Abdixhiku: LDK stands firm in the face of blackmail

The leader of the Democratic League of Kosovo, Lumir Abdixhiku, has commented on recent developments in the country, reiterating that his party remains faithful to Ibrahim Rugova’s vision and to its enduring friendly relations with the United States of America.

He said that the KLA is part of Kosovo’s history and freedom, while emphasizing that the LDK will not back down in the face of labeling, threats or blackmail.

According to Abdixhiku, the institutional situation has left Kosovo without institutions, without defense capabilities and without the minimum necessary cohesion. In this context, he raised the question of whom these developments had truly served.

Abdixhiku said that being part of the LDK means walking with your head held high and having a clear political direction.

He stressed that this path is the path of Ibrahim Rugova: that of a free and independent Kosovo, bound in enduring friendship with America.

According to him, the KLA also represents the blood of Kosovo’s Albanians, while freedom connects Kosovo with America and NATO. Abdixhiku added that no one who uses patriotism for personal gain can appropriate the history built together.

The head of the LDK said that the party has strong foundations and that labels cannot change its convictions, while threats do not affect its stance. “You have mistaken us for mercenaries,” he declared.

Abdixhiku emphasized that the LDK is accountable only to Kosovo and its citizens, including those who sacrificed so that the country could exist. In the face of blackmail, he said, the party only grows stronger.

He also stated that the LDK knows what the country needs. According to Abdixhiku, if this party’s vision had been followed, Kosovo would today have a president and balancing stability, as well as institutional engagement to defend the truth about its war around the world.

“It was not heard. It was fought with every means!” he wrote.

Abdixhiku concluded that Kosovo is today without institutions, without the ability to defend itself and without the minimum cohesion in the country, reiterating the question: whom did they truly serve?