Whenever dialogue is meant to advance, the pressure invariably falls on Prishtina. This is not diplomacy; it has become a reflex — and it is high time it was named as such.
Let us start with the facts. In 2023, Kosova accepted both the Brussels Agreement and the Ohrid Annex. These decisions were politically costly, domestically contested, and required the government to absorb significant pressure from its own constituency. Kosova accepted them anyway — because it takes its European commitments seriously, because normalization serves its long-term interests, and because it is a state that honors the agreements it signs.
Belgrade, in contrast, has failed to uphold its obligations. President Aleksandar Vučić has openly stated that Serbia will never recognize Kosova’s independence, that the 2013 Brussels Agreement was signed under duress, and that the normalization framework is meant to manage, not resolve, the Kosova issue. These are not the actions of a partner negotiating in good faith; they are the actions of a state that prioritizes process over outcome, seeing endless dialogue as preferable to acknowledging Kosova’s sovereignty.
Belgrade has also pursued military expansion inconsistent with peaceful regional relations. Acquisition of advanced missile systems, accelerated modernization of the armed forces, and cultivated military partnerships outside its European commitments are deliberate choices signaling that force is being projected as a substitute for political compromise.
Yet, the diplomatic spotlight remains almost exclusively on Prishtina. EU envoys, Western ambassadors, and European leaders have repeatedly urged Kosova’s government to move on the Association of Serb-Majority Municipalities and show progress. Letters from Friedrich Merz and Emmanuel Macron, along with statements from outgoing EU Ambassador Jens Orav and the German ambassador, all carry this implicit logic.
Kosova has obligations, certainly. But consistently framing Prishtina as the party that must act — while largely ignoring Belgrade’s far greater failures — reflects a structural bias in the process. This bias requires direct acknowledgment.
A second, equally consequential reflex shapes the conversation: normalization is almost always discussed in terms of the Association of Serb-Majority Municipalities. The implicit assumption is that progress is primarily about accommodating Serbia’s influence inside Kosova.
This framing is flawed. Kosova’s Serbian community enjoys robust constitutional rights — among the strongest minority protections in the region. Efforts should focus on integrating this community into Kosova’s legal and civic framework, ensuring municipalities function effectively under Kosova’s laws, and enabling full participation in the country’s political and economic future. This is distinct from creating parallel institutions answering to a foreign capital. The path forward runs through Kosova’s constitutional order — not around it.
Recent events highlight this distinction. Implementation of Kosova’s Law on Foreigners — a legitimate law applied to a legitimate state function — generated international concern regarding its effects on Serbian staff in the north. Kosova responded with coordination, adjustments, and careful management. The government demonstrated that it is not reflexively resistant to compromise; it resists processes designed to deliver outcomes favorable to Belgrade regardless of Kosova’s actions.
Conflating Kosova’s insistence on a reciprocal, lawful process with obstruction is the analytical error perpetuating the stalemate. Fifteen years of dialogue — Brussels and Ohrid — have left obligations largely unmet. The costs of continued deadlock are real, but applying disproportionate pressure to the party that has delivered its commitments while largely ignoring the party that has delivered none does not resolve the issue; it seeks capitulation.
Kosova has proven it can move and absorb political costs to uphold agreements. What is needed in return is honesty about obligations and equal accountability applied to Belgrade — the minimum condition for a dialogue worthy of the name.
