In a statement to Radio Free Europe, a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department said that the United States remains committed to advancing shared interests with the people of Kosovo.

“We remain committed to advancing the shared interests of the United States and the people of Kosovo. We look forward to developing a Strategic Dialogue with Kosovo when the appropriate conditions are in place, including Kosovo fulfilling its commitments to Kosovo Serbs,” the response said.

The State Department did not specify a possible date for the start of the process, nor did it provide further details on the measures it expects Kosovo’s institutions to take.

The Strategic Dialogue with Kosovo was suspended in September 2025 “for an indefinite period” because of U.S. concerns over the actions of Kosovo’s caretaker government, the U.S. spokesperson recalled.

The response was issued on the same day that Washington opens the first round of its Strategic Dialogue with Serbia. The mechanism is aimed at strengthening cooperation between the two countries in security, the economy and foreign policy.

“Through this dialogue, the United States and Serbia will work to achieve shared objectives, including regional peace and stability, expanding ties in business and education, and building a more prosperous future,” the State Department spokesperson told Radio Free Europe.

When and why was the Strategic Dialogue with Kosovo suspended?

On September 12, 2025, the U.S. Embassy in Pristina announced that the United States had decided to halt the Strategic Dialogue with Kosovo for an indefinite period.

The embassy said at the time that the decision was linked to “concerns regarding the actions of the caretaker government,” which it said “have increased tensions and instability.” According to the embassy, these developments limited the United States’ ability to cooperate productively with Kosovo on shared priorities.

The decision was made after steps taken by Kosovo authorities against Serbian institutions operating in Kosovo.

The authorities had also publicly criticized Kosovo’s Constitutional Court over a ruling concerning the mandate of members of parliament.

For Washington, these issues contributed to rising political tensions and made cooperation more difficult. The caretaker government, meanwhile, defended its actions, describing them as “legal and constitutional.”

What is expected of Kosovo regarding Serbs?

For years, the United States and the European Union have called on Kosovo to implement agreements reached in the EU-mediated dialogue with Serbia.

The main requests include establishing the Association of Serb-majority Municipalities and guaranteeing a degree of self-management for the Serbian community in Kosovo, in line with the 2023 Basic Agreement and the Ohrid Annex.

The West also seeks a resolution of disputes with the Serbian Orthodox Church, the protection of religious freedoms, and the avoidance of unilateral steps in northern Kosovo. According to Washington, such actions have heightened tensions with the Serbian community.

Pristina maintains that obligations arising from the dialogue should be implemented reciprocally. Kosovo says its measures in the north, from removing the Serbian dinar from circulation to closing most Serbian parallel institutions, were undertaken to extend the rule of law. / RFE

The post State Department: Strategic Dialogue with Kosovo to begin after conditions are met, including commitments to Serbs appeared first on Albeu.com.

However, it remains unclear whether the energy issue constitutes a prerequisite for the start of a similar strategic dialogue with Kosovo.

Analyst Sadri Ramabaja, speaking to “Bota sot”, stresses that this dialogue does not diminish the importance of the American alliance with Kosovo, but signals that Serbia is drawing more diplomatic attention due to its geopolitical position in the region.

Ramabaja explains that the announcement of the US-Serbia Strategic Dialogue carries considerable diplomatic weight, but should not be read as a shift of American support from Kosovo towards Belgrade. Nevertheless, it contains messages that Prishtina cannot ignore.

He clarifies that Serbia gaining diplomatic ground does not necessarily mean it is surpassing Kosovo in terms of strategic alliance. Despite these moves, Kosovo continues to be one of the United States’ closest partners in the Balkans, evidenced by the presence of KFOR with a US-led component, intensive cooperation in the security sector, historical support for independence, and investments in security institutions.

According to him, what is happening is that Belgrade is securing a broader operating space in Washington. This does not make Serbia a closer ally than Kosovo, but shows the US effort to engage it at a higher level due to its regional importance and geopolitical positioning.

Ramabaja explains that the US is undertaking this strategic dialogue with Serbia to steer it more firmly toward Western policies and to curb Russian and Chinese influence, while it already sees Kosovo as a close partner. He lists several reasons for this approach: first, Serbia is the largest state in the Western Balkans and exerts influence in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Kosovo. Second, the US administration aims to reduce the influence of Moscow and Beijing in Belgrade by creating regular communication mechanisms on energy, economy, security, and regional policy. Third, the US traditionally conducts strategic dialogues with states it wishes to bring closer to its own policies.

A paradox that stands out, according to the analyst, is that precisely because Serbia is not considered a full ally, Washington spends more diplomatic energy trying to draw it in. On the other hand, Kosovo is perceived as a very close partner, and most cooperation passes through existing security and diplomatic channels.

Ramabaja further points out that the lack of a strategic dialogue with the US could turn into a handicap for Kosovo, as Serbia gains more attention and institutionalized coordination in Washington. In diplomacy, he emphasizes, it is not only the quality of relations that matters, but also the institutional level at which they are cultivated. A Strategic Dialogue usually involves regular ministerial meetings, sectoral working groups, long-term coordination, and joint planning.

If Belgrade secures this platform, while Prishtina does not, the perception is created that Serbia is receiving more institutional attention in the American capital. However, this does not change the reality that Kosovo remains an important partner of the US, but it falls to Prishtina to engage more diplomatically.

Ramabaja interprets this as a signal that relations with the US cannot rely forever on the historical legacy of 1999. He notes that American foreign policy, particularly towards European states and within the transatlantic NATO alliance, has undergone a complete overhaul, especially after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine and the return of Donald Trump to the White House. Despite this, the Western Balkans, just like the Baltics, remains a neuralgic point and an area of UK strategic interest.

Therefore, the strategic partnership needs to be continuously renewed. Prishtina, he suggests, could aim to elevate relations to the level of a Strategic Dialogue, a joint agenda on defense and the military industry, cooperation in energy, artificial intelligence, and the digital economy, as well as closer coordination on regional policy.

So far, there is no official indication that the energy issue constitutes a condition or motive for the start of a US-Kosovo Strategic Dialogue. Unlike Serbia, Kosovo is not energy-dependent on Russia, so a future dialogue of this kind would be more likely to focus on security, defense, economic development, technological transformation, and Euro-Atlantic integration, rather than on energy security.

In conclusion, Ramabaja underlines that the US-Serbia Strategic Dialogue does not constitute a replacement of Kosovo, but demonstrates the necessity for Prishtina to strengthen its partnership with Washington through a new strategic agenda. The message, according to him, is multifaceted: the US does not intend to leave Serbia outside the Western orbit; Washington is investing in regional stability by engaging even with actors that are not formal allies; Serbia is benefiting from a new communication channel with the American administration; and Kosovo should not take American support for granted, but must nourish it with new political and strategic initiatives.

He adds that these developments in the Washington-Belgrade relationship must be understood correctly and outside the propaganda campaigns based on daily agendas of opposition forces. The Strategic Dialogue does not mean that Serbia is replacing Kosovo as a US partner in the Balkans, but shows that Washington is institutionalizing relations with Belgrade at a higher level. For Kosovo, this serves as a reminder that the historical partnership must be complemented by a new strategic agenda that would deepen cooperation in security, energy, technology, investments, and long-term political coordination. If Prishtina and Tirana aim to maintain their weight in American policy for the Balkans, it would be reasonable for Kosovo to work towards establishing an institutionalized strategic dialogue with the United States as well.

The post US-Serbia Strategic Dialogue Begins on July 17, Ramabaja: Partnership with Kosovo Remains Strong, but Must Be Renewed appeared first on Albeu.com.