As of May 12, 2026, the registry listed 536 yachts, 17 of which were owned by Ukrainians. At that time, Ukraine ranked behind Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose owners held 18 yachts.
By August 12, the number of yachts owned by Ukrainians had risen from 17 to 21, as a result of which Ukraine overtook Bosnia and climbed to fifth place in the overall ranking.
Overall, since the end of 2025, the Montenegrin registry has grown by 51 yachts, and by 40 since May alone. At the same time, the current composition of the registry indicates that this growth is driven primarily by foreign owners.
In May, the owners of registered yachts represented 49 countries. Among them, in addition to the largest groups from Serbia, Russia, the United States, Ukraine, and other European countries, were owners from Canada, Turkey, Norway, as well as jurisdictions such as the British Virgin Islands, the Seychelles, Vanuatu, the Marshall Islands, and Belize.
At the same time, owners from EU countries account for a relatively small portion of the registry. In May, they accounted for only about 7.8% of the yachts. The most prominent EU countries were Germany and Estonia.
According to Experts.news, the European Commission is preparing proposals to reform the EU enlargement process, which are set to form the basis for a strategic discussion among EU leaders in October 2026. One of the key areas of discussion is the introduction of additional safeguards that would allow for the restriction of certain rights of new member states in the event they violate their obligations to the EU.
The European Commission has confirmed that it is preparing the reform. As early as July 6, an EC representative told Euronews that Brussels was working on its own proposals ahead of the October summit, as member states themselves are increasingly engaged in discussions regarding the new rules.
The European Council has officially confirmed that at its meeting on October 15–16, 2026, EU leaders will hold a strategic discussion on the Union’s enlargement and internal reforms. However, there is as yet no official confirmation that the European Commission will present the final package on October 15 specifically.
One of the most discussed options is a temporary restriction on certain voting rights of new member states.
Back in June, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg proposed discussing the possibility of a transition period during which new EU members would be unable to block decisions in the most sensitive areas, where unanimity among all countries is currently required.
This primarily concerns foreign policy, the EU budget, and the Union’s further expansion.
In addition, the five countries propose including special safeguard mechanisms in future accession treaties. These would allow measures to be taken against a new member state in the event of a serious deviation from the principles of democracy, the rule of law, or media freedom.
These proposals are largely linked to Hungary’s experience under Viktor Orbán, when Budapest repeatedly used the unanimity requirement to block important EU decisions.
However, for now, the discussion centers on reform options rather than newly agreed-upon rules.
This discussion is of the greatest significance for Montenegro, which is currently the most advanced candidate for accession.
According to the European Commission, the country has opened all 33 negotiation chapters, 16 of which have already been provisionally closed. Podgorica intends to conclude negotiations and become the 28th member of the European Union in 2028.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated in June that Montenegro’s accession by 2028 is “achievable.” The EU has already begun drafting the future accession treaty.
Therefore, Montenegro’s accession treaty could potentially become the first document of a new generation, providing additional guarantees for the EU following the country’s admission.
However, the European Commission is concerned about a scenario in which new conditions would be developed exclusively for Montenegro. That is why Brussels wants to establish a universal approach that can also be applied to future candidate countries.
The reform will be of direct importance to both Ukraine and Moldova.
Negotiations with both countries accelerated significantly in the summer of 2026. In June, the EU opened the first negotiation cluster with Ukraine and Moldova, focusing on fundamental issues—the rule of law, democratic institutions, and public administration. In July, negotiations also made progress on foreign policy issues.
That said, Ukraine and Moldova are much further from concluding negotiations than Montenegro.
For Kyiv, the future model is particularly important: if the EU does indeed introduce transitional restrictions on the right of veto, Ukraine could potentially gain full membership but would initially have limited ability to block decisions in certain areas.
At the same time, such a system could facilitate political consensus on Ukraine’s membership within the current EU, as some member states fear that expanding from 27 to more than 30 members would significantly complicate decision-making.
The assertion that France, Germany, and the Netherlands are generally opposed to rapid EU enlargement requires clarification. These countries support further enlargement but belong to a group of states that demand prior strengthening of institutional safeguards and stricter oversight of future members’ compliance with the rule of law. Together with Belgium and Luxembourg, they have proposed developing a new template for accession treaties.
France, in particular, takes a cautious stance regarding Ukraine’s accelerated accession. Officials in Paris are concerned about the budgetary implications, the impact of Ukraine’s large agricultural sector on the single market, and the potential for the decision-making process to become more complicated in an expanded EU.
Germany, on the other hand, actively supports enlargement but at the same time insists on reforming the European Union itself and is considering options for the gradual integration of new member states.
Essentially, the debate boils down to an attempt to resolve the tension between two objectives.
On the one hand, the geopolitical situation is prompting the EU to accelerate the accession of Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine, and Moldova. Brussels views enlargement as a tool for strengthening European security and limiting the influence of Russia and China in the Western Balkans and Eastern Europe.
On the other hand, existing member states are reluctant to admit new members who, once admitted, could use their veto power to exert pressure on other EU countries.
Therefore, the future model may be based on the following principle: full membership is granted more quickly, but some of the new member state’s political tools remain limited during a transition period, and compliance with obligations continues to be monitored even after accession.
The final parameters of such a system have not yet been agreed upon. The main political discussion is set to take place at the European Council on October 15–16, 2026, after which it will become clearer which of the proposed mechanisms may be included in the future accession treaties for Montenegro, Ukraine, Moldova, and other candidates.
