Kosovo finds itself at a strategic crossroads as the post–Pax Americana order erodes, the European Union struggles with strategic incoherence, and Serbia drifts toward an increasingly authoritarian—and openly neo-fascist—political model. Caught between EU punitive measures imposed without credible symmetry, a weakening transatlantic security architecture, and a destabilizing neighbor left largely unchecked, Kosovo’s democratic project has been constrained at precisely the moment it should have been strengthened. The result is a fragile state navigating institutional uncertainty and geopolitical neglect while attempting to anchor itself in the Western democratic order amid a region sliding toward instability.
By Ben Andoni | 26 December 2025
The past two years (2024–2025) should have been a golden period for Kosovo—had it not been constrained by EU punitive measures and had it pursued a more assertive democratic trajectory vis-à-vis Serbia. The optimal path would have been one of democratic consolidation and economic strengthening, in contrast to the growing internal instability in Serbia, now marked by sustained protests and political volatility in Belgrade.
Instead, Kosovo—burdened by EU restrictive measures that are now widely acknowledged as institutionally incoherent and potentially unjust—has been consumed by internal political dysfunction and the chronic difficulty of forming stable executive institutions in an already fragile state.
Beyond Kosovo, what has dominated political life across Europe in recent months is the erosion of Pax Americana and the growing uncertainty surrounding its aftermath. Long anticipated by political theorists, the decline of this order was never meant to be abrupt but rather transformed and adapted from its post-World War II form.
The late American political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski, of Polish origin, argued that U.S. hegemony required strategic renewal. His vision rested on the premise that a united Europe paired with a dynamically engaged United States could together sustain a “larger and more vital West,” capable of remaining relevant in an increasingly multipolar world.
In his book Strategic Vision (2012), written a few years before his death in 2017, Brzezinski warned that global power was already shifting from West to East. His concern was explicit: a complacent or “passive” European Union risked geopolitical irrelevance—ceasing to function as a strategic partner and creating a leadership vacuum that would further weaken the Western position.
That warning resurfaced at the end of 2025 when German Chancellor Friedrich Merz echoed similar anxieties, stating bluntly that the era of Pax Americana—under which the United States guaranteed European security while Europe remained strategically inert—was nearing its end.
Across Europe, rearmament is accelerating, particularly in the Balkans. Mutual accusations abound. Serbia, notably, has framed the emerging Albania–Croatia–Kosovo security alignment as a threat. The region is re-militarizing amid profound uncertainty about direction and leadership.
From a historical perspective, the period between the 1995 Dayton Accords and Kosovo’s declaration of independence in 2008 marked the apex of Pax Americana in the Balkans. Thereafter, U.S. influence gradually receded, while European actors assumed a more prominent—though less decisive—role.
Brzezinski did not foresee Kosovo as the catalyst for the collapse of Pax Americana; such a claim would have lacked logic. What he did foresee, however, was that failure to manage conflicts like Kosovo’s could trigger a “dangerous slide into global disorder,” undermining the credibility of American leadership.
In practice, Kosovo became one of the most visible symptoms of Pax Americana’s decline. From the outset of state-building, it faced internal political paralysis and persistent external obstruction—compounded by the European Union’s strategic ambiguity. To this day, Kosovo remains the only Western Balkan country without EU candidate status and the only one subjected to restrictive measures.
Although Brussels now signals that these measures may soon be lifted, public concern remains focused on how they were conceived in the first place. From their inception, they were widely criticized as asymmetric, unbalanced, and fundamentally unjust.
The measures were largely shaped under the stewardship of former EU Special Envoy Miroslav Lajčák and Enlargement Directorate-General head Gert Jan Koopman—figures who, rather than facilitating Kosovo’s progress, presided over a process marred by diplomatic failure and personal misjudgment. Lajčák, in particular, never convincingly fulfilled the neutrality expected of his role.
How these measures were imposed merits a doctoral dissertation of its own. What is known is that EU member states issued a political declaration authorizing the High Representative to act. That declaration was subsequently interpreted to justify sanctions exclusively against Kosovo—despite explicitly calling for reciprocal measures against Serbia as well.
Serbia, meanwhile, escaped accountability not only for the Banjska armed attack, but also for explicit and dangerous rhetoric emanating from figures tied to its power structure. Among them is Milan Radoičić, a former senior figure in Lista Srpska and organizer of the Banjska operation. Recent testimony has indicated ongoing paramilitary preparations under his network—posing a growing threat not only to Kosovo but to Serbia itself.
This alarm bell rang loudly, yet failed to penetrate Brussels’ institutional deafness—despite warnings from multiple EU member states. Over two years, the European Parliament merely noted that the matter “remains with the Commission,” while the Commission, in turn, insisted it was “awaiting consensus among member states.”
The consequences for Kosovo are now evident. Yet Europe remained unwilling—or unable—to confront Serbia, a state increasingly exhibiting open elements of modern neo-fascism.
Prominent Serbian historian Dubravka Stojanović, a professor at the University of Belgrade, argued recently in Radar that Serbia’s government has blocked all democratic channels of change and is determined to defend its system at any cost.
“With enemies imagined everywhere, conspiracy theories, constantly rising tensions, manufactured crises, and a permanent state-of-siege atmosphere—this is fascism,” she warned her fellow citizens.
Can these threads be woven into a single narrative? Yes—but they dissolve into the broader uncertainty now confronting all three actors:
the European Union after Pax Americana;
Serbia amid sustained revolt and internal decay;
and Kosovo—fragile, determined, and striving to enter the democratic family of nations.
Like in Kafka’s parable, official Pristina stands before one door—only to find another, nearly closed, waiting beyond it.
About the Author
Ben Andoni is a prominent Albanian journalist, publicist, political analyst, and translator based in Tirana. Born on June 29, 1966, he studied geography and history at the University of Tirana and has worked as a professional journalist since 1996. Over the course of his career, Andoni has held senior editorial positions at leading Albanian media outlets, including Koha Jonë, Gazeta Shqiptare, Korrieri, ABC, and MAPO, and has served as a correspondent for the Belgrade-based BETA News Agency. He is widely recognized for his in-depth analysis of Albanian and regional politics, Kosovo–Serbia relations, and broader Balkan geopolitics, and has translated more than 30 contemporary authors from Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and English into Albanian.
