Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s statement that Ukraine still does not recognize Kosovo’s independence has sparked reactions in Pristina. Discontent peaked with the removal of the “Freedom for Ukraine” flag, which had been displayed on the Hotel Grand building in central Pristina since the beginning of Russia’s aggression. Kosovo’s reaction was linked to the opposition Pristina has expressed to Russia’s invasion and the support it has provided to Ukraine during the war.

The Ukrainian Embassy in Albania has responded to the latest developments in relations between Pristina and Kyiv.

The Ukrainian diplomatic mission clarified that Zelenskyy’s statement during his visit to Belgrade did not represent a change in Kyiv’s policy toward Kosovo. According to the embassy, the Ukrainian president was merely responding to a Serbian journalist’s question about the recognition of Kosovo.

“The Embassy of Ukraine wishes to emphasize that during his recent visit to Serbia, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy did not declare any change in Ukraine’s position toward Kosovo. He simply responded to a journalist’s question about whether Ukraine supports or opposes the recognition of Kosovo. The President’s answer was fully consistent with Ukraine’s unchanged position on this issue,” the Embassy of Ukraine in Tirana said in an exclusive response to the media.

The embassy stressed that Kyiv’s non-recognition of Kosovo should in no way be seen as a lack of appreciation for Pristina’s solidarity or for the support Kosovo has provided for international measures against Russia.

“Ukraine deeply appreciates the solidarity and assistance that the people and institutions of Kosovo have offered Ukraine since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale aggression. We are sincerely grateful for Kosovo’s support for Ukraine and Ukrainian citizens. We also value Kosovo’s alignment with international sanctions against Russia, as well as its continued support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Nevertheless, Ukraine’s position on Kosovo’s status remains unchanged, and this should not be interpreted as an underestimation of the solidarity shown by the people of Kosovo,” the embassy said.

Regarding a possible review of its position on Kosovo’s independence, the Embassy of Ukraine in Tirana said that such a decision would fall to Ukraine’s central authorities. According to the embassy, the process would be based on the national interest, the Constitution, Ukrainian legislation, international law and developments on the international stage.

“Any decision on Ukraine’s foreign policy, including the possibility of reconsidering this position, is taken by the relevant state authorities in accordance with Ukraine’s national interests, its Constitution and legislation, as well as international law, taking into account relevant international developments,” the Embassy of Ukraine in Tirana clarified.

The embassy emphasized that Ukraine would return to the issue of Kosovo after Russia’s aggression ends and the country emerges from the war.

“As has been made clear, Ukraine’s position on the political recognition of Kosovo has not changed. The issue has neither been closed nor removed from the agenda of Ukraine’s foreign policy. However, Ukraine will be able to return to this and other important international issues after emerging from the flames of the terrible war imposed by Russia. At present, the absolute priority is the protection of the people, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, as well as ending this devastating war,” the diplomatic mission stated.

Ukrainian diplomats added that they could not give priority to this issue, as Russia has been waging its terrible war for more than four years.

“We are convinced that the people of Kosovo understand this situation particularly well, given their tragic experience of war, suffering and loss of human life,” the embassy said in its response.

The embassy also recalled several measures taken concerning the citizens of Kosovo, particularly the acceptance of Kosovo passports.

“Since March 25, 2019, Ukraine has accepted ordinary civilian passports issued by Kosovo for visa procedures. This mechanism was established to facilitate and normalize travel to Ukraine for residents of Kosovo, primarily for humanitarian reasons, without constituting de jure recognition of Kosovo by Ukraine. Ukrainian authorities have repeatedly clarified that such consular measures do not imply recognition of Kosovo’s international legal personality,” the Embassy of Ukraine in Tirana concluded.

At the beginning of August, following his visit to Serbia, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated during a press conference that Kyiv’s policy of not recognizing Kosovo’s independence had not changed.

“We respect the territorial integrity of our partners and international law. As far as Kosovo is concerned, our position remains unchanged. We are grateful to Serbia for respecting Ukraine’s territorial integrity, including Crimea,” Zelensky said.

The post Ukrainian Embassy: Kosovo Recognition Issue to Be Reconsidered After the War Ends appeared first on Albeu.com.

Relations between Ukraine and Serbia are not strategic in nature, but the reciprocal interests that have brought them together are also influencing Kyiv’s approach to the issue of Kosovo’s independence, according to experts consulted by Radio Free Europe.

The issue came to the fore after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s first official visit to the Serbian capital, where he stressed that he respects the territorial sovereignty of partners and that Ukraine’s position on Kosovo’s declaration of independence “has not changed.”

Kateryna Shymkevych, a specialist at the Ukraine-based Analytical Center for Balkan Studies, believes that Kyiv regards cooperation with Belgrade as beneficial for securing ammunition, maintaining relations with Brussels and efforts to draw Serbia, however slightly, toward the West.

She adds that Serbia, for its part, wants closer ties with Germany and France and sees Ukraine as a gateway to the EU, while Ukraine has concrete arms needs and wants to maintain a channel of dialogue with a state that has traditionally been loyal to Russia.

“Ukraine knows very well that Serbia is a pro-Russian country, but telling the EU that you will not cooperate with Serbia is not a realistic solution,” Shymkevych told Radio Free Europe.

Yevhen Mahda, executive director of the Institute for World Politics in Kyiv, takes a similar view.

He notes that Ukraine and Serbia cannot be described as strategic allies, suggesting that it was Serbian President Aleksandar Vuciq who benefited most from Zelensky’s visit.

Nevertheless, Mahda does not rule out the possibility that Ukraine also gained from the relationship.

“In short, [Ukraine has received] ammunition supplies and the possibility that Serbia could serve as a bridge for talks with Russia,” he told RFE.

The issue of Kosovo is also part of this mosaic of interests, with Ukraine’s non-recognition of Kosovo becoming a subject of discussion during Zelensky’s stay in Belgrade.

What is holding Ukraine back from recognizing Kosovo?

Kyiv justifies its non-recognition of Kosovo’s independence by invoking the principle of territorial integrity under international law and fears that recognizing Kosovo could be instrumentalized by Russia in relation to the Ukrainian territories it has occupied.

However, official Pristina responds that this comparison does not stand: in 2010, the International Court of Justice ruled that Kosovo’s declaration of independence was in accordance with international norms.

In a study published this week by the Kosovo Centre for Security Studies, analyst Ramadan Ilazi notes that Kosovo and the Ukrainian areas occupied by Russia are entirely different cases and that Ukraine has no reason to invent artificial comparisons between them.

He explains that the state of Kosovo was created after years of repression, armed conflict, NATO’s humanitarian intervention and a broad international process to determine its status. Crimea, by contrast, was seized and annexed through Russian military aggression.

Gëzim Visoka, a lecturer in peace and conflict studies at the University of Dublin, also focuses his criticism precisely on this fundamental distinction.

He stresses that “there is no parallel whatsoever between Kosovo and the Ukrainian territories under occupation” and that Ukraine would be better off recognizing Kosovo rather than giving the Kremlin an opportunity to justify the occupation of its territories.

“In these circumstances, I believe Ukraine’s futile and decidedly unfriendly objection to Kosovo’s independence not only legitimizes Serbia’s obstructive position, but also gives an additional pretext to the five EU members that continue to withhold recognition from Kosovo,” he told Radio Free Europe.

Glauk Konjufca, acting Minister of Foreign Affairs and Diaspora of Kosovo, reinforced the same position, stating that the Kosovar state was born from the people’s liberation war after “many years of systematic oppression and a genocidal campaign by the Milošević regime.”

“What followed was not occupation, annexation or violent conquest, but a process of international supervision under the aegis of the UN and diplomatic mediation to resolve the final status,” Konjufca said a few days ago.

Continuing his analysis, Visoka adds that Pristina has done enough for Ukraine for Kyiv to have every reason to reconsider recognition, although he notes that such a decision could depend on the outcome of the conflict and the country’s future strategic course.

“Kosovo’s disappointment and reaction following Zelensky’s statement in Belgrade are restrained and understandable. Unconditional support for Ukraine has a limit, and it appears that Kosovo may have already reached that threshold,” Visoka concludes.

Since the beginning of Russia’s aggression, Kosovo has firmly stood by Ukraine, joining international sanctions, providing aid and hospitality to Ukrainian refugees, and offering continued political support.

But Kateryna Shymkevych of the Analytical Center for Balkan Studies sees the other side of the coin and considers the reaction to Zelensky’s words “exaggerated.”

“The Ukrainian leadership has made no promise whatsoever to recognize Kosovo. It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but this is the reality,” she told Radio Free Europe.

Shymkevych explains that Ukraine’s concern is not only related to Serbia, but also to the fact that Russia constantly uses the Kosovo case as a precedent. According to her, Moscow has referred to the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on Kosovo to support its own claims regarding Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk. The latter two regions, located in eastern Ukraine, have been declared annexed by Russia but are universally recognized as Ukrainian territory.

Kyiv therefore faces a genuine dilemma: recognizing Kosovo might not have any visible consequences for its relations with the majority, but it would provide Moscow with another weapon in its propaganda war.

“This risks bringing even deeper chaos to the international arena, with consequences including civil wars, further erosion or even the complete collapse of the fundamental principles of international law,” she warns.

Meanwhile, Mahda cites as the only possible consequence a deterioration in relations with the EU members that still do not recognize Kosovo.

“Within Ukrainian society, recognition of Kosovo’s independence would have no negative effect whatsoever,” he adds, saying that he came to this conclusion during a visit to Kosovo at the end of last year.

Nevertheless, Shymkevych stresses that the lack of formal recognition has not prevented Ukraine from gradually strengthening its ties with Kosovo.

She cites as examples the participation of Ukrainian peacekeepers in KFOR until 2022, the recognition of Kosovo documents for humanitarian matters, trade relations and networks of specialists fighting propaganda and disinformation.

During 2025, Ukraine also appointed a representative of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry for Albania and Kosovo.

In a conversation held on Monday with Radio Free Europe, the chairman of the Foreign Policy Committee in the Ukrainian parliament, Oleksandr Merezhko, suggested that the position on Kosovo’s independence could be reviewed after the war, depending “on the position of the EU and its member states.”

The post Non-recognition of Kosovo, a diplomatic lever in Ukraine’s hands? appeared first on Albeu.com.

Today marks the 16th anniversary of the publication of the advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which found that Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not constitute a violation of international law.

On July 22, 2010, the ICJ judging panel ruled with 10 votes in favor and 4 against in favor of Kosovo, rejecting Serbia’s argument that the act of declaring independence was contrary to international legal norms.

The then-President of the Court, Hisashi Owada, was the one who read the ruling, emphasizing that “the adoption of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law.”

This judicial issue was initiated after Serbia’s initiative, which through the UN General Assembly requested an advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo’s declaration of independence.

The opinion given by the ICJ was interpreted as a significant legal and diplomatic triumph for Kosovo, as it confirmed that international law does not prohibit declarations of independence. Following this act, a wave of states continued to recognize the Republic of Kosovo.

Kosovo’s independence was declared on February 17, 2008. To date, the new state has been recognized by 117 countries, while efforts continue for integration into international organizations and increasing the number of recognitions.

The decision of July 22, 2010, stands as one of the defining moments in Kosovo’s legal and state-building history, serving as an essential reference point for defending the legitimacy of its independence on the global stage.

The post 16 years since the ICJ advisory opinion that supported Kosovo’s independence appeared first on Albeu.com.