Continues debate, Baton Haxhiu Smajl Latifi, send the letter to Ramush

Haxhiu did not quit that much, he has published an entire opinion today by replicating AAK leadership member.

Baton Hagi's complete writing:

I have a moral problem treating Ramush.

Politicians? Hero? Brother of the dead heroes? Or as AAK's life president?

Therefore, I am writing this letter to you by dedication, that if you have time to read it, don't make it read, send it also to him, Ramush, your eternal president, to read it.

I know Ramush is big and sharp enough to respond directly to any criticism he receives. They don't care, because it only deals with the great and the survival of world democracy.

Your leader and the party are long being distracted with Europe and the xenophobe rhetoric of authoritarian leaders and militarized borders.

The correction and the former idea of this project (suddenly, stopped me half because I had it in my hand) is past, and according to Ramush, it is for Smajli to deal with it (with me).

Putin, Russia, are the size of his devotion.

Of course, with Albin and Vjosa.

I'm trying to treat Ramush as a politician, because I'm beginning to treat him as a hero or even as a big brother of heroes, I'd make him think twice before I go public and talk about state stuff.

I'm writing to him as a politician, because he's probably, if for nothing else, at least I'm trying to ask myself about his rule, not about my weight of poor politics, to decide about correction or any other idea that doesn't involve free thinking.

If you ask me “you can do politics? I can say without hesitation that “does not know how to do”. But if you keep insisting on asking questions, then I can say, again, that “really don't know how to do it like you, but if I deal with it, of course, and, I always do it better than you”.

Definitely.

You know why? Because almost every move you do with the wrong dose!

Because, I would strongly accuse you of being a shield of tyranny and limit the ability of democracy to fight VV's language and political terrorism.

Smajl, the fear of liberalisation survival reminds me of the time when everything was endangered by you. When I say by you, I always put the VV in there.

So people like me sleep at night, because we try to protect liberal democracy from a group, seeing that things are running out in front of us, citizens no longer carry on, anarchy has invaded the way it makes politics.

The grief Ramush and you were supposed to follow his leg, at this power break, would be the question: What if we were wrong?

Or where have we been wrong?

But being such as hero and brother of heroes, Ramush never asks: Where we were wrong or who was wrong?

Even when he was wrong, he never asked what happened. Because, almost always and knowingly, Ramush spoke as a hero and often even as a brother of heroes.

What happened to Ramush in front of his eyes?

He did three main tasks during his political life: helped Vetevendosje, with full consciousness, primarily, as part of it militant, and at present it was like an armed hand, waiting against power; gave her arms of courage and gave her the way of power; and finally destroyed what was called to build public morality of government.

Ramush greatly helped Albin and Vetevendosje, because being part of a revolutionary elite, it was devilishly understood, he did three tasks that revolutionaries usually do: He took it upon himself to kill heroes, idealists, and finally the schoolboys.

The Smajli Nationalism comes in from content, morals and I knew to judge who is the ruling decisionmaker.

A free opinion of mine does not affect or decide any but of life. Hence, the reaction to correction wants to create artificial confessions and points to Ramush's complex.

He realized that the past in power is to some extent pain, not to someone else, but to him and the Alliance itself.

True, he no longer has the power to harm others, but since he is imprisoned within his imaginary power, he can harm himself.

Why don't you tell him about it?

Why doesn't someone become honest with him and tell him?

These questions are more like appeals. Toi says someone who doesn't know how to do power or the leader who decides to taste a statesman. That's why, he must not expose himself more. For his sake.

Taking into account his past as a hero, he got well. Why is he being exposed now?

As a friend, you might ask me: “you liked this last mandate of Ramush”, and I, as a journalist and as my favourite to prime minister once, would say: “would like it, as if it were the last”.

For those with revolutionary revolutions, the way to make politics lists some preconditions such as foreign military risk, opposition from ruling classes, gradual desigration of the old regime, and so on. However, almost exactly the same preconditions have not been met, but radical change has occurred through revolutionary intervention.

The reason is simple: there has been an ideological agent engaged (VV) to make these objective preconditions really look revolutionary. And you were there to do the work of an ideological agent.

Smajl, only activists involved emotionally in social affairs are subject to possible change. The problem is not that the activist is committed to fixing an unfair situation that exists objectively. The problem is that without the engagement of activist the unfair objective situation does not appear at all.

The objectivity of the collapse was revealed only by the VV's preliminary approach as subject to attack. The AAK was only acceoric militant without having prior motives to subjectives There has never been and there is no political objectivity. Because the mayor resigns without cause and leaves the political battle for good reason, too. Because there are no policy targets.

For Ramush and you Smajl, the final phase of dialogue for normalisation of relations between Kosovo and Serbia is being characterised by a total lack of institutional leadership and deep political irresponsible. Although hundreds of high-level political meetings have been held so far.

This shows that there is an outstanding lack of political conscience in Kosovo at a very delicate historical moment. In all this political situation, however, the main responsibility falls to two political personalities, the current prime minister and former Kosovo Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj.

Smajl, in a period when it is set for many things since the coalition union Veselin and Haradinaj, has been insisted on the necessity of making major decisions for the country.

In fact, the main motivation of their political approach, according to their reasoning, has been the force of two shareholders to complete the political transition in Kosovo, respectively, completed the process of consolidating Kosovo's citizenship, including the successful closure of Kosovo-Serbia dialogue.

Impossibility was initially noted in the failure to find a quick solution to demarcation of the border line with Montenegro. As a result of the unreasonable loss of almost four years in the process, Kosovo already has no visa liberalisation at least by 2023.

This shows that your focus, exclusively, on thematic of internal policy and electoral accounts has made you completely short for Europe's increasingly favourable climate on issues of enlargement in general and deepening co-operation practices with non-member countries in particular.

So while you've been looking for internal institutional comfort and preoccupied with improving the image in public, major political processes are being negatively influenced by lack of courage for deployment and lack of vision for leadership action in question. Similarly, this approach is producing completely negative effects in the final phase of Kosovo-Serbia dialogue.

Ramush Haradinaj has so far provided only a clear example of his importance in politics. It is necessary in government only because it is highly destructive in the opposition not because it is productive in power. He has been given the post of prime minister, among other things, by the inability to manage the threats of new war, the violence exercised in Pristina squares and the casting of tear in the Assembly. As prime minister, meanwhile, the agreement that has signed with Montenegro has been largely the same.

Likewise, Ramush today appears in the media threatening a new war and a series of historical bloodshed in case the border correction process begins.

Haradinaj has expressed this very unwary attitude in almost all of the world's Chancellors.

However, if his public reputation is being increased by his role by the Guardian of Territors, he has no less idea and even the most essential alternative proposal on how to complete the Kosovo-Serbia dialogue.

His proposal submitted to the Assembly as a national negotiation strategy has been precisely 2 pages with general media formulas.

Even in a public proposal, Haradinaj claimed he did not have time to deal with dialogue. So, as difficult as it seems to believe, the former Kosovo prime minister declared at the time there is no time to lead the final historic process between Kosovo and Serbia.

This does not indicate just a failure to assume institutional responsibilities for historical capital processes. This shows that as long as he is inexplicable and without a vision to manage with this process, he is nevertheless interested in obtaining the electoral and political benefits resulting from the rejection of parts of this process. So he is once again exploiting his most special political talent: classic rejection without alternative ideas and public threats without the responsibility to offer solutions.

Ramush, meanwhile, has only recycled his old public relations management strategy so far. As in the Mustafa Government, when he stood in the background amid the political crisis, giving only vague statements, in opposition Haradinaj stands with full durability just not to take full responsibility in certain processes.

Not only has Ramush been saved to the maximum by the proposal on issues related to dialogue, but has minimally been dealt with. Nor has he become an active part of the negotiations in Brussels, nor has he fully supported the negotiating actors in Brussels.

Playing with double understanding Ramush Haradinaj may think he is preserving the public image, but, in fact, is completely losing his political leadership.

At first, shortly after the president's meeting with Presevo Valley leaders, Haradinaj said that joining this three to Kosovo is an undeniable right and a legitimate historical cause. When public pressure had begun to increase and the position of Western diplomacy to be complicated, Ramush said it is an idea with Serbian and Russian architecture.

Despite the quality of analysis, the main problem is: what is its alternative platform in dialogue. It's just that, besides empty words about media consumption, there's no such plan.

The common denominator is the position that dialogue should end with mutual recognition.

However, even the most common mind in Kosovo knows that realising that goal requires an international political transaction and a particular political compromise with Serbia.

While all oppose expanding the competencies of Association, both are against border correction. In other words, Haradinaj and Kurti are politically exploiting the comfort that comes from rejecting unpopular themes, but never playing the role of constructive leaders in the process.

After all, it is perfectly legitimate to be in Kosovo against the international community. However, they have already unveiled an idea and taken the courage to lead a process.

If others have more affirmative ideas, of course, they should spread out in public and take political responsibility in their materialisation.

Haradinaj, meanwhile, prior to conflicting statements and threatening objections, deprived of any political opinion, must not only clarify the position, but also extend their programmes for ending dialogue without pathetics and demagogues.

Both prefer to talk about personal manhood and their willingness to make big decisions.

Their current behavior, at least, shows that they are personally structured in more comfortable areas of political profit and have remained without the basic courage of leaders and even saw medium-term accounts of policymakers.

By doing so, my dear Smajl, we can remind you that for the same reason that they started loving you, so they'll start hating you. This is a letter trying to use arguments without a charge inside. In response, I can say that your political actions were shocking, and of you I understood that democracies do not depend on mechanical processes as far as human authenticity. So your authenticity was shocking. We, on the other hand, were on the brink of a political abyss, continuing to imitate democracy badly. No flavor.

Smajl your reaction to my pain expressed on the T7 Pressing show I call pain because I can't say critical, as criticism presupposes the action done on the other side and you've been doing it for a long time.

Not that you have more to say, but that always when the reaction is done, not in the intellectual's sincerity, but with the official's calculations, it comes out poor.

This should probably be another major sin of Ramush, the creation of such a structure that conveys a man without purpose rather than the purpose that governs humans.

This is where Ramush and Albin are distinguished. Because Alban, when he sees opposing bubbles inside the party, creates plots and takes them away. Ramush, on the other hand, does not push them away from the party, but suppresses them so much that he repels their criticism.

They then remain inside, but so, empty, just like your” reaction.

All these replicas began after journalist Haxhiu said Ramush Haradinaj is guilty of LVV's triumph in last year's parliamentary elections.