Gurakuç Kuçi, professor at Universum College and external collaborator at ISLH “OCTOPUS”, has reacted sharply to recent statements by Serbian officials who labeled the actions of Kosovo institutions as “ethnic cleansing”.
Të lidhura
None found
According to him, the rhetoric used by the deputy leader of the Serbian List, Igor Simiq, and the Serbian minister Snezhana Paunović, aims to give an ethnic coloring to purely legal measures, thus hiding Serbia’s own past, which bears responsibility for the most brutal ethnic cleansings in the region during the 1990s.
Kuçi emphasized that the demolition of 11 unauthorized structures around Lake Ujman is simply enforcement of administrative norms and not an ethnically motivated action. He accused Belgrade of exploiting this narrative as part of a hybrid warfare operation against Kosovo.
In a detailed statement, the professor posed the question of how it is possible that the very country that carried out terrible ethnic cleansing in the Balkans during the 1990s today uses the term “ethnic cleansing” the most to position itself as a victim and to justify a new escalation of conflict.
He referred to a recent interview by Igor Simiq for the Serbian media PINK, where the deputy leader of the Serbian List stated that the aim is for “Serbia to be dragged into some conflict at any cost”. Kuçi noted that this statement did not come after any military incident, but in the simple context of an order for the demolition of unauthorized structures.
He also recalled the case of Serbian minister Snezhana Paunović, who said that if she had been in Slobodan Milošević’s position in 1998, she would have ethnically cleansed Kosovo. For Kuçi, the subsequent reaction of Prime Minister Gjuro Macut was indicative of a tacit stance toward the idea of cleansing: he did not condemn the goal itself, but only the fact that the statement could be considered official policy.
The professor also brought to attention concrete examples from Kosovo’s territory. He recalled that for years authorities have stopped and demolished unauthorized constructions in areas of special ecological interest such as Batllava, Prevalla, Sibovci, or Rugova. In the case of Rugova, residents had protested and called the decision unfair and discriminatory, but no one had labeled it as “ethnic cleansing”. This, according to him, shows the stark contrast with how Serbia presents the situation at Ujman.
In conclusion, Kuçi argues that Serbia, through this strategy, aims to shift purely administrative actions into the ethnic sphere, using the accusation of cleansing as a means to provoke conflict. Belgrade carries out this plan through hybrid warfare, terrorist attacks, or by hoping for a change in geopolitical circumstances. He concluded by warning that the same logic of stabilocracy that strengthened figures like Hitler and Putin is doing the same with Serbian leader Aleksandar Vučić and Serbia itself.
