In his room, the decor is a blend of ceremonial gold accents and photographs spanning Kosovo’s early days of independence. The setting reflects a nation celebrating the 15th anniversary of its unilateral declaration on February 17. The featured conversations begin with Ibrahim Rugova, the intellectual leading voice who advocated nonviolent separation, passing the baton to a last figure in the chain, Vjosa Osmani. The discussion also nods to Hashim Thaci, a controversial Kosovo Albanian figure once accused of war crimes by The Hague tribunal relating to the 1998-1999 uprising. The president offers a small, resigned grunt when recalling the arrangement of his portraits and the feeling of being in that space.
Osmani’s presidency began in 2021, after Thaci stepped down. At 40, he was among the most supported politicians in Kosovo’s brief democratic history, signaling a generational shift for those who fought in the war. Osmani, trained in law at the University of Pittsburgh, understands the weight of Kosovo’s small size on the world stage. The country’s geopolitical position—surrounded by a powerful neighbor that does not recognize its sovereignty and amid a Western alliance with human-rights and democratic values—remains a central concern. The interview frequently touches on Moscow’s stance and its pointed posture toward Serbia, a country whose relationship with the European Union-led negotiations often reads as provocative and uncompromising. The notion of a final settlement appears distant in this tense landscape.
On the declaration of independence, it is noted as a milestone question that Serbia, Russia, and five EU members have not recognized Kosovo. The conversation emphasizes that Russia and Serbia view Kosovo differently, framing their positions around hegemonic and imperial ambitions, while Kosovo’s leadership emphasizes its trajectory toward sovereignty. The response underscores that Kosovo’s independence is presented as an irreversible fact and that the nation aims to be recognized by more states in due time.
The question arises whether Kosovo should unify with Albania. The reply emphasizes a commitment to an independent and sovereign Kosovo, with the declaration of independence and the constitution serving as the cornerstone of all work. The conversation examines historical tensions in the region and the enduring importance of Kosovo’s constitutional framework.
The risk of new escalations is addressed by contrasting the 1990s conflict with present-day dynamics. Serbia is identified as the principal source of regional instability, with implications for Western-Balkan security and the broader stability of Europe. The discussion highlights that Russia, by supporting instability, seeks to undermine European unity and NATO’s values. The aim is a stable, peaceful Europe reinforced by strong partnerships rather than division.
Regarding the war in Ukraine, the conversation notes that pressure from Russia toward Serbia has intensified since February 24, contributing to regional destabilization efforts. The presence of Western security guarantees, including U.S. and European support, is framed as essential to Kosovo’s ongoing security and its political independence.
Kosovo’s strategic alliance with the United States is described as a crucial pillar of its security and freedom. The article recognizes Washington as a key ally, with numerous European and non-European democracies also backing Kosovo’s defense of fundamental freedoms against tyranny and genocide. This partnership is presented as a driving force behind Kosovo’s national success and a focal point of regional geopolitics.
Europe’s role is examined in terms of trust and debate. The analysis suggests that Kosovo seeks stronger integration with European institutions, while criticism is directed at certain EU approaches to Serbia. The discussion argues that appeasement is not a viable strategy when dealing with autocratic behavior, asserting that hard-won stability requires principled engagement rather than concession.
The rumors about Serbia-Kosovo dialogue are acknowledged as part of a long-running process. The article describes the ongoing exchange as a form of route diplomacy, with negotiators moving between Pristina and Belgrade, engaging in parallel discussions with each side. The underlying message is that dialogue continues, even as regional dynamics remain complex and sometimes contentious.