Bugajski analysis: Balkan Stability Seeks Kosovo Agreement

In the analysis published by the American media, Washington Examiner, the political issue expert requires a more active role in the dialogue process between Kosovo and Serbia, so that a final agreement can be reached, which he saw, he sees as the Balkan region gets involved in a new conflict.

Had an agreement on mutual recognition as independent states, the heated dispute would shift borders, limit economic development and exclude EU integration. For the talks to succeed, the Benden administration must play a more active role in the process. While the EU is viewed in the region as split and unreliable, the United States maintains credibility due to their leading role in resolving previous Balkan conflicts”, Bugajski says.

He emphasises Russia's role in Serbia's anti-Kosovo policy, while stressing the need to avoid a new conflict/

Biden's “Agenda has confirmed that mutual interstate recognition between Serbia and Kosovo is the only applicable solution. Accepting the final borders will allow economic development in both states and prevent corrupt regional Kremlin interventions. Without a bilateral agreement, the region could again enter the conflict prompted by Serbian and Albanian nationalist ambitions. Since Kosovo declared independence in 2008 and was recognised by the US and all EU members, except for five countries, Serbia's government has dedicated its foreign policy to blocking the new state's entry into international institutions. She has worked closely with Vladimir Putin's Russia in trying to delegate Kosovo's citizenship and promote an expansionist agenda”, Bugajski writes.

He also writes that “under the agenda of Serbia's president, Aleksandar Vucic “Serbianbot”, which imitates Putin's “bota Russia”, “Serbia aims to dominate several neighbouring states and eventually include territories with large Serb populations”. He stresses that Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro stand on front lines defending their sovereignty, but think they receive insufficient political assistance from the EU.

Belgrade's “objectives towards Kosovo are to indefinitely delay a bilateral solution, maintain uncertainty about its future and potentially absorb part of the territory. In Montenegro's case, Vuciqi's policy is designed to submit this state's sovereignty and subject its foreign policy to that of Serbia. Belgrade works through Serbian nationalists involved in the new ruling coalition, which wants to withdraw from the country's western orientation, even though Montenegro is already a NATO member”, writes Balkan expert.

He has even cited the idea of uniting Kosovo with Albania, which he sees can rise as an option. That, according to him, would provide protection under the NATO umbrella, but those movements say they would inevitably lead to conflicts with neighbours.

Under these challenging conditions, the idea of national unity in a state structure can be a promise of progress and historical justice. The Kosovo Union with Albania would certainly ensure its protection under NATO umbrella and would provide Pristina with a greater global approach. For Serbs, an enlarged Serbia would finally bring the whole nation into one state. But moves towards expanding the state would inevitably spark conflicts with neighbours and would spur requirements for border changes among other ethnic groups. Although political leaders reiterate the formula that nationalist aspirations will be neutralised through the pan-European union, they also have to calculate how to benefit from nationalist feelings if the road to the EU is blocked indefinitely”, Bugajski says.

He emphasises that Bosnia and Herzegovina is the third main target of pan-Serbism, as it remains a non-functional country mainly because of the autonomous Republika Srpska's blocking policies and the threat of union with Serbia.