The violence against KFOR forces, the media and the police in May 2023 and the terrorist attack in Banjska did not happen because KFOR did not have enough soldiers in that country at that time. It happened because the perpetrators of these attacks had estimated that they have the right political moment to carry out these attacks. Now that NATO is deciding to “optimize” its presence in Kosovo, which means reducing it, there should be no concern. Because NATO’s efficiency in Kosovo does not depend on numbers, but on political circumstances. NATO should have learned lessons from the mentioned attacks, insist that the perpetrators be punished and not allow such things to be repeated.
When NATO was created more than 76 years ago, the goal was not for it to start wars, but for its very existence to serve as a preventive force to protect its member countries. This was done based on the simple logic that no one would be crazy enough to attack any NATO country, which is the strongest military alliance humanity has ever seen. And NATO successfully during the Cold War, without firing a single bullet, defended its member countries, no one attacked them, and later the area of democracy and freedom values expanded to countries that for half a century were part of the opposing bloc, the communist one led by Russia.
After the end of the Cold War, a debate began as to whether there is a need for NATO anymore. In a naive way, in not only philosophical, but also political and economic circles, arguments began to come that “now Russia is also democratizing and there is no longer a threat” and therefore, according to these arguments, “we no longer need to spend so much on NATO”.
The wars in the former Yugoslavia, which were mainly Serbian aggressions against the neighboring peoples in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, showed that freedom, democracy and peace in Europe cannot be considered as guaranteed by themselves. Genocide also occurred in the eyes of Europe. And here NATO came out again with a new role, that of interventions to stop genocide and humanitarian crises. The delayed and very limited intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina against the positions of the Bosnian Serbs, and then the airstrikes for the liberation of Kosovo, were the first engagement of NATO outside its borders. And with this, it was proved that there is a need for NATO in Europe, although with a different role. With the change of circumstances, NATO also changed and now it not only exists, but has expanded by taking into its fold countries like Sweden and Finland, which never dreamed that they would one day enter this Alliance.
Exactly 27 years ago, NATO ended airstrikes against Serbian military, police and paramilitary forces. This intervention happened for many reasons. In short, it came after all possibilities had been exhausted to put an end to ethnic cleansing and violence against Albanians in Kosovo through peaceful political means. It came after NATO had failed to stop the Serbian genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina and did not want to allow the same, and perhaps on an even larger scale, to be repeated in Kosovo. “NATO will not allow a repeat of Bosnia in Kosovo”, was the refrain that began to be used in NATO as early as the fall of 1997 until the air attacks began. After 78 days of air attacks, NATO entered Kosovo after reaching a military agreement with Serbia for Serbian forces to leave Kosovo.
Now that the 27th anniversary of the liberation of Kosovo is being marked, NATO continues to be in Kosovo, but with a much smaller presence than it had when the KFOR mission started. But, NATO continues the same commitment regardless of the number of soldiers.
Last week it was announced by the NATO Command for Europe in Belgium’s SHAPE that NATO will “optimize” its presence in Kosovo. This also seemed like good news, since the improved security situation in Kosovo was taken as a justification.
“The security situation in Kosovo has continued to improve in recent years. As a result, in January NATO had stopped the deployment of the reserve force in the Kosovo Force (KFOR) after more than two years of rotation. As the security situation in Kosovo remains generally stable, NATO will optimize its presence in Kosovo and gradually adapt the force during the coming year”, announced the NATO command for Europe, SHAPE, based in Mons, Belgium.
“Since 1999, KFOR’s presence has been continuously adapted so that the mission remains capable of delivering the mission and responding to the changing security situation. Following the escalation of tensions and violence in 2023, including unjustified attacks on KFOR peacekeepers in Zveçan, KFOR had its largest reinforcement in more than a decade with the deployment of nearly 1,000 additional troops,” said in this announcement.
According to the latest data, as of April, the NATO-led KFOR mission in Kosovo has 4,657 people from 31 countries, not all of which are NATO members. The most soldiers are from Italy, 907, followed by 590 from America, 408 from Hungary, 382 from Turkey and 308 from Germany.
At the NATO headquarters in Brussels, they have repeatedly said that NATO in Kosovo will always have the right number of soldiers that the situation requires, in order to be able to implement its mandate.
The violence against KFOR forces, the media and the police in May 2023 and the terrorist attack in Banjska did not happen because KFOR did not have enough soldiers in that country at that time. It happened because the perpetrators of these attacks had estimated that they have the right political moment to carry out these attacks. Now that NATO is deciding to “optimize” its presence in Kosovo, which means reducing it, there should be no concern. Because NATO’s efficiency in Kosovo does not depend on numbers, but on political circumstances. NATO should have learned lessons from the mentioned attacks, insist that the perpetrators be punished, and not allow such things to happen again.
No matter how small or large the number of NATO soldiers in Kosovo is, they will be a warning to anyone who intends to attack Kosovo that they will come into conflict with NATO. Serbia should also take this into account. In the meantime, Kosovo should continue to strengthen its security institutions, in cooperation with allies, if not formally through NATO, then bilaterally with those countries that want. Meanwhile, work should also be done on the normalization of relations with Serbia, because that alone would reduce both tensions and fear of the escalation of the security situation. NATO in Kosovo would have to stay until the time comes for Kosovo to join NATO.
