Zelensky’s Message on Kosovo in Belgrade: Analysts Reveal What Lies Behind It

Since the conflict began, Kosovo has shown solidarity with the Ukrainian people and the state of Ukraine by imposing sanctions on Russia and hosting Ukrainian journalists forced to flee their country. Despite this, Ukraine has not changed its position of refusing to recognize Kosovo’s independence.

During a press conference in Belgrade, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stressed that their position remains unwavering, while expressing gratitude to Serbia.

“We respect the territorial integrity of our partners and international law. As for Kosovo, our position remains unchanged. We are grateful to Serbia for respecting Ukraine’s territorial integrity, including Crimea,” Zelensky said at the joint press conference with Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić.

Reactions to these statements have come from both Kosovo and Albania, while experts on political developments stress that Ukraine’s position remains unchanged and that Kosovo and Ukraine are two entirely different cases.

According to analysts, Serbia uses such visits to turn public opinion against Kosovo, but Kosovo should not make the mistake of responding in kind and should instead continue to align itself with European countries.

Kosovo, Ukraine and the ‘Purpose of the Visit’ to Belgrade

Commentator Fadil Lepaja, speaking to “Bota sot,” says Ukraine has never recognized Kosovo, but that such recognition could, in his view, also create certain problems.

He adds that the attempt to compare Kosovo’s case with Ukraine’s is entirely unfounded.

“During his first official visit to Belgrade, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed that his country has not changed its position on non-recognition of Kosovo and that it respects Serbia’s territorial integrity and international law. First of all, recognition by Ukraine would not be of much practical use to us and could even create difficulties with a country that still holds veto power in the UN Security Council. This issue has been revived by Kosovo politicians because of the attention Ukraine receives in the international media and global affairs, as they try to gain publicity for the Kosovo issue without thoroughly analyzing whether these cases are similar. Comparing Kosovo’s case with Ukraine is completely untenable and reflects amateurism in our politics. The benefits of making this connection are questionable, and the analogy is entirely unsupported. If the granting and withdrawal of Kosovo’s ‘support,’ including in Albania, for Ukraine’s freedom were not so short-sighted and tragicomic, it would serve only as black humor,” Lepaja said.

According to him, Zelensky’s visit to Serbia was not motivated by opposition to Kosovo, but comments about Kosovo served to conceal the visit’s true objectives.

Lepaja believes that Zelensky’s statement is not the first of its kind to come from a country or people fighting for their own freedom.

“The Ukrainian president’s visit to Belgrade was not directed against Kosovo, and the mention of Kosovo appears to have been intended to stir up a media storm and conceal the real reasons for the visit, which may include arms trade, joint weapons production and, from a broader perspective, Serbia’s possible mediating role in ceasefires and perhaps in a future peace between Russia and Ukraine. The Ukrainian president’s statement is not the first of its kind to come from a country or people striving for its own freedom. Palestinian diplomats in Belgrade had previously made similar statements, disappointing our local Islamists, who supported the Palestinians not because of their fundamental right to freedom, but because they were Muslim believers. In reality, faced with a major power and regional geopolitical pressure, Palestinian politicians were simply pursuing their own interests by drawing closer to Serbia. Our expectation that Ukraine will recognize us simply because it, too, is fighting for freedom and against Russia is also naive and reflects the misguided positioning of our noisy political establishment. Regardless of the rhetoric of a country’s politicians, every people has the right to be free, to live in peace from the fruits of its labor and to organize life according to its own needs and interests. Geopolitics does not allow this equally in every corner of the world and for all peoples,” the commentator stressed.

Lepaja also discusses Russia’s attack on Ukraine, emphasizing that there are fundamental differences over the war even among Western countries.

“Ukraine’s position of not recognizing the state of Kosovo has remained unchanged since the declaration of independence in 2008. Because of its own geopolitical circumstances and confrontation with Russia, Ukraine views respect for territorial integrity as a fundamental principle of foreign policy. Russia’s attack on Ukraine and the annexation of some of its regions more closely resemble Serbian claims over northern Kosovo, while NATO’s intervention in Kosovo and Russia’s occupation of parts of Ukraine have nothing in common. There are also deep differences among Western countries over this war. The US and Europe have fundamental disagreements. The principle of the inviolability of borders, applied during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, is a political rather than a moral principle that can and should apply throughout the world, particularly when we consider the artificial borders established between peoples in the former USSR or in countries in Africa and Latin America. Had this principle not been applied in the Balkans, the peace conference would have turned into a conference on territories rather than on principles and peace,” Lepaja said.

According to Lepaja, the war in Ukraine and NATO’s intervention in Kosovo are two entirely different events.

He stresses that the West never supported “our just war,” but supported the people of Kosovo’s right to live freely and peacefully and to express their political will.

“Does this constitute a double-standard approach toward Kosovo? No, this has nothing to do with double standards. We are dealing with an entirely different geopolitical and even moral context. The war in Ukraine and NATO’s intervention in Kosovo are completely different. One was motivated by humanitarianism and the other by the occupation of foreign territory. Our position on this principle has also caused problems with several EU countries, such as Spain, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Cyprus. Immersed in political folklore and the banal needs of our local politics, we have not even deigned to acknowledge the real reasons for the international intervention in Kosovo. NATO did not come to Kosovo to support our just war; it intervened to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and created the conditions for Kosovars to freely express their views about their political future. This is precisely where all of Serbia’s cunning diplomacy has focused, attempting to shift the debate toward territorial issues or whether a war affecting the borders of a sovereign country is justified. The West never supported ‘our just war,’ but it did support the people of Kosovo’s right to live freely and peacefully and to declare their political will,” the commentator added.

In conclusion, he stresses that some statements are made for domestic, pre-election purposes.

“What message does this statement send to Belgrade, and to what extent can Serbia use it to strengthen its position against Kosovo on the international stage? Not at all. Serbia’s demands that everything be made conditional on Kosovo show just how desperate its position is. Therefore, I do not think we need to take every media statement made by Mr. Vučić’s guests to heart. The fate of peoples is not decided at press conferences. These are statements that the Serbian president most likely requested for domestic, pre-election purposes. Similar and identically motivated are Minister Paunović’s statement and the Serbian president’s genocidal statement about changing the course of the Iber River. We should not make ourselves look ridiculous by changing our principled positions in support of the freedom of peoples and countries simply because current leaders make empty statements for the political needs of the day. Nothing has changed in Ukraine’s position toward Kosovo since 2008. Should Kosovo oppose this Ukrainian approach more forcefully? Kosovo should continue communicating with Ukrainian institutions and officials, as well as with other countries that have not yet recognized it. Ukraine has other problems, and we are not part of the war there. We must continue our efforts to build relations even with countries that have not recognized us, even when these efforts appear hopeless. Kosovo’s future is built here, not in Ukraine, and through constructive relations between us and the country’s other communities, including the Serb community,” Lepaja concluded his analysis.

Differences Between Kosovo and Ukraine and the Path Kosovo Should Follow

Analyst Eduard Gashi also stresses that the key point is that Kosovo is not Crimea, Donetsk or Luhansk.

He adds that Kosovo cannot be placed on the same legal footing as Ukrainian territories occupied and annexed by Russia.

“Volodymyr Zelensky’s statement in Belgrade is understandable from the perspective of Ukraine’s narrow state interests, but it is much more difficult to defend as a sound argument under international law. Zelensky reaffirmed that Ukraine is not changing its position on Kosovo and, referring to Serbia, stressed respect for territorial integrity and international law. The fundamental problem is this: Kosovo is not Crimea, Donetsk or Luhansk. The implied equation of these cases is legally and historically flawed. Kosovo emerged from the breakup of Yugoslavia following the abolition of its autonomy, systematic repression, the 1998–99 war, NATO’s intervention and then nearly nine years of international administration by the UN. Above all, the International Court of Justice found in 2010 that Kosovo’s declaration of independence had not violated international law. Therefore, Kosovo cannot be placed on the same legal footing as Ukrainian territories occupied and annexed by Russia,” Gashi told “Bota sot.”

According to him, this is more a case of a political double standard than a clear legal contradiction.

“This is also where the problem of political double standards arises. Ukraine rightly asks the international community to judge its case on the basis of specific facts, history, external aggression and international norms. But Kosovo is effectively denied this individualized treatment: it is placed within the general formula of ‘Serbia’s territorial integrity,’ as though Kosovo’s political and legal history had never occurred. Nevertheless, we must be precise: this double standard is more political than a clear legal contradiction. A state’s refusal to recognize another state is a sovereign decision. Ukraine is not legally obliged to recognize Kosovo. But if Kyiv justifies its non-recognition by repeatedly invoking ‘territorial integrity’ and ‘international law,’ then Kosovo has the right to ask Ukraine to explain why the legal precedent, the UN administration and the ICJ opinion are treated as though they did not exist,” the analyst stressed.

Gashi describes Zelensky’s statement as a diplomatic gift to Serbia, saying Belgrade is pursuing a much more pragmatic game than it appears.

“The real political winner is Belgrade! For Serbia, this statement is a diplomatic gift. Belgrade can now claim that even the state whose entire foreign policy today is built around defending territorial integrity supports Serbia’s territorial integrity. This is precisely the narrative Serbia is seeking to build internationally; the Serbian Foreign Ministry continues to portray Kosovo’s independence as a violation of Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. And here Belgrade is playing a much more pragmatic game than it appears. Serbia has not made the strategic shift away from Russia that the West is demanding, but at the same time it is building bridges with Ukraine. The visit included talks on deepening economic cooperation and a possible free trade agreement. Serbia has even aligned itself with certain EU measures against Russia’s recognition, occupation or illegal annexation of Ukrainian territories. Vučić is therefore seeking to achieve something highly valuable: rapprochement with the West and Ukraine without paying the full price of breaking with Russia, while securing Kyiv’s support for Serbia’s position on Kosovo. This is transactional diplomacy and, from the Serbian perspective, quite effective,” Gashi stressed.

According to Gashi, Kosovo must not fall into the trap of an emotional reaction, but should remain firmly in the Euro-Atlantic camp and opposed to Russian aggression.

“The mistake Kosovo must not make! Kosovo’s response should not be: ‘Then we will not support Ukraine either.’ That would be emotionally understandable but strategically wrong. Kosovo must remain clearly in the Euro-Atlantic camp and opposed to Russian aggression. NATO continues to regard Ukraine’s defense as an exercise of its right to self-defense and supports its sovereignty. This is precisely where Kosovo’s strongest argument lies: We support Ukraine’s territorial integrity not because Ukraine recognizes us, but because Russian aggression is wrong. But we demand the same respect for the facts and international law when Ukraine speaks about Kosovo. This places Kosovo in a much stronger moral and diplomatic position. Pristina should therefore challenge Kyiv more forcefully, but not more hostilely. A diplomatic offensive is needed: direct contact with the Ukrainian Presidency and Foreign Ministry, a legal presentation of Kosovo’s case, coordination with Albania and key Western allies, and a request that Ukraine at least refrain from using language that portrays Kosovo simply as an issue of Serbian territorial integrity. Albania has already responded by reaffirming Kosovo’s sovereignty and independence following Zelensky’s statements. The short-term objective should not necessarily be: ‘Ukraine must recognize Kosovo tomorrow.’ The realistic objective should be to move Ukraine from an active position in favor of the Serbian narrative toward constructive neutrality and then, when political circumstances allow, toward recognition,” Gashi added.

Finally, according to Gashi, the issue is not simply that Ukraine does not recognize Kosovo, but that Serbia is seeking to use Ukraine to legitimize internationally the claim that Kosovo is analogous to Ukraine’s separatist territories.

“Kosovo should not react to Ukraine with anger; it should react with statesmanship. The more serious problem is not merely that Ukraine does not recognize Kosovo. The problem is that Serbia is attempting to use Ukraine to legitimize internationally the claim that Kosovo is analogous to Ukraine’s separatist territories. This analogy must be systematically dismantled.

“Pristina’s message should be simple: Kosovo is not asking for special treatment. It is asking for history, facts and international law to be applied to Kosovo with the same seriousness with which Ukraine demands that they be applied to itself. Sovereignty cannot be defended through universal principles in Kyiv and selective interpretations in Belgrade. Above all, Kosovo must understand the strategic signal: Serbia is gradually attempting to draw closer to the West without abandoning Russia and while maintaining Kosovo as a constant national interest. Pristina cannot afford to do the opposite—to isolate itself from the EU, NATO and the US because of domestic political battles. If Belgrade narrows its distance from the West while Pristina widens its own, the diplomatic balance could shift to Kosovo’s detriment without a single border on the map being moved,” Gashi concluded for “Bota sot.”