[The signing of the defence declaration between Croatia, Albania and Kosovo in Tirana on Tuesday. Photo: Croatian Ministry of Defence]
The three current world leaders – Donald Trump, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin in Europe are seen as the bearers of the New World Order project. The accelerated pace towards this order has been and is being helped by Donald Trump’s positioning as an anarchist of his own kind. Together, they perfectly embody our time.
In this project, Europe is losing its position as a “center of power”, being forced to balance between Russia, China and the USA.
Albania and Kosovo, our nation, on the other hand, remains dependent on the processes of our Western partners, the alliances that we can and should create in the strategic and military plane. The exception in this case is the Albanian-Croatian military agreement. Consequently, in this context of geopolitical developments, Albanians will face internal (deep and traditional political divergences) and external (Russian pressure through Serbia) challenges.
The new order of great powers requires a strategic reconfiguration, where small countries like our two republics, and even the already promoted Albanian-Croatian alliance, must expand and strengthen regional cooperation and focus on Euro-Atlantic integration to avoid isolation.
1. EU Geopolitics: Between Ambition and Reality
The start of her second term as European Commission President offers her and her home country a historic opportunity to turn it into a geopolitical mandate for Europe.
Ursula von der Leyen has been President of the European Commission since 2019 – the first woman to hold the post. Her first term was marked by extraordinary challenges, which gave her a historic opportunity to shape herself as a future leader. These distinctive characteristics of hers enabled her to be reappointed by national leaders and elected by the European Parliament for a second five-year term. She will be at the helm of the Commission until 2029.
At the end of 2019, a new European Commission began its work – with high foreign policy ambitions. Its president, Ursula von der Leyen, has repeatedly stressed her desire to lead a “geopolitical commission”. [1] In this regard, other EU leaders will not spare the judgment that they would gradually profile the EU as a “high-level geostrategic actor”.
These statements demonstrated the EU’s growing ambitions and political will to change the image of Europe, which was widely seen only as a “normative power” that cultivates “a culture of political restraint and tries to influence its partners through the use of “soft power”. [2]
Today, when the EU’s weakened role in global security is evident, the necessity of Brussels’ action as the center of Europe and as a strategic power is once again highlighted.
Trump’s proposals to withdraw 20% of US troops from Europe and his focus on “reviewing the US commitment” [3] indicate a departure from traditional security guarantees. This leaves Europe in a weak position, increasing its dependence on Russia in issues such as peace in Ukraine, where negotiations are mainly controlled by the US and Russia, bypassing Europe.
Strategic dependence on defense has over time also produced economic dependence.
Europe’s dependence on Russian energy (gas and oil) limits the effectiveness of sanctions against Russia. The Russia-China strategic partnership, which exploits trade alternatives outside the Western system, makes Europe unable to influence Russian policy.
In a changed global context, when the world order is in turmoil, when the fundamental principle of rules-based international relations is moving towards history, the EU urgently needs to reposition itself. In particular, the gradual erosion of rules-based multilateralism as a fundamental principle of international relations, the deterioration of transatlantic relations during the presidency of Donald Trump, Brexit, the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine and the intensification of Sino-American great power competition are developments that cause concern from a European perspective. These global political developments are increasing the pressure to adapt our self-image to the realities of global power. These are not determined solely by normative and rules-based factors – they are increasingly shaped by geopolitical and geoeconomic aspects.
1. 2. Divergences within the EU
The US’s shift in approach to NATO and Trump’s pro-Russia stance are causing anxiety in Eastern Europe (e.g. Poland), while countries like Germany are seeking a softer approach to avoid direct conflicts.
The slide towards multipolarity is gradually becoming a reality. Putin and Trump are normalizing bilateral relations, relegating Europe to a secondary role on the global stage. This is reflected in proposals for a “division of spheres of influence”, where Europe is not a major player. The latter is not based on military coercion or economic pressure, but on the attractiveness of ideals, values and political institutions.
There have been calls for a more active role for EU foreign policy for several decades. However, due to the weak and relatively diffuse decision-making powers of foreign policy, it seemed questionable whether the ambition of a “geopolitical commission” could be reconciled with the reality of action. The EU’s foreign policy can essentially be described as a multidimensional mosaic. The main area is the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), which has existed since the Maastricht Treaty, and its security policy arm, the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Since these are policy areas particularly sensitive to sovereignty, these areas of action remain strongly intergovernmental and are characterised by the principle of unanimity in decision-making. This means that the influence of the Member States is particularly great here, while the Commission traditionally plays only a minor role. The effectiveness of foreign policy can be achieved mainly through the use of competences that extend to the economic sphere. These include, for example, external trade policy, development cooperation and humanitarian aid.
However, given the weak and relatively diffuse decision-making powers of foreign policy, it seemed questionable whether the ambition of a “geopolitical commission” could be reconciled with the reality of action. The EU’s foreign policy can essentially be described as a multidimensional mosaic. The main area is the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), which has existed since the Maastricht Treaty, and its security policy arm, the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Since these are policy areas particularly sensitive to sovereignty, these areas of action remain strongly intergovernmental and are characterised by the principle of unanimity in decision-making. This means that the influence of the Member States is particularly great here, while the Commission traditionally plays only a minor role. The effectiveness of foreign policy can be achieved mainly through the use of competences that extend to the economic sphere. These include, for example, foreign trade policy, development cooperation and humanitarian aid.
2. The world in chaos
The causes of the global crisis are deep. Trump is just a symptom – but the real problems have been building for decades.
In the face of Trump’s trade war with the rest of the world, his attempts to blackmail Ukraine for rare minerals and his threat to the territorial integrity of Greenland and Panama, the old rules of the international order have been nullified.
While US President Donald Trump has turned global trade with his tariffs into a punitive political instrument and is revising transatlantic relations and reorganizing new alliances in relation to American interests, the EU is pretending to respond with the same currency of action, while the heads of state and government are desperately trying to respond in accordance and adjustment of mutual interests.
In these circumstances, an anti-establishment wave has swept the globe, from the United States to Uruguay, from Great Britain to India, including the established democracies of the Western Hemisphere.
The common denominator of this situation, according to researchers, is the significant and rapid changes in the social plane and growing inequality.
But behind today’s chaos, however, an even greater force is hidden: economic stagnation. The global and accelerated transition from an industrial economy to a service economy has been accompanied by insufficient economic growth. The most important engine of economic growth – productivity growth – has stopped.
The world is experiencing a long-term slowdown in growth rates that began in the 1970s, intensified after the global financial crisis of 2008 and continues to this day. With low growth, declining productivity and an aging workforce, the global economy is currently at an impasse. This economic difficulty is the backdrop to political and social conflicts around the world. [4]
This profound change, which has been underway for some time, has a name: deindustrialization. But deindustrialization is not just a phenomenon of rich countries, namely those that are part of the G20. Currently, about 50 percent of the world’s workforce is employed in the service sector. [5]
Demographic developments also play a role.
3. Albanian Federation a sine qu non
If Albanians want to guarantee a stable future in an era of uncertainty (Russian attacks on Ukraine, destabilization of Serbia, hybrid war against Kosovo), then we must analyze the possibilities and advantages of such a union.
3.1 Why is a new approach necessary?
The permanent threat from Serbia: Serbia has not abandoned its aspiration to divide Kosovo (through the Association of Serbian Municipalities) and uses hybrid war. The culmination of this war was allegedly the attack on Banjska in northern Kosovo on September 24, 2023. But it seems that after this aggressive act, hybrid war has spread to all sectors of public life and the economy, culminating in the blockage of political life.
What Serbia had managed to do through the hybrid war in Montenegro, it seems that it intended to do in Kosovo as well. Its failure on this battlefield, however, speaks volumes about its influence on the Kosovo political scene.
Weakening international support: Several EU countries (Spain, Greece, Slovakia) do not recognize Kosovo, while the US and the EU are divided in their approach.
The need for collective strength: An Albania united with Kosovo would have more diplomatic, economic, and military weight.
3.2 What would an “Albanian Federation” mean?
It is not a classic and simple “union”, but an integrated model, preserving the formal sovereignty of the two states, but with deep coordination in:
Security and defense: Joint army with a joint command and a Ministry of Defense, intelligence coordination, joint arms purchases.
Economy: Joint trade, single currency (Lek), related infrastructure projects.
Foreign policy: Joint strategy for EU membership.
Protection of minorities: A federal system could address minorities, whether Serbs in the north or Greeks in the south, without giving Serbia and Greece the opportunity to intervene.
3.3 Main obstacles
a) International opposition
The EU and the US may not support it, for fear that it will destabilize the region and encourage other claims (e.g., Republika Srpska in BiH). However, all developments in the Belgrade-Banja Luka relations indicate that this process is unstoppable.
Kosovo’s Stabilization and Association Treaty (SAT) with the EU requires that Kosovo not become part of another state.
b) Internal opposition
Some politicians in Kosovo, mainly of the Titoist eminence who continue to suffer from the Assadist syndrome, may resist, fearing the loss of “historical sovereignty” and the divergences allegedly created in the field of political thinking.
c) The risk of reaction from Serbia and Russia
Serbia may use this as an excuse to start a new conflict (through paramilitary groups in the north). However, the failure of the attempt it made on September 24, 2024 and its orientation focused on the West – the annexation of the Republika Srpska of Bosnia, speaks more to the contrary.
Russia may offer diplomatic support to Serbia to block any initiative. However, a peace agreement with Ukraine based on Trump’s proposed plan makes this risk nonexistent.
3.4 How can this objective be achieved? Concrete steps
If the Albanian Federation currently has no chance of being an act, as some
of the decision-making centers judge, then it should and can be treated
as a process by the Albanian side and not only. In this plan, we can start with concrete actions, acceptable to
our partners:
a) Creation of a “Soft Union”
Military cooperation: Joint command for the forces of Kosovo and Albania under NATO.
Common economic area: No customs duties, same standards for trade.
Common strategy for the EU: Both negotiate as a bloc.
b) Using the same models (such as the Swiss Confederation or the Benelux)
Two sovereign states, but with some common institutions (e.g., Presidency, Foreign Ministry, Defense Ministry, Security Council, Central Bank).
c) Preparing the diplomatic ground
Using the model of German reunification, the support of the US must be obtained in advance before presenting the idea to the EU.
Secret talks with Greece and North Macedonia to prevent a common front against this objective.
3. 5. What will change if the Albanian Federation is created?
- The Albanian factor in the Balkans will have more specific weight;
- Kosovo will be more protected from Serbian intervention;
- Albania will increase its influence in the Balkans;
- Serbia will be forced to negotiate with a stronger state, not with an isolated Kosovo.
- Peace and stability in the region will be more guaranteed in the long term.
4. Conclusion
The destruction of the old transatlantic partnership and the alienation of America’s great ally is certainly worrying and poses serious risks for the old continent, writes a commentator in the Swiss daily NZZ recently, which has a significant headline: Western Europe without America: This is a turning point, as it was for many in the East in 1989. [6]
What applies to Western Europeans should also apply to Albanians: the only answer remains to take our fate into our own hands.
Albania and Kosovo will survive the new era of uncertainty and this inevitable collapse of the old order, which has already begun with the collapse of transatlantic relations, just as major conflicts throughout history have survived. For this confrontation to be easier, they should begin to integrate gradually, avoiding momentary steps that provoke opposition.
An Albanian Federation is not just “removing borders,” but the creation of a new, structurally stable, democratic model that forces the great powers to respect it.
The alternative? The continuation of the status quo, where Kosovo remains weak and isolated, while Serbia uses the time to undermine its sovereignty.
___________________
1. https://www.kas.de/de/web/auslandsinformationen/artikel/detail/-/content/weltmacht-eu
2. Ibd
3. https://ru.usembassy.gov/president-donald-j-trumps-call-with-president-vladimir-putin/
4. https://www.ipg-journal.de/rubriken/wirtschaft-und-oekologie/artikel/die-welt-im-chaos-8237/?utm_campaign=de_40_20250422&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
5. Ibd
6. Markus Bernath: tps://www.nzz.ch/nzz-am-sonntag/report-und-debatte/untergang-der-nachkriegsordnung-ist-wie-die-wende-von-1989-ld.1881072
s://www.eurasiareview.com/11052025-albania-and-kosovo-should-take-necessary-measures-to-survive-in-new-era-of-uncertainty-oped/
