Nothing in what Ahmari says is objective and impartial. It is all derived from the Atlanticist ideological vision in which NATO figures as the defender of Western democratic civilization against the supposedly barbaric hordes of the East. This is an old Orientalist/racist narrative dressed up to fit contemporary political discourse. It is both ironic and tragic that the person originally from the East engages in such a discourse and perpetuates the colonizing grasp of the West.
Ahmari's statements show that he is not interested in the facts on the ground in Montenegro, but only in furthering NATO propaganda about it. He appears ignorant of the complexities of the political scene in Montenegro and takes for granted the statements of Montenegrin government officials known for their decades-long abuse of power, defamation of political opponents, and outright lies.
Ahmari also seems to be confused about the Balkan Yugoslav heritage. His expertise on the Balkans is evidently poor and one wonders what qualifies him to comment on the region. Considering how he deals with Montenegro, I shudder to think about what he says about other "border lands" and feel sorry for the WSJ readership who believe they are getting a truthful account of the situation.