Gradual Transfer of Responsibilities from KFOR Sends a Significant Political Message for Kosovo

The beginning of a gradual transition away from KFOR’s permanent presence on the main bridge over the Iber River in Mitrovica, as well as the step-by-step inclusion of the Kosovo Police in the mission’s security architecture at the Deçan Monastery, are seen as important developments for stability and security in Kosovo.

This process follows an assessment that the security situation has improved and, at the same time, increases the responsibility of Kosovo’s institutions for maintaining order, particularly in the northern part of the country. The change in KFOR’s presence on the Iber Bridge also carries political and symbolic significance, as for many years it has been one of the most sensitive points embodying the division of Mitrovica.

According to analysts, KFOR’s gradual move away from the main bridge does not mean NATO is leaving Kosovo. They interpret it as an expansion of the role of local institutions, a strengthening of institutional sovereignty and an important signal of the state’s consolidation.

Diplomatically and politically, the move is also seen as a sign of greater confidence by Euro-Atlantic partners in Kosovo’s institutions. However, the process is expected to be accompanied by concrete measures and a clearer international policy, including progress for Kosovo toward Euro-Atlantic structures.

Tahiraj: Kosovo needs bold decisions, not “sweeteners”

Commentator and activist Saim Tahiraj, speaking to “Bota sot,” welcomed NATO’s latest move. He expressed hope that the initiative is serious and represents a good start.

According to Tahiraj, however, the decisions and actions previously taken in both cases have been harmful and have cost Kosovo dearly. He particularly criticized the division of Mitrovica and the deployment of French KFOR troops on the bridge over the Iber, linking them to a series of historical mistakes for which, he said, Albanians have paid through the partition of territories, massacres and successive genocides.

Tahiraj said the Treaty of San Stefano severely harmed Albanians, while the Congress of Berlin, with very few changes, continued the same policy. According to him, numerous occupations and ethnic cleansing campaigns have left Albanians among the most widely dispersed peoples in the world today.

He said that many Albanian territories remained under the occupation of neighboring states, which he described as predatory and supported by European powers and the Ottoman Empire. In his assessment, Albanian history shows that the great powers have often made decisions without consulting the peoples affected and to their detriment.

The commentator emphasized that the existence of two Albanian states today was made possible by the strong support of Austria and, later, the United States of America. He added that some of Europe’s historical mistakes were only partially corrected, and that this happened thanks to strong American support.

Referring to NATO’s intervention in Kosovo, Tahiraj claimed that several countries that had historically supported Serbia attempted to sabotage it. According to him, the division of Mitrovica by the French and the placement of several religious sites under special protection should be interpreted along the same lines, creating a situation he considers unacceptable for a sovereign state.

He said KFOR’s deployment on the Iber Bridge cannot be treated solely as a technical security measure because, for years, it has symbolized division rather than unity.

According to Tahiraj, KFOR’s presence at checkpoints at the entrance and exit of the road running alongside the Deçan Monastery must also be handled with particular care. Such measures, he argued, must not become permanent mechanisms that undermine sovereignty and obstruct the normal functioning of the state of Kosovo.

Tahiraj said Albanians have built, preserved and protected their heritage over the centuries, raising the question of why it is now considered necessary for these sites to be guarded by foreign military forces. If Kosovo is a free and sovereign state, he said, its institutions should have the capacity and responsibility to protect every cultural and religious heritage site without distinction.

He described NATO’s initiative as welcome, provided its objective is the gradual transfer of responsibilities to Kosovo’s institutions. Tahiraj expressed the hope that this process will continue and be fully implemented.

In conclusion, he called for the bridge over the Iber to be opened completely. According to him, bridges are meant to bring people together, not divide them, and therefore a bridge in the heart of a city should not remain indefinitely as a symbol of division.

Tahiraj called on the international community and the European Union to change their policy toward Kosovo. He said the country no longer needs transitional measures, incomplete solutions or further obstacles, but a clearly defined political and institutional perspective, as well as swift integration into Euro-Atlantic structures.

According to him, NATO should also move Kosovo closer to full membership, as the country poses no threat to regional stability. On the contrary, Tahiraj said Kosovo’s membership in Euro-Atlantic structures would provide greater guarantees for regional peace and stability.

He warned that initiatives that remain merely symbolic become “sweeteners” intended to calm Kosovo temporarily. According to him, the country does not need such measures, but bold decisions, concrete steps and a clear policy from the international community. Tahiraj concluded his comments to “Bota sot” by saying that history has provided enough lessons and that the time has come not to repeat it.

Halili: Change in KFOR’s presence is an important security signal

Political analyst Nijazi Halili, speaking to “Bota sot,” said the process should not be described as NATO’s withdrawal from Kosovo. According to him, it represents a gradual transformation in the way the security presence and responsibilities are organized.

Halili said KFOR’s decision to begin the gradual transition of its permanent presence away from the main bridge over the Iber River in Mitrovica should be understood, first and foremost, as an important stage in the development of Kosovo’s security architecture, rather than as NATO’s departure.

He recalled that KFOR itself had described the process as gradual, dependent on the situation on the ground and coordinated with Kosovo’s institutions, the Kosovo Police, EULEX and other relevant actors. The mission also announced that it would maintain a visible presence in North Mitrovica, South Mitrovica and other areas of the north.

For this reason, Halili said, developments at the Iber Bridge do not create a “security vacuum.” They mark a cautious transition from a static international presence toward a model in which local security institutions assume more duties.

He described as particularly significant the fact that the change at the Iber Bridge is proceeding in parallel with the gradual inclusion of Kosovo Police officers in KFOR’s security system at the Deçan Monastery. According to him, developments at these two locations, both of which are highly sensitive politically and ethnically, show that NATO increasingly regards the Kosovo Police as part of the structure that must be capable of ensuring order and protection for all communities.

Halili said the transition at the bridge over the Iber also conveys an important political and diplomatic message. Since it has for years been one of the most sensitive symbols of Mitrovica’s division, the change in NATO’s presence at this location indicates, according to him, that security conditions have improved to a level that allows the model of international engagement to be adjusted.

In the analyst’s assessment, this also demonstrates a higher level of confidence in the ability of local institutions to manage security. However, he stressed that a clear distinction must be made between NATO’s withdrawal and the optimization of its presence, as this is a case of the latter.

Halili emphasized that KFOR is not leaving the north, nor is it abandoning its obligation to respond. On the contrary, the mission has said its personnel are positioned in such a way that they can respond to relevant developments, while its commitment to creating a safe environment for all communities will continue.

According to him, this is also where the main message for Serbia and any actor that may seek to destabilize the north lies. The international presence is not being followed by an absence of security, but by the strengthening of the responsibility of local institutions under NATO’s continued support. Halili described this as far more significant than the removal of a static post from a bridge.

The analyst said the process could also affect political and diplomatic narratives concerning northern Kosovo. According to him, the development weakens the claim that this part of the country is necessarily an area where Kosovo’s institutions cannot exercise their security responsibilities normally.

The inclusion of the Kosovo Police in KFOR’s security structure in Deçan and the gradual transfer of responsibilities at other sensitive locations create an important precedent, according to Halili. Kosovo’s institutions should bear primary responsibility for security, while NATO should continue to serve as an external guarantor and a stabilizing factor.

Halili also linked this development to Kosovo’s institutional consolidation. He said confidence is demonstrated not only through political statements, but also when an international mission such as KFOR assesses that its static presence can be reduced in one of the country’s most sensitive areas without jeopardizing security or losing the ability to intervene.

However, he called for the process to be managed with great care. According to Halili, the reduction of KFOR’s static presence must not create the impression that the security problems in the north have been definitively resolved.

He emphasized that stability in the area remains fragile and requires uninterrupted coordination among the Kosovo Police, KFOR and EULEX. KFOR’s description of the transition as “gradual” and “condition-based” demonstrates, according to him, that NATO is not acting on the basis of a unilateral political assessment, but on actual security conditions on the ground.

In conclusion, Halili said the development should be welcomed with optimism, but also with responsibility on the part of Kosovo’s institutions. He described it as an indicator of the improved security situation and the expansion of Kosovo’s institutional role, but also as a test of the maturity of its institutions.

According to him, the increased responsibilities of local institutions must be accompanied by an increase in their ability to ensure order, freedom of movement, security and equal protection for every community.

Halili concluded his comments to “Bota sot” by saying that the strategic message of the process is clear: Kosovo is not moving from international security toward insecurity. It is transitioning from a system in which KFOR directly guaranteed security at certain locations through a static presence to a model in which Kosovo’s institutions assume greater responsibility, while NATO retains the presence, capacity and mandate to intervene when circumstances require it. In essence, according to him, this is a signal of the state’s consolidation and of Euro-Atlantic partners’ gradually increasing confidence in Kosovo’s security institutions.