Former Albanian Defense Minister Fatmir Mediu, who currently heads the Center for Southeast European Security, agrees that European countries have the capacity to take on a greater military role in Kosovo, but adds that the American presence has an importance that goes beyond this aspect.
In June 1999, as Kosovo emerged from war and refugees were returning, NATO deployed its peacekeeping mission, KFOR, to create a secure environment and prevent a return to violence. It was not the military alliance’s first mission, but it would become its longest-running mission, its largest active operation, and one of its most successful interventions. The multinational force initially numbered over 50,000 soldiers, including about 7,000 Americans. The challenges of building a future after the widespread destruction left by the Serbian attack were extraordinary, according to then-US President Bill Clinton.
Five months after the war ended, he traveled to Kosovo to meet with American troops at Camp Bondsteel — the largest U.S. military base in the Balkans and one of the most powerful symbols of its presence in the region. “I know that many of your duties are still dangerous. I appreciate the tireless work you have done to protect all the people of Kosovo, including the Serbs. And I appreciate your continued mediation between people who still have a long way to go toward reconciliation,” Clinton said in November 1999. More than 26 years later, security in Kosovo has improved significantly, and KFOR’s presence has been reduced to about 4,700 troops. However, the reduction in forces does not mean that stability is guaranteed.
The lack of full reconciliation and Serbia’s continued refusal to recognize Kosovo’s independence keep the security dimension open. In this context, any signal of a smaller role for the United States in KFOR takes on particular weight. Changes in global security priorities have prompted discussions – not always official – about the possibility of a reduction in the American commitment to KFOR, raising questions about the future of the security architecture in Kosovo. In a response received by Radio Free Europe from the Pentagon on February 19, it was stated that there had been no announcement of a change in the deployment of forces. But, on the same day, the American newspaper Politico, citing four NATO diplomats, reported that the United States was asking allies to consider reducing the alliance’s external commitments, including the mission in Kosovo. This is not the first time that questions have been raised about the future of American troops in Europe.
In February last year, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned that the continent should prepare for a review and eventual reduction of the US military presence, stressing that decisions would depend on global threats and Washington’s strategic priorities. At the same time, US Vice President JD Vance linked the future of troops in Europe to policymaking in the region, stating that Americans would not support keeping troops in Germany if citizens there faced punishment for offensive posts on social media.
Radio Free Europe asked NATO whether European countries have the capacity to fill the void that could be created by a possible withdrawal or reduction of US forces in KFOR, which currently number about 590 soldiers. The response received from an official did not provide specific details, but it was noted that “the United States continues to play a fundamental role in ensuring the long-term stability of Kosovo and the region, through the NATO-led KFOR mission.” Radio Free Europe also sent questions to the defense ministries of Italy, Hungary and Turkey – three of the countries with the largest contributions to KFOR – about their readiness to provide additional forces and assets – but none of the institutions responded.
Igor Tabak, a military analyst at the Zagreb-based website “Defense and Security,” says Europe has the capacity to fill the gap that a smaller U.S. role in KFOR could leave. He explains that European countries have increased their defense investments in recent years, including not only the purchase of new technology but also the training of personnel. “Of course, the U.S. is the largest ally in NATO, but it is not the only one. There are some resources that only it possesses, while other countries do not. Most of them, as the war in Ukraine has shown, are related to nuclear weapons and missile defense. But these are not capabilities that KFOR needs, so the American presence can be replaced,” Tabak tells Radio Free Europe’s Expose program.
Former Albanian Defense Minister Fatmir Mediu, who currently heads the Center for Southeast European Security, agrees that European countries have the capacity to take on a greater military role in Kosovo, but adds that the American presence has an importance that goes beyond this aspect. “From a political point of view, the presence of American troops in Kosovo is very important. Therefore, Kosovo’s diplomacy must be much more agile. It is not only a matter of security, but also of long-term partnership, which is also related to Kosovo’s goal of NATO membership. As such, the situation would create a kind of handicap,” Mediu tells Exposé.
Kosovo, in addition to Serbia, has three NATO member states in its neighborhood: Albania, North Macedonia and Montenegro. Unlike Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is not even part of the Partnership for Peace – NATO’s program for cooperation with partner countries – for political reasons. Its Security Force is in the process of transforming into a fully-fledged army, and its officials say they have the ability to protect the country and its territorial integrity. However, the KSF, to this day, cannot operate in northern Kosovo, where the majority population is Serb, without the permission of KFOR. This mission is responsible for the security of Kosovo’s land border with Serbia, while the Kosovo Police is responsible for the rest of the border line. Tabak does not believe that the eventual withdrawal of the US from KFOR would change the sense of security in Kosovo. “It is no coincidence that, in recent months, initiatives for defense cooperation between Croatia, Albania and Kosovo have emerged. All three countries have reached concrete agreements in this regard. This shows that work is being done to ensure that stability in the region does not depend exclusively on the will of Washington, which may change over time,” says Tabak.
But Mediu does not share this opinion. According to him, the American presence has a strong deterrent effect in Kosovo, directly influencing the calculations of Serbia and other actors. If this presence weakens, new provocations or escalations may be encouraged, he warns. “I think that any problem or negative perception of Kosovo’s relations with the United States may encourage attitudes and provocations against Kosovo, which may escalate, also taking into account Russia’s interest in creating another point of conflict and shifting attention from what is happening in Ukraine,” adds Mediu. According to him, the solution lies in Kosovo’s smart and pragmatic diplomacy. He recommends that the country be oriented towards American interests, showing that it is a reliable partner and not a source of problems. “We are peripheral countries in US security policy. To become important, we must behave not as people who create problems, but as people who provide solutions. We must start the analysis from American interests and then move on to our interests. Let’s not say that we have problems with Serbia, but that the problems in the region, because of Serbia, Russia, China, conflict with the National Defense Authorization Act, which Trump has approved, and then move on to our domestic interests,” says Mediu.
The budget of the Ministry of Defense in Kosovo has increased significantly in recent years, going from 67.3 million euros in 2021 to over 216 million euros this year. However, both experts note that this budget remains limited, faced with the high costs of modern weapons and equipment. According to them, Kosovo can strengthen these capacities by merging budgets with NATO member countries in the Balkans, creating joint operational levels and encouraging strategic investments from the American military industry. Because, ultimately, the economy influences and decides on many things, says Mediu.
The National Defense Authorization Act, which he mentions, aims to strengthen the US military commitment in Europe, guarantees 76,000 US troops on the continent and prohibits major equipment withdrawals. However, it contradicts the US National Security Strategy, which states that “the affairs of other countries are of US concern only if their activities directly threaten US interests”. Last week, Kosovo’s President, Vjosa Osmani, in a meeting with the US charge d’affaires in Pristina, Anu Prattipati, stressed the importance of the US military presence and that of NATO allies as a key factor for stability. Meanwhile, Kosovo’s ambassador to Brussels, Agron Bajrami, met with the US ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker. Now, if America one day takes a step back, Europe could face the greatest test of its role as a guarantor of security on the continent.