Northern Kosovo In A Turmoil Of Geopolitical Contradictions – OpEd
From many theories and scenarios drafted for Northern Kosovo region during the war of 1998-1999 and beyond, through the pressure of the April 2013 agreement and its modifications of August 25, 2015, Brussels has reviewed and modified its posture towards Kosovo, while taking into consideration the theories of Karl Haushofer, about the objectives and changes in the History of Europe.
Reports in regards to the relations of Russia and NATO, after the annexation of Crimea, are reaching even more a critical point. Military operations of Russia, like the recent exercises named as the “tip of a spear”, a fast intervention military unit, that is capable to be dislocated for a few days from one region to another, is becoming worrisome for the Baltic countries such as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
Constantine Sivkov, President of the Academy of Geopolitical Studies and a Russian Military Expert, blames NATO for every new movement of Russian forces towards strategic hot spots, while considering the movements of its troops as a provocation towards Russian Sphere of Influence.
In this context, if the declaration of a German humanist Rupert Nojdek on the possibility of “extinction” of the republic of Kosovo by Serbia within a few days, obviously having the support of Russian Troops, the situation could descent all of a sudden towards a repeated conflict. Serbia, for this reason, has insisted in the creation of a Serbian political ethnicity in Kosovo, very similar to the Bosnian case. This is why the agreement of Brussels (2013), must be reviewed its judicial-political foundations over which is being built the Serbian political ethnicity blessed as the Association of Serbian Town Halls’ in Kosovo.
Meanwhile in this political turmoil appears senseless the scoffed reasoning of Kosovo’s Prime Minister Isa Mustafa, that the Armed Forces of Kosovo under formation, will not go in the north of Kosovo without an agreement with NATO, and now, founded in front of massive protests of people who are against this agreement, does a tactical withdrawal, calling upon the agreement to create the Serbian Town Halls’ Association as a political failure, which is emerging while being pressured by international actors.
In addition to this, on August 25 we had the signing of the agreement on the border line between Kosovo and the Republic of Montenegro. According to experts of German Foundation Friedrich Ebert who were involved in this process, from this agreement Kosovo’s interest is ruined including the loss of 8,500 acres of mountains, known for their high quality of lumber and trees, livestock and excellent fresh water resources.
Just like in Prishtina’s fine tuned actions with NATO as well as the territorial issues with Montenegro, the geostrategic and geopolitical factors were detrimental. This is why “friends” of Kosovo were ignored, while articulating that these agreements are against the strategic interests of Kosovo and against the nation’s Constitution.
Such a clear geopolitical connotation, obviously brings into the memory of Political Historians of Europe the “Eurasian matters” at the brink of World War II, for such issues scholars like Halford John Mackinder and Karl Haushofer, estimated that they could change the world.
Will we have a tragicomically repeated history? 
In this turmoil of contradictions with a clear geopolitical motivation, the democratic circling that Romania and Bulgaria have done to Serbia, by initially becoming members of NATO and later, with fast pace procedures, becoming part of the EU, should have been considered as a well established part of a new European security. Meanwhile the preparation of circumstances to include western Balkans in the Euro-Atlantic Process must be viewed as a significant geopolitical part of the West that would bring an end to any Russian influence in the region.
But the accomplishment of this project led by the West, is taking place while damaging the functioning of the Republic of Kosovo and overall stability of Albanian Nation!
Today, the fighting trenches in the soil of Ukraine, demonstrate clearly that Russia is re emerging with the defense of its geopolitical and national interests, to face any strategic calculation led by NATO.
The tangible facts pertaining to Crimea, with other provinces of Eastern Ukraine and warnings of Russia towards taking military actions in the Baltic countries and the Balkans, are a testimony of geopolitical contradictions which are taking worrisome proportions. The deepening geopolitical divide between the west and Russia already are under the light of new developments in the Middle East, in Greece and Turkey, in an effort to defend the political order, is earning a specific weight, since it may send a wrong signal to Moscow in order to monitor the Balkan region which has specific geostrategic interests.
Dr. Odo Steinbach, one of the eminent professors who has heavily contributed in the renaissance of German geopolitics, as a new thinker, while analyzing the ambiguity of Turkey in these contradictory geopolitical waves, points out that today time has gone for Turkey when it was insisting to be part of the “European Club” Steinbach concludes that Turkey for years is in search of new alliances. In this search of alliances Turkey is not excluding Russia. As Prof. Steinbach observes in this context we are dealing with a significant vacuum of political cohesion, which nonetheless goes against the vision for a “new Turkey” which is abused by Turkey’s new president Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
In relation to the debates about the Greek debt crises, between Berlin and Athens, it was obvious that the topics of conversations were not the large amounts of funds loaned by German creditors, but for geopolitics, notwithstanding that this is not articulated loudly enough. But what had happened after WWII, when the Truman Doctrine went out in public, it was known that Truman did not take into consideration Russian ambitions for this area, and it had served to give an early rise to the Cold War, now it would not be logical to be repeated again in this confused setting of geopolitical interests. Otherwise, can that tolerant attitude be considered as a lecture by history? It appears that it is not the case.
Warnings of high level visits from Greek Government to Moscow but also the declaration by Rupert Nojdek about Kosovo, like a small bite for Serbia, and indeed it is in relation to the North of Kosovo, so that scenarios of the end of the war in Kosovo (1999) are taking the country back into a turbulent geostrategic scenario, they are clear that the deepening of these contradictions would bring again to life the old days of the Cold War.
Marcel Gauchet and Jurgen Habermas have argued on how the new European formula in terms of democratic government and the state of social welfare was destined to be a model for the world’s nations.
In fact this model for South Eastern Europe, in the most part of it was materialized quickly, thanks to proactive geopolitics, the case of Romania and Bulgaria. But this is not happening with the western Balkans, with the rhythm that was expected. On the contrary: if we look into retrospective, it is seen very clearly that we are dealing with a permanent history of blunders. The case of Bosnia, the case of Macedonia and the efforts to bring Kosovo in this group of failed nations.
From the theories and the many scenarios drafted for the north of Kosovo even during the war (1998-1999), through the imposition of the April 2013 agreement and its adoption on August 25 2015 over the Association of Serbian Town Halls, Brussels reviewed extensively the policies approved days before the war of Kosovo with the approval of NATOs intervention, while coming close to the theory of Carl Haushofer, about the objectives to change the history of Europe.
Imposing this agreement automatically could bring political crisis in Kosovo. Can such a crisis affect Kosovo, after the Greek debt crisis, and be a mile stone in the history of the continent?
Whether Kosovo from a successful history in a faceoff with Russia – with the intervention of EULEX in 2008 – it very easy could symbolize the ability of Europe to offer an anchorage to the liberal democracy and to the socioeconomic stability of a new nation, it remains to be seen very soon.
Northern Kosovo in the turmoil of geopolitical contradictions even inside Europe, seems like it is serving as carbon letter of its own style. We are living a time when inside European Union centrifugal forces are growing even as a consequence of Brussels’inability to entice. Apart for this, UK is requesting dissolution of the integration, while threatening that it will exit, and reiterating its attraction towards United States. On the East final deception in regards to the European Integration is leaving a void and nationalist forces are erupting (even though contradictory feelings are evident against Russia which has recovered its imposing power). Even inside the nucleus of Europe is feel a sort of desperation.
Experiments with Kosovo in this phase and manner, through the creation of Serbian political entity within its territory, even though it has neglected to be called as the Republica Serbska of Kosovo, it seems that it will disorganize Kosovo, while placing it in the network of the failed nations. Failure of Kosovo as a nation makes it necessary and brings an urgent need to review the map of the Balkans.
With the imposition of agreement of Serbian town Hall association in Kosovo (25 August 2015) European diplomacy of the XXI century is very similar to the one of XX century, at that time in the Congress of London, in the name of Peace in Europe; it sacrificed Albania, even though within a few years after that decision WWI erupted.
Translated from Albanian by Peter M. Tase
One thought on “Northern Kosovo In A Turmoil Of Geopolitical Contradictions – OpEd”
“With the imposition of agreement of Serbian town Hall association in Kosovo (25 August 2015) European diplomacy of the XXI century is very similar to the one of XX century, at that time in the Congress of London, in the name of Peace in Europe; it sacrificed Albania, even though within a few years after that decision WWI erupted.”
The London Peace Treaty & The Bucharest Peace Treaty in 1913 did not sacrificed Albania as both of them rather sacrificed Serbia and Greece by recognizing of artificial Albania composed by Serbian and Greek ethno-historical territories. This injustice was unfortunately verified by the post-WWI peace treaties.