Vogel: Kosovo's security and political future increasingly vulnerable

For years, Kosovo relied on a united West to push forward its state-building and international integration.

Now, as the United States and the European Union increasingly diverge in their priorities and approaches, this support no longer appears as coordinated – confronting Kosovo with new political and strategic challenges.

Last week marked 27 years since the NATO intervention that stopped the violence of Serbian forces in Kosovo and forever changed the course of its history.

The decision, at the time, was coordinated by all allies and confirmed their commitment to stop the bloodshed and ethnic cleansing.

"Today, we and our 18 NATO allies agreed to do what we said we would do, what we must do to restore peace," said then-US President Bill Clinton on March 24, 1999.

Since then, Kosovo has consolidated its independence. With its challenges and successes, it has been internationally recognized, accepted into various organizations, and made important steps towards Euro-Atlantic integration – all thanks to the continued support of its Western allies.

But the path towards full membership in the EU and NATO remains long and closely linked to the West, which is different today – divided and unclear in its positions.

Tensions between the US on one side and Europe on the other have culminated in the war in Iran, but have, in fact, begun to rise since the beginning of the second term of US President Donald Trump, over a range of issues - from trade to his ambitions for Denmark's autonomous territory, Greenland.

In one of the strongest warnings made this week, Trump threatened to withdraw the US from NATO after European allies refused to send ships to unblock the Strait of Hormuz, near Iran.

Previously, he described the alliance as a "paper tiger" that does not support the US.

"I will say it publicly, we are very disappointed with NATO, because NATO has done nothing... The most important thing is that we come to their aid, but they never come to our aid," Trump said.

Although he had warned that he would address this topic in his address to the nation on April 1, he avoided it.

A day later, the co-chairs of the NATO Watch Group in the US Senate said that Congress will not allow Washington to withdraw from the Western military alliance.

On the other side of the Atlantic, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas acknowledged that the relationship between the two poles is "complicated."

In an interview with the Financial Times last month, she said the United States "wants to divide Europe."

"I think it's important for everyone to understand that the US has made it very clear that it wants to divide Europe. It doesn't like the European Union," Kallas said.

The statement came days after the Trump administration launched trade investigations against the European Union and several other countries, accusing them of unfair trade practices, and as a result, these countries could face new tariffs in the coming months.

"The foreign countries that have been deceiving us for years are ecstatic, they are very happy, and they are dancing in the streets, but they will not be dancing for much longer. Of that, I assure you," Trump said.

The threat of this rift feels distant, and Kosovo appears as a particularly fragile and exposed partner.

A recent study by the Group for Legal and Political Studies in Pristina identified five main risks that Kosovo faces from this situation – starting with increasing interference in Kosovo's internal affairs, higher vulnerability to external threats, erosion of the principle of sovereignty, strengthening of authoritarianism, and obstacles to the Euro-Atlantic integration process.

The author of the study, Alejandro Esteso Perez, explains to Radio Free Europe's Expose program that Kosovo is more vulnerable than other Western Balkan countries, due to the fact that its contested status places it in an unfavorable international position, preventing it from having full recognition, equal participation in international institutions, and a place in the United Nations.

“These five risks must be understood as a whole. They all contribute to Kosovo’s current and future position through different dimensions and to different degrees. There are risks within the country, the region and internationally, which are driven by different actors, but all of them affect Kosovo’s position in the short and medium term,” says Perez.

Toby Vogel, from the Council for Democratization Policy in Brussels, agrees that Kosovo's security and political future are increasingly vulnerable.

While concrete scenarios are often discussed – such as the withdrawal of American troops from NATO's peacekeeping mission in Kosovo, KFOR – Vogel sees the main risk elsewhere: insecurity.

"We live in a very difficult geopolitical environment: we not only have the war in Iran, but also the war in Ukraine. Also, Gaza remains unresolved, there is now a war in Lebanon and other similar issues. All of this distracts attention from a strategic analysis of the Balkans. And I regret to say that Kosovo has fallen almost to the bottom of the list of priorities for Europeans," Vogel tells Exposé.

Vogel warns that any potential change in the international presence in Kosovo could provoke more aggressive actions from various actors.

He does not rule out the scenario of localized incidents, which could escalate into a chain of reactions, emphasizing that the EU is not ready to confront Serbia, which continues to have territorial claims to Kosovo.

"So, if the US withdraws troops from KFOR, this could have very serious consequences. Not in the sense of an immediate return of violence, let alone war... although, frankly, in these chaotic times and conditions, I wouldn't rule anything out," says Vogel.

With the National Defense Authorization Act, the United States has called on Kosovo and Serbia to make concrete progress towards normalizing relations, and has emphasized the need to support a final agreement, based on mutual recognition.

However, the two countries have not held any high-level meeting since September 2023, although the EU has declared its willingness to mediate one.

Vogel assesses that the stated ultimate goal of the dialogue – mutual recognition – has faded significantly in Brussels, and adds that the EU has shown no real interest in advancing Kosovo in the membership process, remaining the only country in the Western Balkans without candidate status.

Perez, on the other hand, says that it is difficult to make accurate predictions about the dialogue with Serbia, EU integration, and security issues, due to geopolitical unpredictability in Washington and the instability of global developments.

"The current energy crisis, which has followed the US and Israeli attack on Iran, is a new and unfortunate development, which to a large extent could not have been foreseen. This situation is forcing the European Union to shift its diplomatic attention away from enlargement and the Western Balkans, risking that Kosovo will remain neglected," says Perez.

Asked whether Kosovo should choose sides between the US and the EU, Perez emphasizes that the country must show coherence between the democratic values ​​it promotes and its foreign policy actions.

According to him, aligning with problematic regimes in international initiatives creates the perception of unconditional submission, rather than genuine sovereignty, tarnishing Kosovo's image as a state with democratizing ambitions.

Kosovo has joined the Gaza Peace Board - an initiative launched by President Trump, which also includes countries with authoritarian tendencies, such as Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan.

Major European powers – including France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Spain – have refused to join this project, and this, according to Vogel, shows that Kosovo has, in a way, taken sides.

"This is something the EU does not like. It does not look favorably on a potential candidate country aligning itself so openly with the US in a move that many consider a potential rival organization to the United Nations," says Vogel.

However, he sees the decision as a pragmatic rather than ideological move. Faced with the lack of a realistic prospect for EU membership, the refusal of recognition by five countries, and the bloc's often punitive stance, he says that Kosovo's joining the Peace Board serves as a way to stay close to the US and as a shield against sudden changes in international politics.

But, despite this, Vogel sees Kosovo's long-term future within Europe, mainly through pan-European structures and strong bilateral relations with key EU states.

For the authorities in Kosovo, these alliances with the West remain without alternative, but the lack of transatlantic coordination, according to analysts, has significantly limited their room for maneuver.

They emphasize that the country's future depends not only on domestic actions, but also to a large extent on decisions made in the main centers of power in the West.

And that is precisely where, currently, clarity is lacking.