Kosovo’s Minister of Defence, Ejup Maqedonci, has stated that Serbia has established 48 military and gendarmerie bases near the border with Kosovo, describing this as a concerning factor for national security.
Të lidhura
None found
He drew a comparison between this situation and Russia’s manoeuvres before the annexation of Ukrainian territories, stressing that, in addition to hybrid attacks, Kosovo is also facing threats arising from the deployment of Serbian military and police forces along the border line.
“There are 48 military and gendarmerie bases belonging to the Serbian armed and police forces positioned near the border with Kosovo. This situation reminds us of what Russia did before the annexation of Ukraine.”
Hoxha: Serbia does not recognise Kosovo’s statehood and treats it as its own territory
Former serviceman Hafir Hoxha, speaking in an interview with “Bota sot”, commented on Minister Maqedonci’s statements regarding the deployment of 48 Serbian military and gendarmerie bases along Kosovo’s border.
He assessed that the possibility of a new crisis with Serbia should not be ruled out, but added that the existence of military bases does not necessarily indicate preparations for an armed conflict.
“From a security perspective, Kosovo should not dismiss the possibility of a new crisis with Serbia, but neither should it equate the presence of bases with a decision to start a war. Minister Maqedonci’s statement about the 48 Serbian bases near the border is concerning and requires a serious assessment of the security situation,” Hoxha said.
According to him, the figure was made public by Kosovo’s institutions as early as 2023, when 28 advanced military bases and 20 gendarmerie bases were reported.
“The presence of these bases is an essential element in Kosovo’s defence planning, but it does not in itself prove that Serbia has decided to launch an attack. To assess the real threat, the movements of troops, weaponry, operational readiness, logistical capabilities and intelligence data must be examined. The number of bases alone is not enough to determine whether there is a direct threat,” he explained.
Hoxha stressed that Serbia remains a potential threat to Kosovo, given its stance towards the country’s independence and sovereignty.
“Belgrade officially does not recognise Kosovo as a state and continues to view it as part of Serbian territory. In this context, Kosovo must take Belgrade’s political rhetoric, the modernisation of Serbia’s armed forces, armed incidents and efforts to destabilise the north seriously.
“The possibility that Serbia could take advantage of a political or regional crisis to exert pressure on Kosovo should also not be ruled out. However, without concrete evidence, it cannot be said that a large-scale attack is inevitable,” the former serviceman stressed.
Commenting on Minister Maqedonci’s parallel between Serbia and Russia, Hoxha said there were similarities in the use of military and political pressure, but also fundamental differences between the two cases.
“Before invading Ukraine in February 2022, Russia had amassed more than 150,000 troops around Ukrainian territory, while NATO had warned of preparations for a large-scale offensive.
“In Kosovo’s case, the presence of 48 Serbian bases is an important military signal, but it is not evidence that Serbia has decided to invade. The similarity lies in the possibility of using military pressure, political rhetoric and destabilisation to change the reality on the ground.
“Nevertheless, Serbia’s actual capabilities, the readiness of its forces and the role of KFOR must be taken into consideration. Therefore, the comparison with Russia may serve as a strategic warning, but not as proof that Serbia will necessarily follow the same scenario,” he stressed.
Regarding Kosovo’s security, Hoxha said that KFOR’s presence and the support of international allies were significant deterrent factors, but that the country must continue investing in its own defence capabilities.
“International circumstances can change quickly, but this does not mean that the allies will abandon Kosovo or that Serbia will launch an attack. KFOR continues to have a mandate to maintain a safe environment and freedom of movement, serving as an important deterrent.
“However, Kosovo should not rely entirely on its allies’ response for its security. It must continue strengthening the Kosovo Security Force with modern equipment, air defence, surveillance systems and rapid-response capabilities. It also needs to prepare its military reserve, deepen cooperation with Albania and NATO, and strengthen intelligence, cybersecurity and the protection of critical infrastructure.
“Buying weapons alone is not enough. Trained personnel, maintenance, command and coordination with allies are also important.
“The statement about the 48 Serbian bases should be treated as a serious national security issue, but without creating panic. Kosovo must prepare for every possible threat so that it is not caught unprepared.
“Peace is preserved not only through diplomacy and alliances, but also through strong institutions and defence capabilities. A small state cannot control geopolitical changes, but it can increase its ability to confront them,” Hoxha concluded in comments to “Bota sot”.
Gecaj: The parallel with Russia should be seen as a warning to remain vigilant and prepared, not as an indication that an attack is inevitable
Meanwhile, Hysen Gecaj, a security expert, said that the 48 Serbian military and gendarmerie bases near Kosovo constitute an important element of national security.
However, he stressed that the number of bases does not in itself show that Serbia has decided to attack Kosovo, underlining the need to analyse the capabilities and readiness of Serbian forces.
“This issue should be viewed from the perspective of national security, Serbia’s military capabilities and the possibility that these capabilities could be used to exert pressure or carry out armed actions against Kosovo.
“The key point is this: the presence of Serbian military and gendarmerie bases near the border line is a significant real factor in assessing Kosovo’s security, but the figure of 48 alone does not prove that Serbia has decided to attack Kosovo. Their location, size, composition, weaponry, readiness and the movements of the forces must be examined.
“To understand their significance, we must distinguish between three issues: the capability to intervene, the intention to intervene and the conditions that would make an intervention possible,” he said.
According to the security expert, the 48 Serbian bases near Kosovo carry weight because of their proximity to the border, the possibility of an immediate response and their potential for military and political pressure.
However, Gecaj stressed that their significance varies depending on the capabilities and function of each base.
“According to a previous interview with Maqedonci, the bases are located approximately 300 metres to 5 kilometres from the border line. He described them as forward operational bases of the Serbian army and gendarmerie.
“In September 2023, the Government of Kosovo stated that there were 28 military bases and 20 gendarmerie bases. According to the statement issued at the time, during a deployment of Serbian forces towards the border, these positions also included heavy artillery and air-defence capabilities.
“This has several military implications:
“Geographical proximity: the forces can respond more quickly than units located far from the border.
“Surveillance and control: the bases enable monitoring of the terrain and support for patrols.
“Concentration of forces: if the bases are supported by larger units, they may form part of a broader operational structure.
“Psychological and political pressure: the continued presence of forces can create insecurity among the population and be used as a means of pressure against Kosovo’s institutions.
“However, a permanent base must be distinguished from a temporary position, as must a small gendarmerie base from a facility supporting heavy combat units. Without up-to-date information on each base, we cannot assume that they all have the same military significance,” he stressed.
Gecaj also said that the comparison with Russia before the invasion of Ukraine serves as a warning to Kosovo, since the concentration of forces near the border can generate a military risk.
However, the Serbian bases do not prove that Serbia has decided to attack Kosovo, and the comparison should therefore serve as a call for vigilance and preparedness, not panic.
“The comparison made by Maqedonci has a basis from a military perspective: the concentration of forces near a state’s territory can create the possibility of a rapid operation, especially if accompanied by logistical preparations and a political decision to use force.
“But there is an important difference. In Russia’s case, the military preparations were followed by the invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. In Kosovo’s case, the existence of Serbian bases is not enough to conclude that Serbia has decided to follow the same scenario.
“The comparison should serve as a warning for monitoring and preparedness, not as proof that an attack is inevitable,” he said.
Furthermore, the security expert said that Kosovo should strengthen its security by monitoring the Serbian bases, coordinating with KFOR and preparing for military and cyber threats.
He stressed that citizens should be informed with verified facts, while remaining calm and avoiding panic.
“In my view, the response should be measured but serious. Kosovo must be prepared for various scenarios without creating panic among the population.
“It should maintain an updated overview of the bases—their locations, types, capabilities and changes in their activities—through lawful intelligence sources and cooperation with allies.
“It should distinguish routine activity from unusual preparations: not every military movement is a sign of an attack, but coordinated movements and the gathering of capabilities must be assessed seriously.
“It should strengthen coordination with KFOR through clear communication channels, information-sharing and procedures for responding to incidents.
“It should prepare for threats that are not only military in nature: cyberattacks, disinformation, sabotage and actions by armed groups.
“It should preserve calm and social unity: citizens must be informed with verified facts, not rumours or unconfirmed scenarios,” Hysen Gecaj concluded in comments to “Bota sot”.
