Balkan criminal networks: particular organisations and dependencies across borders

Epigraph

“some more things, others fewer”.

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics VIII.9, translated by W. D. Ross. This short excerpt concerns different forms of association, not the legitimacy of a criminal group.

What this article is about

Consider fictional Jelena, an adult whose important relationships extend across several countries. An old acquaintance asks for help with a common undertaking, reminding her that their own people do not abandon one another. She has known him for years, but the request and surrounding relationships remain unclear. We establish neither her nationality, participation in crime, threats, voluntariness nor a safe response. She belongs to none of the cases discussed below. Through her story and limited sources on particular structures, this article distinguishes a shared region from a shared organisation, acquaintance from membership, gratitude from unlimited obligation, and life across borders from the disappearance of dependency.

I. The Balkans are a region, not one actor

A regional name can identify a subject without itself performing actions. Statements that the Balkans decided or Balkan people control can make a particular group, period and connection disappear. A person becomes represented by origins before anyone examines an action. Neighbouring countries do not thereby acquire common leadership, and family histories are no membership list. Discussing criminal networks requires names and relationships for which there is evidence. The usefulness of a geographical label is different from its ability to explain an individual's circumstances.

This is a limited discussion of several named examples and a dated account of structures in Montenegro. It is one regional article, not a full map of all Balkan countries or a list of current leaders. Sources have different purposes: an administrative decision, threat assessment, analytical discussion and statement about research methods. They can be read together while retaining their differences. Their proximity creates no single investigation in which every connection is established in the same way and the whole region surveyed equally.

The GI-TOC discussion from autumn 2021 critically examines the expression Balkan cartel. Its analysis distinguishes cooperation across borders from a common central command and uses rivalry between Kavač and Škaljari as a limited example. This is a dated analytical text. It is neither our verification of their present structures and case outcomes nor categorical proof that all hierarchies are absent in 2026.

For Jelena, the distinction begins before any prominent name appears. People may call themselves their own through childhood places, language, friendship or shared work. These connections are real but different. One acquaintance's request does not become an instruction from an entire community. Distrust of one request need not mean repudiating everybody close. Losing these distinctions offers a false choice between complete submission and rejection of one's human past. Neither position makes the actual request clearer or establishes what a particular relationship involves.

II. A named example has a date and a limit

The US Treasury/OFAC release of 15 March 2023 names Edin Gacanin as leader of Tito and Dino. It describes a family and friendship circle from Bosnia and Herzegovina, activity across countries and a link to the Kinahan Organized Crime Group. It also announces an administrative designation under EO 14059. Here this is an attributed example at the release date, not a criminal judgment against every relative or acquaintance or a check of present sanctions status.

Several relationships remain distinct: within the named circle, with another organisation, with places of activity and with an authority making a decision. Mentioning some participants' relatives does not establish participation for all their relatives. A connection with another organisation does not prove one leader for every organisation. Someone's country of origin explains neither every action nor the views of its population. The more carefully relationships are described, the less the reader must invent on a source's behalf. Precision concerns how a conclusion is formed as well as what it says.

We construct no chain of biographies in which familiar surnames form one succession. Repeated names can concern different reasons for publication and different procedural stages. Present status needs a separate check. An old release remains valuable evidence of what an agency stated then; today's reading date does not automatically make it current. Keeping that limit means using the document honestly, rather than declaring official material useless. It also prevents one recognisable name carrying more of the explanation than the evidence actually supports.

Jelena does not become part of Tito and Dino, Kavač or Škaljari because her fictional story appears beside their names. We give her acquaintance no role from a real case. The example concerns a person's position, not fictional additions to an investigation. A reader recognising something familiar in the situation has established neither who is involved nor which structure, if any, lies behind a request. Similar circumstances cannot replace facts. The fiction's familiarity should make questions understandable without pretending to supply their answers.

III. A core, permanent circle and cell are different positions

The official Montenegro SOCTA 2024, pages 24–25, describes many of the groups considered through a stable kinship or friendship core, permanent members and separate cells, sometimes specialised. Data concern June 2021–March 2024. The text is dated August 2024; its English publication page is dated March 2025. This is a dated agency assessment, not every Balkan organisation's structure or a 2026 census.

The distinction challenges an image of an equally informed family. Proximity to one participant does not describe distance from a decision. A person may know some relationships and not others. Equally, a small visible role does not automatically establish what they understood or did. Knowledge, action, authority and dependence need separate questions. A circle on a diagram cannot settle them by apparent distance from a centre. Organisational positions help describe a structure but do not by themselves resolve every human or legal circumstance within it.

Page 11 of the assessment identifies a separate classified version containing detailed information on groups and roles. We have not read it. Invented exact lists should not fill out a public document. Its account of structure helps distinguish positions while preserving a limit on particular knowledge. Missing detail establishes neither the absence of a structure nor guilt for everyone nearby. Sometimes an accurate result is precisely to leave an unseen part undrawn. Neither a complete-looking diagram nor a confident narrative makes the underlying information more available.

If Jelena's acquaintance says that everybody knows everybody, that still establishes no equal understanding of events. Longstanding trust in one person can coexist with uncertainty about others. Wanting clarity is not in itself proof of disloyalty. The article nevertheless prescribes no independent investigation or way to obtain information. Distinguishing knowledge helps understand a position; it does not identify a safe action in an actual environment. The gap between understanding a question and being able to act on it must remain visible.

IV. A border changes location without necessarily changing relationships

The selected SOCTA section describes connections beyond national and regional borders, including continuing conflicts. This is an attributed observation about its period. It establishes neither a threat to everyone abroad nor personal safety after relocation. Residence, connections with particular participants and actual circumstances need separate answers. A geographical change is no ready finding that danger exists or has ended. The report cannot evaluate an individual's current situation merely because that person lives in one of the places a reader associates with it.

Dependency across borders can concern different things. Fictional Jelena might need a conversation with a relative, information about a family event or fulfilment of an ordinary lawful obligation. None is declared a criminal connection. A different question arises if an acquaintance uses one need to demand any other action: what exactly connects people, and where does its scope end? One common undertaking establishes no consent to every possible undertaking. A relationship can be important without acquiring authority over every other relationship a person has.

Interdependence itself establishes no equality of possibilities. One person may understand local conditions better while another depends on their explanation. This does not yet prove deception or criminal control. But saying that people need each other does not establish equal understanding of an obligation or opportunity to discuss its contents. Attention to this difference avoids treating usefulness as proof of justice while also avoiding the conclusion that every inequality constitutes unlawful coercion. Both cautions matter when interpreting dependence through a broad organisational image.

Different countries also mean different institutions, rules, competences and conditions of access to help. A general article selects no jurisdiction or contact route for a person. It promises no service capable of settling another country's questions simply by its name. International cooperation between authorities is not individual protection either. An institution's existence, a possible consultation and an actual result remain distinct, especially for someone with limited means and information. These differences should not disappear behind reassuring language about cooperation or assistance.

Jelena might think distance makes the request irrelevant, or conversely that a network crossing borders makes separation forever impossible. Our fiction establishes neither conclusion. Distance and particular relationships need consideration together. Unknowns cannot be filled with promises of complete freedom after an address change or a verdict of permanent dependence. Both would speak on behalf of conditions the author does not know. Leaving a question open is different from claiming it has no answer in the person's actual circumstances.

V. Kinship and acquaintance are no membership card

When a source describes family connections inside a structure, every family can be mistaken for its extension. Yet a relationship does not automatically transfer one person's role to another. Brother, neighbour, spouse, former schoolmate and business partner describe different relations; none by its name proves an action. Established connections can be considered without treating origins as inherited guilt. That distinction matters especially for someone who did not choose their childhood environment. Being born nearby and undertaking something as an informed adult cannot simply become the same event.

Closeness does not make every action irrelevant either. Jelena might know something about a request's purpose, know nothing important or understand a part. Her affection settles none of these possibilities. Feelings and information concern different subjects. A human connection should not erase possible harm. Examining participation should not require declaring a whole earlier life false or every loved person dangerous. Preserving both concerns makes an account more precise without having to decide in advance that personal attachment either proves or cancels everything else.

The statement that their own people do not abandon one another can express ordinary mutual assistance or support an indefinite demand. The phrase alone proves no coercion. Relationship contents and circumstances matter. But help received once does not turn every later request into consent already given. Here the person retains purposes of her own, rather than becoming the holder of a debt whose extent someone else can redefine whenever they recall the past. Gratitude's importance and a request's actual scope remain different questions.

Nor should every language or community connection be treated as suspicious. People have lawful reasons to support each other, work and live across countries. Accusing a whole community removes distinctions for uninvolved people and for people harmed within it. Attention to a request avoids replacing one generalisation with another: an acquaintance must be benevolent, or must be dangerous. A precise question does not require choosing either image first. It can concern what has actually been asked without claiming a complete explanation for the person asking.

VI. Gratitude does not determine an obligation's entire scope

Suppose the acquaintance genuinely helped Jelena through an earlier difficulty. This is a new condition in the fiction, not an established biography. Gratitude can remain without pretending the help meant nothing. Yet its importance gives no unlimited right over another person's future decisions. A real agreement, promise, ethical feeling and someone else's expectation need distinction. Not every unwelcome demand is criminal, and not every reminder of kindness establishes an obligation with the contents now requested. Recognising the original help is different from deciding what follows from it.

The word repay can hide a disagreement. Repaying a particular lawful debt, performing an agreed service and demonstrating loyalty through every action are different things. This article establishes no debt for Jelena and exempts her from no actual duties. It authorises neither deception nor evasion of lawful examination. The question is whether a defined obligation has been replaced by an indefinite transfer of decisions. In a real situation, that requires facts and applicable rules, rather than the force of somebody's reproach or the observer's preferred story.

An observer can also use gratitude as a shortcut: because she was helped, she chose everything else; or because she needed help, she never had any choice. Both skip the sequence. Knowledge, conditions and actions at relevant moments matter. Need deserves attention without combining past and future into one undifferentiated act. A person can be grateful, frightened, unconvinced and still insufficiently informed for a final conclusion. Neither a sympathetic observer nor a hostile one acquires the missing information through certainty about her character.

We need invent no national psychology of obligation. Similar ethical questions can arise across cultures and in lawful relationships. This article's specific subject lies in particular structures and transnational connections, rather than a belief that people in a region value freedom differently by nature. A shared human distinction makes a person visible within circumstances; it does not replace research into those circumstances or declare every system identical. The comparison should clarify a question while leaving the subject's actual differences intact.

VII. Association has a subject rather than encompassing a whole life

In Nicomachean Ethics VIII.9, translated by W. D. Ross, Aristotle distinguishes what people share and the particular advantages of different associations. This is a limited philosophical comparison. We identify no criminal network with legitimate political community and adopt no historical status or gender hierarchy. The selected question is different: why should involvement in one relationship automatically make everything else common? A distinction from an older philosophical setting can support that question without supplying current law or a complete model of contemporary organisations.

For Jelena we can distinguish childhood memory, closeness with one person, a particular kindness and the current request. These may overlap without becoming one subject. Shared history establishes no common purpose in every present matter. Nor must a person stop loving a home region to make a particular disagreement credible. The scope of association deserves precise naming, particularly when somebody tries to make it unlimited. Recognising a relationship can coexist with examining what is being claimed through it.

This promises neither ease nor safety in expressing a limit. Philosophy does not establish an acquaintance's response or available protection. It also cancels no ordinary lawful contractual demand or other person's rights. Real conditions lie between understanding and action. The article preserves the question without making clarity a test of courage: if you understand, prove it immediately through refusal, a public statement or a risky meeting. A person can recognise a distinction while still needing an appropriate assessment of how it relates to their actual circumstances.

A supporter also needs a defined subject of involvement. Helping with a conversation does not mean controlling every consequence; sympathy does not mean confirming every supposition. Limited competence need not require abandoning the relationship or devaluing need. Someone can lack a complete answer without acquiring authority over another life. This matters in families and professional support alike. Help remains particular participation rather than a new unlimited subordination. Naming its limits can protect its actual usefulness from promises it has no means to fulfil.

VIII. Shared burdens and personal responsibility can stand together

In Galatians 6:1–5, KJV, helping with another's burdens appears beside attention to one's own work and burden. The context also concerns meekness and self-examination. Here this is a Christian ethical ground, not a ready allocation of legal responsibility. It requires neither covering up crime, carrying out every request nor treating someone as unworthy of support because their past raises difficult questions. Both help and responsibility should retain the particular subjects to which they refer.

In the fiction, we might ask which actual difficulty of Jelena's someone can share without taking over every decision. Help does not become less real because its scope is limited. Equally, the statement about one's own burden should not demand coping alone. Both parts remain: support is possible and responsibility remains one's own. Neither gives somebody a right to unconditional loyalty or a reason to refuse all attention until every circumstance has been established. A moral comparison should leave this tension visible rather than resolve it by erasing one side.

If someone was harmed, their story remains separate. They need not participate in easing Jelena's distress, forgive her, restore contact or confirm a new self-image. Unresolved responsibility equally does not require her to reject necessary lawful assistance. These concerns can stand together. Support justifies neither every action nor a claim that all consequences are closed. Considering harm supplies no reason to remove all dignity or assign one permanent role to a person. Care and accountability need not become tools for silencing each other.

Aristotle's scopes of association and the Christian discussion of burdens have different foundations. They form no single law for Balkan networks, religious portrait of the population or clinical protocol. Their usefulness here lies in two precise questions: what do people share, and which part of a difficulty can be shared? These answers do not automatically establish a safe action, other participants' consent or an institution's outcome. The comparison can help orient reflection while acknowledging that each of those matters needs its own grounds.

IX. Threats, assistance and findings about a case are different tasks

We do not know whether Jelena faces threats. Continuing pressure in a real situation needs its own assessment; it cannot be reduced to memory or indecision. Difficult feelings alone also establish no criminal organisation. Current events, knowledge of the past and assumptions need distinction. This article supplies no safe refusal, contact, negotiation, departure, examination of participants or movement across borders. A general thought cannot select a suitable route for a person. Its limits concern the actual information available, rather than an assertion that no lawful assistance could help.

Results of help also differ. Hearing of an institution, receiving a response, discussing a question and obtaining particular assistance are different states. None follows automatically from its predecessor. In a cross-border situation, referring to international cooperation cannot promise protection. Competence, data rules, individual access and actual conditions need separate consideration. We have checked no particular service, confidentiality, immunity or relatives' protection and present none as universally available. An institution's name should not be made to carry an outcome that has not occurred.

Even precise research figures require understanding their basis. The UN account of the 2020 UNODC report notes different data sources and discrepancies between conviction statistics and qualitative interviews. We use that methodological limit, not a current crime estimate. The full report was not read. Judicial outcomes cannot become a direct count of every active network, still less a measure of danger for every person from the region.

Incomplete knowledge does not make every experience false or permit an author to promise a desired decision in advance. Legal status depends on established circumstances and applicable rules. Ethical discussion, factual investigation and competent support may have different tasks. Readers need not become experts in everything to recognise a present difficulty. Supporters need not become omniscient to maintain humane relations and state honestly what is known. The practical value of attention need not wait for a complete account of every organisation and event.

X. Another life remains after dependence weakens

Suppose Jelena's dependence later weakens. This is a separate fictional stage, not an outcome the article has proved. A new address or the end of a request does not automatically remove consequences. Rapid restored income, trust, reputation or relationships is not promised. Yet a person need not remain only the bearer of a difficult history. Further activities and connections can have meaning without first obtaining a final explanation for the entire past. Neither an instant new beginning nor permanent confinement to one role follows from the fiction.

Jelena might still miss places, people and ordinary events. These feelings establish no wish to return to every former relationship. They do not make every such connection safe either. Direct contact should not become a test of freedom, nor every memory proof of hidden loyalty to a network. A particular meeting concerns actual circumstances, not an examination of whether someone relates to the past correctly. People close to her also retain consent and boundaries. Their involvement cannot be assumed from the importance of her own wishes.

This later stage requires no public repudiation of language, family or culture. Responsibility concerns actions rather than mandatory humiliation of origins. A person can build a lawful life while still considering consequences. We have established no recovery programme, individual availability, confidentiality or institutional outcome. Uncertainty should be hidden neither by promises of a swift new beginning nor by claims that nothing different will ever be possible. An open question about real conditions is different from a verdict on someone's whole future.

Precise research into organisations and attention to a person support each other. Names, periods and evidenced links resist the myth of one regional actor. Questions about knowledge, need, actions and one's own purposes resist turning a person into a point on somebody else's map. Such discussion cannot settle every circumstance. It can avoid adding collective guilt, unlimited obligation or a promise of safety without grounds. That limit remains useful even where neither the wider investigation nor a person's own questions are finished.

What this means in practice

Ask what a source names: a particular structure, cooperation, an alleged connection or a general image. Then distinguish data period, document date and reading date. SOCTA 2024 does not become a 2026 census because it was opened today. An administrative decision is no conviction of everyone nearby. These are questions about a publication, not instructions to examine participants or gather information about a group independently. Precision begins by preserving the subject and scope of what was actually read.

Within the fiction, distinguish acquaintance, help received, an actual agreement, somebody's expectation and a current request. What is known and what remains assumed? Shared speech establishes no membership, gratitude does not determine every future obligation, and an unwelcome condition alone proves no unlawful coercion. Equally, an ordinary relationship's name does not make every action harmless. Actions retain their particular circumstances and consequences. The fact that one question has a clear answer should not let it silently answer all the others.

Where similar pressure occurs now, no refusal, contact, negotiation, departure or border-crossing method has been selected here. The article guarantees none safe and prohibits no lawful help. Actual consideration depends on place, role, circumstances, rights and protection conditions. A project's name, contact details or friendly response is no individual protection. Service availability, confidentiality rules, immunity and relatives' protection need separate grounds; this material has not verified them. A reader need not treat uncertainty as personal failure or pretend to possess information they lack.

Support should retain its actual scope and limits. A person must not become a region's representative, nor someone harmed a required participant in another's relief. Rapid recovery or a desired institutional decision cannot be promised. A particular need can be discussed without taking over another life. Wanting to help or understand requires no performance of complete knowledge. Keeping distinctions makes room to stay with a question without presenting what remains unknown as already resolved. That is compatible with care, scrutiny and the separate rights of everyone involved.

Key quotation

“Bear ye one another's burdens”.

Galatians 6:2, KJV. Nearby, 6:5 says “every man shall bear his own burden”. These distinct emphases create neither a duty to fulfil every request nor a demand to manage without help.

Connections between traditions

Ground	Question about the situation	Limit
Aristotle VIII.9, scopes of association	What do people share, and why should one relationship encompass the rest?	No legitimation of criminal association or status hierarchy; no assessment of refusal safety.
Galatians 6:1–5, help and one's own burden	How can difficulty be shared without taking over all another person's decisions?	No demand to conceal harm, forgive or cope alone; no legal allocation of guilt.

Primary sources

1. Government of Montenegro, SOCTA 2024 Midterm Review, English PDF: August 2024 title, June 2021–March 2024 data, publication page 11 March 2025. Selected pages, especially 10–11 and 23–27, read; not the whole classified or public version.
2. US Treasury/OFAC, 15 March 2023, main release and Gacanin/Tito and Dino section. A dated administrative action, not a current check of each status.
3. GI-TOC, Debunking the myth…, autumn 2021, main analytical discussion. Complete cases mentioned there were not separately read.
4. UN Albania, UNODC report presentation, 14 December 2020, main release, not the unread full report or current statistics.
5. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics VIII.9, W. D. Ross, complete selected section and a short excerpt.
6. Galatians 6:1–5, KJV, all five verses read. The page marks KJV Public Domain; worldwide full-republication status was not separately researched.

Tags

Balkan criminal networks, cross-border connections, kinship, membership, mutual assistance, gratitude, obligations, responsibility, dignity.

About the authors

Andrey Zarinsh is the author and founder of United Wisdom. He explores inner transformation, the unity of traditions, intercultural dialogue and contemporary spiritual discipline. Instagram: @andrey.zarinsh.

Maria Evilkut is a co-author of United Wisdom. Alongside research, she seeks to test these ideas in practice and observe how principles of unity and mutual understanding work in real relationships between people and cultures. Instagram: @ilkutki.