Would the direct inclusion of the US in the dialogue speed up the final agreement between Belgrade and Pristina?

There will be no final agreement between Belgrade and Pristina without the direct participation of the US in the dialogue, is an assessment that can often be heard from certain analysts and politicians from Pristina, however, Kosovo Online's interlocutors indicate that the USA is already present in this negotiation process, as well as that it is questionable whether Washington would even want to officially take over the negotiating baton from Brussels.

The current dialogue process between Belgrade and Pristina, which is mediated by the European Union, was launched based on the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly of September 9, 2010, in which "the readiness of the European Union to facilitate the dialogue process between the parties is welcomed." Since then, various US representatives, some in the public eye and some behind the scenes, have at least overseen this process.

University Professor Muhamet Kelmendi assessed at the beginning of this week that without the involvement of the US in the dialogue process, there would not be a final agreement between the two sides, stressing that with EU mediators Josep Borrell and Miroslav Lajcak, there would never be a "final agreement with mutual recognition".

According to Igor Novakovic, director of research at the ISAC fund, even now there is direct coordination between the US and the EU, as well as Washington's support for the dialogue process led by Brussels, which is why he does not see what would change if the US were to be the main negotiator on paper. As he points out, now the situation is much different from the period when Federica Mogherini was the mediator because the influence of the US is very active.

"I don't know what it is that Kosovo analysts see as a key moment of change if the US were to lead a dialogue directly, whether they might be thinking about an international conference as a solution. The US is already involved in the dialogue and the fact that someone from the USA would sit together with Bislimi and Petkovic, that is, with Kurti and Vucic in the same room, it seems to me that it would have no greater significance because we certainly have Mr. Escobar who is from time to time there and he talks to them directly. It is possible that when the Kosovo side emphasizes the US, they also think about the fact that it would be easier for local politicians to justify certain concessions that would be reached, because 'the USA asked for it,'" Novakovic says.

In his opinion, circumstances and format lead to more effective negotiations, in the sense that there is a time limit for negotiations, that is, very clear circumstances that "push" both sides.

"Some parallel could perhaps be the Dayton Agreement, where there was a whole series of events that directly led to both sides accepting what we know they accepted and where there was also enough US pragmatism to understand what the key moments are that the Serbian and the Bosniak-Croat side is ready to accept," Novakovic concluded.

Analyst Nexhmedin Spahiu tells Kosovo Online that the inclusion of the US in the dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia would certainly speed up that process, because, as he states, the pressure of the US may be stronger than the pressure of the European Union, but he does not think that the US wants to take over mediation through dialogue.

"Mediation will certainly not move away from the EU. The US can be more or less involved in the dialogue and actually has always been present, but the mandate given by the United Nations to mediate remains with the EU," Spahiu says.

He also says that if the USA took over mediation through dialogue, that process would not be burdened by the fact that Washington recognized Kosovo, because, as he points out, the status of Kosovo is not discussed in the dialogue.

"The status of Kosovo is not negotiated in the dialogue; those negotiations were conducted in Vienna in 2005 and 2006. Negotiations are now underway on what Kosovo should do to be recognized by Serbia. The fact that the US recognized Kosovo has nothing to do with dialogue. It would be the same if, for example, China, which did not recognize Kosovo, acted as a mediator," Spahiu says.

As he adds, the dialogue can be conducted by a country that has or has not recognized Kosovo's independence.

Spahiu also believes that the US could ask for various compromises from Pristina, as the main negotiator, but that it would under no circumstances ask the Kosovo Government to give up "statehood".

"The US can criticize the Kosovo Government, it can try to change the Government, but the US is too serious a country to now "withdraw the recognition" of the country that it recognized. That can't happen. The US can demand small or big compromises from Kosovo, but it cannot and does not want to force Kosovo to give up its independence," Spahiu concluded.

Journalist and excellent expert on international affairs, Ljiljana Smajlovic, tells Kosovo Online that the US currently does not want any problems in Kosovo and that the US mediation between Belgrade and Pristina at this moment does not have to be disastrous for Serbian interests.

"Of course, the US, at the same time, is fully committed to its goal of Kosovo being independent and sovereign. The US Ambassador to Kosovo is explicitly reminding us of this these days. All the same, it is currently in our favor that the US does not want the problems that Kurti is creating with aggressive behavior against the Serbian minority and by imagining that he is a Balkan Zelenskyy whom Serbia is supposedly preparing to attack militarily. This is recognized both here and there as a scenario that official Pristina secretly desires. I think Kurti miscalculated when it came to the US sanctions against his Government. That's why he doesn't look like Zelenskyy to Washington, current or future one. In fact, because he ignores the US sanctions as if they don't exist, Kurti looks more like a "little Putin" than a rival in Belgrade to whom he is unsuccessfully trying to attach that label and thus irreversibly contaminates him in the eyes of the West," Smajlovic assesses.

As she says, the US mediation between Belgrade and Pristina does not have to be catastrophic for Serbian interests at this moment, because Washington does not need any "Zelenskyy" in the Balkans, no upheaval, no destabilization.

"It makes sense for the Serbs to oppose Albin Kurti on every millimeter of political and geographical space in Kosovo, no matter how disastrous the US interventions have been for us in the past. Of course, the US is not "status neutral" here, but neither is Europe. We all remember how Mrs. Merkel, during her visit to Boris Tadic, showed that she was irritated by the reminder of that phrase, which the EU accepted as a fig leaf, only a formal concession to respect the five EU members who do not recognize Kosovo. It's hard for me to remember the last time someone of importance in the EU used that term at all. But the state always plays with the cards it got, not the ones it wished for," our interlocutor adds.

Smajlovic points out that the US does not want any problems in Kosovo at the moment and that is why Albin Kurti miscalculated when he tried to use the war in Ukraine to subjugate the disobedient Serbs in the north of Kosovo.

"With due respect to the critics of the Serb List, such as Marko Jaksic, whose opinion I always respect, I would say that the Serbs in the north of Kosovo proved to be a tougher nut for Kurti than the entire Pristina opposition. Unlike the Serbs in the north, that opposition has supporters in Brussels and Washington, and enjoys support, however much, in the centers of Western power. Or at least that's how it seems to me from Belgrade," Smajlovic concludes.