This week, Kosovo, along with two NATO member countries from the Western Balkans—Albania and Croatia—signed a declaration focusing on enhancing collaboration in defense and security.

The defense ministers of the three nations announced plans to boost military interoperability through education, training, and joint exercises. They also aim to address hybrid threats and align Euro-Atlantic integration policies.

Serbia has interpreted this move as a development that “undermines regional stability” and poses a threat to its “territorial integrity.” Conversely, Kosovo emphasized that the initiative should not be perceived as a threat; rather, it conveys a unified front among the three nations against any challenges or threats.

Security analysts in Pristina and Belgrade do not view the declaration as a precursor to a formal defense alliance similar to NATO.

What unites the three countries?

Ramadan Ilazi, head of research at the Kosovo Center for Security Studies, highlights the importance of this declaration in light of the increasing unpredictability of current global security alliances.

He perceives the initiative as a step toward reinforcing alternatives or strategic alliances, particularly for Kosovo, which currently lacks a clear path to NATO membership.

“I do not believe that this marks the formation of a formal defense bloc, but rather creates a new group of states in Europe concerned about similar security issues in Southeast Europe,” Ilazi stated in an interview with Radio Free Europe.

Ilazi believes that NATO’s peacekeeping mission in Kosovo, KFOR, as well as the alliance itself, will serve as the foundation for this cooperation. He asserted that both Albania and Croatia are unlikely to act against NATO’s interests in the region.

A NATO official confirmed in an interview with Radio Free Europe that Albania and Croatia actively contribute to regional stability, including their roles in KFOR. The official noted that although the alliance is aware of the new initiative, it is for the signatories of the declaration to elaborate further.

While the initiative does not constitute an international agreement, Vuk Vuksanović, a security expert at the Belgrade Center for Security Policy, suggested that with the political will of the involved parties, it could lead to “soft political actions.”

Vuksanović also noted that recent warnings regarding a potential decrease in “U.S. commitment to NATO” have sparked increased Balkan cooperation, urging Europeans to invest more in their defense.

According to Vuksanović, in an environment where NATO is not withdrawing but “weakening,” countries may form informal groups for collaboration.

Kosovo, Albania, and Croatia have indicated that the initiative could be open to new members, although they did not specify which countries. Serbia has, however, suggested that Bulgaria might be a potential addition. The Bulgarian government has not yet commented on this suggestion.

Even if new countries join, Ilazi remains skeptical that this group will evolve into a military alliance reflecting NATO principles, such as collective defense.

Why is Serbia opposing the initiative?

Belgrade has sought clarifications from Tirana and Zagreb regarding the intentions behind the initiative, asserting that Serbia “will not allow unilateral actions that could threaten our territorial integrity, the security of our citizens, and peace in the region.”

The Kosovo Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Diaspora responded that Serbia’s stance constitutes a new violation of the Brussels Agreement, which explicitly states that Serbia will not interfere in Kosovo’s international relations.

Additionally, Croatia has stated that the time has come for Zagreb to act independently of Belgrade regarding collaborations.

Vuksanović speculated that Serbia likely views this initiative as a “political provocation by Zagreb.”

He suggests that the Belgrade government may leverage this development to shift focus away from ongoing protests and its domestic political situation.

Ilazi agrees, arguing that Serbia’s strong reaction is likely influenced by Croatia’s historical context, particularly its struggle for independence from the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

Both experts believe that this tripartite cooperation is motivated by a shared understanding of the malign influences of Russia in the region and concerns regarding autocratic regimes that threaten Balkan stability—accusations frequently made by the Kosovo administration.

Ilazi asserts that Kosovo stands to gain significantly from the experiences and training opportunities offered by the two NATO countries, although he expresses doubt about the successful implementation of the initiative, recalling the low execution rate of previous agreements between Pristina and Tirana.