SDSM accused Hristijan Mickoski of pursuing a policy similar to Vučić’s by protecting officials who glorified convicted war criminal Ratko Mladić.

The ruling party said European Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos canceled her planned visit to Serbia today because of the glorification of Mladić.

“The message from the European Union and Kos is more than clear. The glorification accompanying his death does not correspond to the values on which the path toward the EU is built. This path requires coming to terms with the past, genuine reconciliation and respect for the victims of war crimes,” Marta Kos wrote on X.

According to SDSM, today’s statement by the European Union confirms precisely the concerns the party had raised following developments in Macedonia.

“The glorification of a war criminal is incompatible with European values,” the party said in its response.

Nevertheless, after their positions and statements in support of the glorification of Mladić, Mickoski defended Ivan Stoilković and Dalibor Kitanović.

SDSM stressed that there were neither resignations nor dismissals nor any assumption of responsibility, saying that Mickoski consciously chose to support them.

“It is now even clearer where this policy of Mickoski is taking Macedonia, built according to Vučić’s recipe: deliberate isolation, moving away from the EU, an anti-European campaign and commitment to the Russian agenda,” SDSM’s statement concluded.

The post SDSM: The EU opposes the glorification of criminals, while Mickoski protects Mladić supporters according to Vučić’s “recipe appeared first on Albeu.com.

University professor Prof. Dr. Enver Bytyçi says that the concerns expressed by U.S. Ambassador William Walker and former congressman of Albanian origin Joseph DioGuardi over the lack of a political agreement in Kosovo should be taken seriously. According to him, both have voiced concern about the parties’ inability to find a solution for the election of the president of the Republic of Kosovo.

Walker, known for exposing the Recak massacre and as a great friend of Albanians, has long called on Kosovo’s political entities to cooperate in overcoming the institutional deadlock. DioGuardi, who was also in Kosovo, expressed the same concern, but with a clearly visible dose of pessimism regarding the consequences of failing to form the institutions.

The two American figures have also put forward a specific name as a possible candidate for the presidency: Faton Bislimi, whom they consider a suitable candidate to lead the state.

“The concern of Walker and DioGuardi, as well as that of other European and American friends, is legitimate. Three sets of elections were held because the political class failed to find common ground. In the first case, the leadership and the government were not formed, while in the last two cases, the head of state was not elected,” Bytyçi says.

He says that, looking ahead, consideration should be given to how the Constitutional Court’s decision could be overturned, as, according to him, it unconstitutionally establishes the presence of two-thirds of deputies in the parliamentary chamber during the final round of the presidential election.

“If the president is elected in this round by an absolute majority, 50 + 1, why should deputies who oppose the candidacy also be present in the chamber? This is an absurdity provided for in Serbian platforms aimed at politically destabilizing Kosovo and it must be resolved. Perhaps this issue is worth addressing in the future,” he says.

According to Bytyçi, the immediate solution would be to reach an agreement, if possible among all political factions, on the election of a consensual president.

“This would give Kosovo a head of state who would depend solely on the Constitution and the law. In my assessment, a consensual president would be bound by the country’s Constitution and not by a particular political party,” he says.

The professor explains that Kosovo’s opposition supports the view that “Kurti wants to seize all the powers.” For this reason, he adds, opposition lawmakers refuse to support a candidate for president who does not come from their own party.

“They say they will not support a candidacy that does not belong to their party for the position of head of the Republic. Some of them even express satisfaction and say: ‘Just wait and see, Albin Kurti, whether you will succeed or not,’ rejoicing when the state remains dysfunctional because of this deadlock,” Bytyçi says.

He emphasizes that Kosovo is entering its second year in which it has been holding mainly electoral processes, while a solution to the institutional crisis has still not been found.

“There is now another attempt to go to elections, in the hope that citizens will grow tired, which could happen. In this way, opposition lawmakers hope that Albin Kurti will not be voted in as prime minister. Kurti, too, may have believed during the second elections that he would win on his own, but he now acknowledges that he cannot elect the president without support, regardless of the number of electoral rounds,” he says.

Meanwhile, Bytyçi says that the Democratic Party of Kosovo (PDK) and the Alliance for the Future of Kosovo (AAK) hold another belief regarding political developments.

“They believe that on September 16, Hashim Thaçi will return directly from The Hague to the chair of the president of Kosovo, which has remained vacant. Many absurdities and dreams of certain politicians are circulating in Kosovo, while the country is suffering from a lack of institutions and decision-making,” he says.

Bytyçi blames Aleksandar Vučić and Edi Rama for the crisis Kosovo is going through.

“I have said this before: the main author of this artificial crisis is Aleksandar Vučić, because he sponsored the absurd decision of the Constitutional Court. Edi Rama is also responsible, since he gives orders and directives to those blocking decision-making on the election of a consensual president,” he says.

According to the professor, both seek to disqualify the state of Kosovo and weaken its efforts to build a state. He adds that Rama also seeks to blame Albin Kurti, since the latter’s political model has challenged him and clearly labeled the Albanian prime minister a traitor to the Albanian cause in the Balkans and an arrogant politician in his relations with Kosovo and the citizens of Albania.

“The consequences of distorting the institutions, especially the institution of the presidency, are the defunctionalization of the state of Kosovo and the creation of favorable conditions for Serbia. This makes it easier for Serbia to lobby against Kosovo, which still has no seat at the UN,” Bytyçi says.

“This is precisely why our two American friends, Walker and DioGuardi, are concerned. Perhaps their proposal that Faton Bislimi lead the state of Kosovo should also be seriously considered,” he continues.

Bytyçi says that he himself previously proposed Faton Bislimi to lead the Democratic League of Kosovo.

“Party matters are not resolved through recommendations from outside. Nevertheless, I see Bislimi as a suitable person, with qualities and virtues valuable for that role. Regardless of my opinion, the most important thing is for the LDK and Kurti to reach an agreement and determine as soon as possible who should be elected president of the country,” he says.

The professor says he has heard that some LDK deputies do not wish to vote for any candidate who might emerge from a joint agreement.

“The head of the LDK proved objective and wise when he withdrew from a governing coalition that many people within the Democratic League did not want. This may have been a very smart move to eliminate excuses regarding the vote for the head of state,” Bytyçi says.

In this situation, he argues that any LDK deputy who refused to vote for a president acceptable to both parties would suggest that he or she had received an order from outside the political entity to prevent the formation of the institutions.

“There is no other reason, and there can be no other reason, for a deputy from VV or the LDK to reject a consensual candidacy for head of state. The coming week will be decisive in this regard.”

The post Bytyçi: Vučić and Rama seek to weaken the state of Kosovo; proposal for Faton Bislimi must be seriously considered appeared first on Albeu.com.

Ratko Mladić, the former Bosnian Serb military commander, died on Thursday at the age of 83 at the UN detention center in The Hague while serving a life sentence for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during the 1992–95 conflict in Bosnia.

Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić criticized the UN tribunal, accusing it of “uncivilized conduct” after it refused to allow Mladić to be transferred to Serbia, where he had wished to die. According to Vučić, Belgrade has still not received information on whether the former military leader’s body will be handed over to the Serbian authorities.

“We have no information from The Hague,” Vučić told reporters. He added that Serbia would help organize a dignified funeral ceremony for Mladić if his family requested it.

“Now we see that The Hague wanted Mladić to die in prison,” the Serbian president said.

“They did not allow the general to die in Serbia, where he wanted to die. This is uncivilized conduct, unprecedented and without justification,” he added.

The death of the so-called “Butcher of Bosnia” came several days after the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) rejected a request by his family and the Serbian government to transfer him to a military hospital in Belgrade, where he would receive treatment.

The UN tribunal had stated that Mladić’s health condition was critical but stable, and that he was receiving appropriate treatment at the detention center in The Hague.

Serbian authorities are waiting to learn when The Hague will hand over the body, Serbian Justice Minister Nenad Vujic said, adding earlier that Mladić would be buried “with the military and state honors he deserves.”

According to reports in the Serbian media, Mladić had requested to be buried in a Belgrade cemetery next to his daughter Ana, who died in 1994.

Meanwhile, the tribunal has opened an investigation into the circumstances of his death. The judge appointed to lead the investigation spent around three hours at the detention center but made no statements to reporters.

Ratko Mladić was one of the three main figures in the Serbian camp, along with former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević and former political leader of the Bosnian Serbs Radovan Karadžić, during the period when the former Yugoslavia was engulfed by massacres following the fall of communism.

The conflict in Bosnia claimed around 100,000 lives and forced 2.2 million people to flee their homes.

In Srebrenica, Serbian forces under Ratko Mladić’s command executed 8,000 Bosnian Muslims who had taken refuge in an area that was supposed to be protected by the UN.

Vučić, who served as a minister under Slobodan Milošević’s regime in the 1990s and was once known as an ultranationalist, has in recent years presented himself as a pro-European reformer while maintaining close relations with Russia and China.

The post Ratko Mladić dies in The Hague, Vučić: He was not allowed to die in Serbia, as he had wished appeared first on Albeu.com.

The mayor of the Municipality of Preševo, Ardita Sinani, has reacted following Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić’s stay in the municipality, calling for all residents to be treated equally.

According to Sinani, Preševo should not be remembered only when central institutions need it, while she considers any investment that contributes to improving residents’ living conditions welcome.

“Preševo cannot have two standards,” Sinani declared.

She highlighted investments carried out by the Municipality of Preševo in Maminçë, Strezoc, Svinjishtë and other settlements, stressing that the local government does not discriminate between citizens based on their ethnic affiliation.

The mayor of Preševo said that citizens expect to see the same principle of equality that, according to her, is applied by the municipality reflected in the actions of Serbia’s central institutions as well.

“We have officially requested investments for the ‘Prof. Ibrahim Kelmendi’ School, the school in Maminçë, the ‘8 March’ kindergarten and other projects directly related to the lives of our citizens,” she wrote.

Referring to the projects made public during Vučić’s visit, Sinani asked why Albanian citizens, according to her, should have to wait for years for responses, investments and the implementation of projects by central institutions.

“We are not asking for something to be taken from one person to give to another. We are asking that it not be taken from Albanians to be given to others,” Sinani declared.

She recalled that Albanians, Serbs, Roma and members of other communities live in Preševo, and that all of them should have the opportunity to build a better life.

Nevertheless, Sinani assessed that the progress of one community cannot serve as a justification for discriminating against another community.

According to her, the Municipality of Preševo remains ready to cooperate with Serbia’s institutions, but will not remain silent in the face of inequalities.

“We are not asking for privileges. We are asking for equality. We are not asking for more than others. We are asking not to receive less,” the mayor wrote.

Sinani announced that she would continue to raise this issue in Preševo, Belgrade, Pristina and Tirana.

“The Albanians of Preševo are here. They are citizens. They have needs. They have rights. And we will not accept being treated as second-class citizens or as if we do not exist at all,” she concluded.

The post Ardita Sinani after Vučić’s visit to Preševo: We will not accept being treated as second-class citizens appeared first on Albeu.com.

Xhelal Sveçla, Kosovo’s acting minister of internal affairs, has expressed concern over the incident involving Nenad Rashković, accusing Aleksandar Vučić, the president of Serbia, of seeking to manipulate the issue to shift focus away from shocking discoveries in Kosovo, including three mass graves and a large quantity of weapons.

Sveçla described Vučić’s conduct as completely unacceptable, stressing that the case is being misused to diminish Serbia’s responsibility for its actions during the most recent conflict in Kosovo.

“I also want to highlight the absolutely unacceptable stance of President Vučić, who is seeking to use an accusation to minimize the actions of the Serbian state during the last war in Kosovo, as well as to divert attention from what we have discovered, which is truly horrific. In other words, we have discovered three mass graves and 71 long guns,” Sveçla said.

In an interview with Bota sot, analyst Eduard Gashi discussed the case of Nenad Rashković, allegations of brutality by Kosovo Police officers, and the reactions from Serbia and President Aleksandar Vučić, including how these events are being reflected on the international stage.

Gashi stressed that the issue should be addressed on two separate fronts, calling for a full and impartial investigation into the allegations of mistreatment while also drawing attention to the risk that Belgrade could exploit the situation politically.

“The issue should be examined on two different levels, which should not be conflated. First, Nenad Rashković’s allegations of mistreatment by members of the Kosovo Police require a full and independent investigation. The fact that the Police Inspectorate intervened and two police officers were suspended shows precisely how a democratic state should function. If violations occurred, those responsible must be held accountable. Kosovo has nothing to gain by downplaying an allegation of mistreatment; on the contrary, its strength lies in its ability to investigate itself,” he said.

However, he added that this does not rule out the possibility that Belgrade may instrumentalize the Rashković case politically. “Here, I believe Minister Sveçla has identified a real problem. Vučić has personalized this case to an extreme degree, while in the same area three sites containing the remains of at least 23 people and a considerable quantity of weapons have been found. These are realities that deserve far greater international attention,” he said.

Gashi does not automatically characterize every statement by Serbia as “disinformation,” but he acknowledges that Belgrade has an obvious political interest in shifting the international agenda away from war crimes, missing persons, and accountability by Serbian institutions, toward a narrative in which Serbs in Kosovo are portrayed as victims of systematic repression. “The Rashković case fits this communication strategy perfectly. In that sense, yes: there is a battle over narratives, and Vučić is trying to set the issue that dominates the discourse,” he added.

Regarding international media coverage of events in Kosovo, Gashi observed that there has not been complete silence, but rather a disproportion in the attention devoted to them. “We also need to be precise when discussing Western media. There has not been absolute silence: The Associated Press, for example, reported on the excavations and suspected mass graves. Nevertheless, it is fair to question the balance of attention. Eggs being thrown at Albin Kurti in the Assembly were immediately covered by Reuters, DW, and many other international media outlets, while the discovery of wartime human remains did not generate the same political and media resonance. This does not necessarily indicate a conspiracy against Kosovo, but it illustrates how the logic of international news often favors political spectacle over serious historical processes that require context,” he explained.

He stressed that the European Union should be much more consistent on this issue. “Kosovo and Serbia adopted the Declaration on Missing Persons, and in January of this year the first trilateral meeting of the Joint Commission on Missing Persons was held. This mechanism must not remain merely ceremonial. Serbia must provide genuine access to archives, information, suspected locations, and documentation that could help locate the missing. The EU already has the political means to demand this and should link European progress to concrete cooperation, not merely to statements,” he continued.

Discussing the exercise of sovereignty by Kosovo’s institutions and coordination with international partners, Gashi emphasized that the country’s security continues to depend heavily on KFOR, the United States, and its European allies.

“Kosovo has the right to insist that its territory be governed by the law, order, and institutions of the Republic. However, Kosovo is not in the same geopolitical position as a universally recognized state that is a member of the UN and NATO. Its security continues to rely heavily on KFOR, the United States, and its European partners. For this reason, the diplomatic cost of an uncoordinated action is much higher for Kosovo than for many other states,” he said.

He went on to explain that “this is where our paradox lies: we cannot ask the EU, NATO, and the United States to stand by us whenever Serbia threatens Kosovo’s security, while considering coordination with those same partners unnecessary when we do not like their advice.”

According to him, the same logic applies to the Ibar Bridge. “Kosovo should have the clear objective of making the bridge a normal bridge in a normal city, rather than an ethnic boundary within its territory. But the political question is not only ‘Do we have the right?’ but also ‘How do we exercise this right at the lowest strategic cost?’” he added.

Gashi stressed that lessons should also be learned from the Banjska case. “It is not accurate to say that there have been no consequences at all: three people were convicted by Kosovo’s justice system in April of this year. But the main problem remains the fact that many suspects, including Milan Radoičić, are in Serbia. The European Union itself has expressed regret that Serbia has not cooperated sufficiently in investigating and prosecuting those responsible for Banjska, the attacks on KFOR in Zvečan, and the explosion in the Zubin Potok canal,” he noted.

According to Gashi, Kosovo must strike a balance between protecting its sovereignty and coordinating with international allies. “In the international management of crises, there is another brutal reality: external actors are often more interested in preventing unrest than in determining at that moment who was morally right. If violence breaks out in the north tomorrow, the international news will be ‘unrest in northern Kosovo.’ The explanation of who provoked the situation, who was legally in the right, and who responded will come later—if it comes at all,” he warned.

Therefore, Kosovo must be both determined and intelligent: “it must not give up its sovereignty, but exercise it in a way that leaves Serbia diplomatically isolated, not Kosovo.”

In this specific case, Gashi argues that the EU and Western countries should demand Serbia’s full cooperation on missing persons and the investigation of war crimes, while Pristina should place renewed coordination with its allies at the center of its strategy.

“Because for Kosovo today, the question is not only: ‘Are we right?’ The decisive question is: ‘How do we turn our right into a political result without losing the allies we need to protect it?’ This is the difference between demonstrating sovereignty and building long-term state power,” Gashi concluded in his remarks to Bota sot.

The post The Rashković Case Serves Belgrade’s Agenda” – Gashi Explains How Vučić Is Trying to Divert Attention from War Crimes appeared first on Albeu.com.

The statement by PDK MP Xhavit Haliti that “even if we beg Serbia, it will not come to Kosovo” has prompted a reaction from Professor Enver Bytyçi.

Referring to developments that have affected the north of the country and to the Kosovo political leadership’s previous positions toward Serbia, Bytyçi questioned Haliti’s claim.

In his response, which he sent to “Bota sot,” the professor asked what the statement meant and what political position lay behind it.

Bytyçi writes that Xhavit Haliti often comes out with unusual claims. He recalls that, a few years ago, Haliti stated that everyone in Kosovo had two million euros. According to the professor, since Haliti himself has that much money, he thinks others should have the same wealth, describing him as a politician completely detached from reality.

The professor continues by saying that two days ago Haliti made another strange statement when he said that Serbia would not come to Kosovo even if they begged it to. Based on this claim, Bytyçi asks why they then pleaded with Vučić to come and take Kosovo’s valuable assets in the north. He adds that, if Haliti himself did not do this, then his boss did—and that person is now in The Hague.

Bytyçi also emphasizes that Xhavit Haliti has not distanced himself from Hashim Thaçi or from Vlora Çitaku. According to him, Haliti has not even reacted to the integration minister from his own party, who paid from the state budget to lobby in favor of Kosovo’s partition.

Finally, the professor wants to know why Serbia should have been given Kosovo territory if it supposedly has no interest in the country. He asks whether Haliti’s statement should be viewed as a “Valium” intended to put people to sleep or as support for Vučić, so that the international community would accept him as a man of peace, and calls on the MP to explain how it should be understood.

The post Why did you plead with Vučić?” Enver Bytyçi criticizes Xhavit Haliti after his statement on Serbia and demands answers appeared first on Albeu.com.

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.”

The post Zelensky’s Message on Kosovo in Belgrade: Analysts Reveal What Lies Behind It appeared first on Albeu.com.

Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić’s warnings regarding Kosovo’s waters and the possibility of intervening in river flows have been analyzed by hydrotechnical engineer Mumin Morina.

Morina explained that, from a technical standpoint, a state may build hydrotechnical structures within its territory that affect the flow of a river. However, he said that under present circumstances, such an action would be difficult and unacceptable because of international conventions and norms.

“From an engineering and technical standpoint, such an intervention is possible. Hydrotechnical structures serving various purposes can be built within a riverbed and on a state’s territory. However, given the current situation, it is unthinkable that this could happen,” Morina said.

He emphasized that the use and management of transboundary waters are now regulated by numerous international conventions.

According to Morina, rivers have their sources and flow according to gravity, so they cannot be arbitrarily restricted. Any intervention through hydrotechnical structures, he said, must be carried out with due consideration for the consequences it may cause.

Referring to Lake Ujman, the engineer recalled that the reservoir project was designed during the former Yugoslavia, while its construction was preceded by numerous technical analyses.

“Many analyses were conducted for the construction of Ujman. The project originated during the Yugoslav period and was not intended to be used in such a way or to cause consequences for another state,” Morina said.

He stressed that any project that could change the direction of water flows or endanger the flow of water toward a neighboring state must comply with international conventions and also receive the neighboring country’s approval.

“Any structure that diverts or endangers the flow of water toward a neighboring state must comply with international conventions, but it also requires the neighboring state’s permission,” he said.

Morina added that implementing such an initiative cannot be based solely on a feasibility study. According to him, other assessments are also essential, including environmental impact studies.

“A feasibility study alone is not enough if there are no environmental impact studies. These matters are subject to restrictions, regardless of the power a state may wield,” Morina concluded.

The post Morina: Changing the Course of the Iber Would Be Unthinkable appeared first on Albeu.com.

Whenever Kosovo’s institutions launch investigations or arrest people suspected of war crimes, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić describes these actions as “terror.” He used the same rhetoric in response to the latest operations in northern Kosovo, where a mass grave is suspected to be located in Zubin Potok.

During his stay in Republika Srpska, Vučić spoke about the recent arrest of several Serbs in northern Kosovo. They were detained on suspicion of involvement in the disappearance of 23 intellectuals from Mitrovica in 1999.

Repeating his usual claims, the Serbian president accused the authorities in Pristina of “exerting pressure” on the Serbian community.

According to Danas, Vučić claimed that Serbs in Republika Srpska are strong, as are those in Kosovo, who, he said, face “terrible terror” and new accusations every day. He also said that no one speaks about the suffering of Orthodox Christians, adding that those who, as he claimed, are terrorizing the Serbian people in Kosovo “will not make it to dawn.”

Other Serbian officials have also made disinformation-laden statements in recent days, highlighting Serbia’s mobilization around anti-Kosovo narratives.

Former Serbian minister Snezhana Paunović went so far as to mention the “ethnic cleansing of Kosovo,” declaring that such an action would have been undertaken during the time of Milošević, in 1998.

Meanwhile, excavations are continuing in the village of Kalludër e Vogël in Zubin Potok amid suspicions that a mass grave from the wartime period may be located there. Human remains and clothing have been found at the site. In recent days, the location was visited by serving state leaders Albulena Haxhiu and Albin Kurti, Minister for Families Andin Hoti, as well as other institutional officials.

Another grave was discovered yesterday, August 2, in Jabukë, Zubin Potok.

Kosovo’s institutions have reiterated their demand that Serbia open its state, military and police archives. In particular, they have requested documentation from the 37th Motorized Brigade of the Yugoslav Army, in order to help shed light on the fate of people forcibly disappeared during the war. This brigade was honored in Serbia over the weekend.

The post Vučić Calls Justice Actions “Terror” When Suspects in War Crimes Cases Are Investigated appeared first on Albeu.com.

On the same day that the excavation of a mass grave containing Albanians officially began in northern Kosovo, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić did not address the issue, instead portraying Serbia as the victim, even though it was the state that had concealed the people it had killed.

During his visit to the municipality of Čačak on Thursday, Vučić claimed that Kosovo’s authorities were terrorizing Serbian citizens. He referred to the operation to demolish illegal structures in the area around Lake Ujman, as well as the Kosovo government’s decision that, starting August 1, visits to cultural, historical and religious heritage sites must be led exclusively by certified tour guides.

“Pristina’s terror is continuing, but no terror has lasted forever,” he said.

Vučić, who previously served as a senior official in the Serbian Radical Party, described in the same terms the local authorities’ work to repair roads within the Visoki Dečani Monastery’s Special Protective Zone.

“They constantly come up with something new. When they had to accept court rulings, because everything depended on them, in relation to the Europeans, the Americans and so on, they accepted them under pressure, while waiting for a new opportunity to harass our monks at the Visoki Dečani Monastery,” Vučić said.

According to a clarification from the Municipality of Deçan, work on the mountain roads within this Special Protective Zone is limited to filling potholes, clearing vegetation and shrubs, and removing dust that has accumulated along the road.

The intervention near Ujman is also a continuation of the inspectorate’s operation to demolish illegal structures that had not been removed within the deadline set by the “Ibër–Lepenc” enterprise.

Vučić’s accusations came on the very day that Kosovo’s acting president, Albulena Haxhiu, accused him of refusing to reveal the locations of Albanians who were killed and disappeared, and of failing to open archives that would help shed light on war crimes.

The post Vučić Silent on Mass Grave in Zubin Potok, Raises Allegations over Ujman and Deçan appeared first on Albeu.com.