Prime Minister Albin Kurti’s trip to Paris for the 2026 Peace Forum has brought Kosovo’s international ambitions back into focus. European integration continues to face obstacles, several European Union and NATO countries still do not recognize its independence, and tensions with Serbia remain unresolved. The meetings in the French capital gave Pristina an opportunity to raise issues it considers important to strengthening its statehood and its position in the world.
In his meeting with President Emmanuel Macron, Kurti sought support for Kosovo’s recognition by the five EU countries and four NATO countries that have not taken that step. He also raised Serbia’s responsibility for the attack in Banjska and called for the handover of Milan Radoičić, asking that the issue remain part of Kosovo’s discussions with its international partners.
Të lidhura
None found
Political scientist Ramadan Gjanaj and political analyst and international affairs expert Eduard Gashi spoke to the newspaper “Bota sot” about what Kosovo could gain from the visit, how it might secure further recognition, and how Banjska and the dialogue with Serbia affect the country’s future.
Gjanaj considers Kurti’s participation in Paris worthwhile but says its significance will be determined by the results. In his view, the Peace Forum gave Kosovo a platform to present its experience of postwar reconstruction and establish contacts that could lead to new partnerships. He notes, however, that the forum has limited influence over EU decision-making: Kosovo’s application for candidate status is considered by European institutions and member states.
If securing that status is Pristina’s immediate goal, progress in normalizing relations with Belgrade will be important, Gjanaj says. He notes that the EU expects both sides to fulfill the commitments made in Brussels and Ohrid. For him, the EU–Western Balkans summit, scheduled for November 25 in Brussels, will be a better opportunity to gauge the political will of European countries. A concrete signal, he says, would be their agreement on the next step regarding Kosovo’s application.
Gjanaj calls the appeal for recognition addressed to EU and NATO countries legitimate. The five EU members that do not recognize Kosovo are Spain, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Cyprus; the first four are also NATO members. He suggests that Kosovo’s diplomats work with each country individually, taking its interests and political constraints into account.
According to Gjanaj, Greece is a country with which Pristina could deepen cooperation immediately. Athens already has a liaison office in Pristina and economic ties with Kosovo, which could be expanded without prejudging its decision on recognition. He proposes that France, Germany and the United States, as Kosovo’s key allies, support concrete bilateral initiatives. Where recognition remains politically out of reach, Pristina should, in his view, seek progress in official relations, economic exchanges and regional cooperation.
On Banjska, Gjanaj says Kosovo has the right to seek Radoičić’s handover but should also follow the actions of Serbia’s judicial institutions. He refers to information published in late October indicating that a commission of Serbia’s Supreme Prosecutor’s Office was examining, among other things, why Radoičić had not been placed in pretrial detention. If his handover to Pristina remains blocked, Kosovo’s international partners should, according to Gjanaj, ask Belgrade to clarify what steps Serbian prosecutors intend to take.
He believes diplomacy is Kosovo’s main tool in this matter. Pristina could ask Brussels and Washington to make judicial cooperation over Banjska a regular part of their discussions with Belgrade. Gjanaj also stresses that individual criminal responsibility must be distinguished from any potential responsibility of institutions: any allegation of institutional support must be examined on the basis of concrete evidence.
As for the dialogue, Gjanaj says political change in Belgrade could open the way for talks to resume, but the prospects for progress would depend on a new government’s initial decisions. He points to the commitments the Brussels Agreement sets out for both sides: Article 4 provides that Serbia will not oppose Kosovo’s membership in international organizations, while Article 7 provides for guarantees and an appropriate level of self-management for the Serbian community in Kosovo.
According to Gjanaj, the EU should ask both sides for an implementation timetable and verifiable results. The impact on security, he says, will be seen first in northern Kosovo, through functioning communication channels, residents’ access to services and the progress of judicial proceedings over Banjska. Coordination among the Kosovo Police, EULEX and KFOR, each according to its role, remains essential. In the short term, he proposes judging the dialogue by the two governments’ ability to avoid another crisis and honor their commitments.
Eduard Gashi also sees the Peace Forum in Paris as an opportunity to advance Kosovo’s national interests, but warns that diplomatic visibility is not the same as diplomatic influence. Direct meetings with European decision-makers should not, in his view, be seen as mere protocol; their value is measured by the agreements, concrete commitments, political support and progress that remain after the forum.
Gashi argues that, alongside recalling its history and its right to statehood, Kosovo’s diplomacy should show what the country can offer Europe. The fight for freedom and international intervention, he says, remain part of Kosovo’s national identity, but historical arguments are no longer enough on their own. The country must also present itself as a partner that contributes to stability, security and cooperation and has economic potential.
Noting Paris’s political weight in the EU, Gashi emphasizes the importance of relations with France. For the five member states that do not recognize Kosovo, he proposes separate strategies rather than a single approach, because political interests and sensitivities differ from one country to another. Those strategies, he says, should be based on shared interests and realistic opportunities for cooperation.
He notes that the International Court of Justice’s 2010 advisory opinion found that Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate international law. That opinion, however, does not oblige countries to recognize Kosovo. Gashi therefore calls for broader diplomatic engagement, including economic relations, parliamentary cooperation, academic exchanges and the involvement of the Albanian diaspora. In his view, recognition also requires creating political conditions in which it is seen as a contribution to stability and the shared European interest; Kosovo should be more active in economic diplomacy.
Gashi also addressed the armed attack in Banjska on September 24, 2023, in which Kosovo Police Sergeant Afrim Bunjaku was killed. He describes it as a serious security and rule-of-law issue, calling for individual criminal responsibility to be determined through judicial proceedings and for any allegation that Serbian state institutions bear responsibility to be supported by verifiable evidence.
In his view, Kosovo should continue to document evidence professionally and cooperate with international partners, while ensuring that Banjska remains a standing issue in discussions with the EU and the United States. A lack of accountability for armed violence increases the risk of its recurrence, Gashi warns; lasting peace requires justice, functioning institutions and accountability. He adds that the actions of armed groups should not be attributed to the Serbian community in Kosovo as a whole: Serb citizens are part of Kosovo’s society, and the country’s institutions are responsible for their safety.
Gashi considers the Kosovo–Serbia dialogue one of the main factors in the region’s political stability and security. He says talks are not a favor granted by one side to the other, but a way to manage disagreements and reduce the risk of conflict. Kurti’s appeals in Paris may reaffirm Kosovo’s positions, but they must be accompanied by concrete negotiating strategies. Gashi also stresses the importance of ties with the United States, Germany, France and other European partners: for a small country like Kosovo, international alliances are part of national security.
Normalizing relations with Serbia also has an economic dimension, he notes. Persistent political tensions affect how international investors assess risk, while Kosovo needs capital, investment and new jobs. According to Gashi, exercising sovereignty must go hand in hand with building citizens’ trust, including that of the Serbian community in the north. Long-term security depends not only on the police and defense capabilities, but also on trustworthy institutions, economic development and respect for citizens’ rights. For him, political sovereignty, security and economic development are mutually reinforcing pillars.
In conclusion, Gashi believes Kosovo has historical, legal and political arguments for consolidating its international position, but today’s geopolitical circumstances also demand diplomatic pragmatism. In his view, having sound arguments is not enough if they do not produce results: statehood is strengthened every day through trustworthy institutions, economic development, security and stable international relations.
