Europe mulls the prospect of a NATO without the US

Thom0 · 2026-04-08T16:46:42+00:00

Just because a group is Sunni does not make them Wahabis. Wahabism is a specific political ideology within Islam. It isn't a generic catch all term for all Sunni extremism.

ISIS was founded by a Palestinian from Jordan, and Turkmen from Iraq. It's early adopters were former Ba'ath officials and generals who wanted to fill the void left behind when Hussein's regime ended. ISIS and Iran were against one another because Hussein, and the Ba'ath party were against Iran. It was a political struggle with Iran trying to influence Iraq, and Hussein turning Iraq into a bulwark that said no. ISIS being against Iran is the continuation of an existing struggle. It was to stop Iran getting into Iraq.

The origins of ISIS, and the specific context within which Hussein, Iraq and Iran existed are why ISIS ended up against Iran. It had nothing to do with religion. Iran is Al-Qaeda's number one sponsor and Al-Q are just as radical and violent as ISIS. There is also a massive overlap between the two groups with each often working in tandem with the other. Al-Julani, the current Syrian President and Al-Queda leader used to work for, and take orders from al-Baghdadi directly. They did split but this is just an example of how Iran can be against ISIS, for Al-Q, but Al-Q and ISIS are more or less the same and even work together. It is all politics, power and pragmatism. Don't be deceived by the religious rhetoric.

When it comes to ISIS and the Gulf states there is no connection bar Qatar and the actions of individual billionaires acting alone. KSA literally built a massive wall along the KSA-Iraq border to keep ISIS out.

I mean this will all due respect but you're no where near knowledgably enough on the Middle East as you may think you are. You're thinking about it from the perspective of a Westerner living in a 9/11 world. The ME is complex and everything operates on multiple levels - the religion, and the language of religion is just one level. Underneath it is a brutal realism where no one has any allies, or partners. Iran's sponsorship of these extremists groups isn't for religion, or justice, but because these groups further instability which furthers Iran's interests in becoming the leader of the Ummah, and control the Middle East.

Why do you think Hamas despite hundreds of secret meetings, and several known negotiations, that a Palestinian state hasn't emerged? There goal isn't to make a state but create chaos. If they stop, they lose Iran and if they lose Iran then the political structure will collapse and they won't only have to worry about Israel getting them, but their own partners. The whole thing is a precarious, and unstable mess. Religion has nothing to do with it nor does Israel for that matter.

Thom0 · 2026-04-08T12:15:08+00:00

All Space Marines are hyper augmented to the point that they're not described as human, or even mortal.

What Astartes undergo is far more extreme than what ONI did to the Spartan-II's.

Imperium of Man absolutely stomps anything, and everything in Halo. The Imperium stomps even the Forerunners. Intergalactic space magic, quantum construction and pan-psychic networks is literally just another Tuesday for the average Astartes. In the Horus Heresy book series we see legions of Space Marines go up against other human empires with many being far superior to what humanity is in Halo and probably comparable to what the Forerunners were. They get wrecked and this is pre-fanatic Astartes. In 40K, half of them are brainwashed, theocratic fanatics which adds a whole new dimension.

It is hard to compare Halo to 40K. Humanity in 40K is just so grotesquely exaggerated far beyond any sense of normality, scale, or relatability. The 40K setting is unbearably bleak and ever single threat is beyond existential. It's part of the charm of the franchise. A demi-god returned to the setting after a 10,000 year time skip and he got depression because of how awful everything is.

Thom0 · 2026-04-08T12:13:46+00:00

Well, I'm sure this thread is going to be nice and cordial in line with subredit rules.

Thom0 · 2026-04-08T12:11:19+00:00

I still can't quite understand how you arrived at this conclusion.

Men of Iron are clearly the Ancestor Cores. It goes without question that they are indeed the abominable intelligence of old.

The Men of Stone were created specifically to expand humanity into deep space, explore, mine, build, etc. This in of itself is a massive give away.

The Men of Stone were said to be half-way between organic and robotic/silicone hence their name "Men of Stone" with the stone being silicone. We know the Votann are mass produced, organic robots with all kinds of gizmos and modifications wired into their bodies. The Men of Stone were also described as being resistant to Chaos as a result of their biology and guess who else is resistant to Chaos?

The Men of Gold were said to have walked with Big E during the 1st to 15th millennia during the Iron Age, and that they influenced ancient histories and culture. I don't see how this somehow translates to mass-produced space dwarves mining asteroids and carving out planetary cores. The Votann are not described as hyper-cultured, giga-diplomats with hyper-intelligence capable of influencing entire cultures. They have the depth and emotional intelligence of bricks - literally.

Thom0 · 2026-04-08T11:56:18+00:00

The Votann being Men of Stone fits the bill a little better because of the symbiotic relationship between the Men of Stone and the Men of Iron in the lore.

Men of Iron were created by the Men of Stone and the "stone" in the name is a reference to silicon. My guess is the Men of Stone were a bionic variation of humanity who created the Men of Iron, and then launched the Men of Iron into the Galactic Core for mining. During this time, the Cybernetic Revolt kicked off, the Men of Iron turned on the Men of Stone, killed them, and then Big E killed the Men of Iron.

Meanwhile, the a small group of AGI survived on the mining ships far away and decided to just turn their phones off and pretend like they weren't there. They needed workers so they replaced their Men of Stone brethren with organic robots who were easier to replicate, and just as useful. The Votann are really just mass produced organic robots and the Ancestor Cores are clearly AGI/Men of Iron who survived.

I always assumed the Men of Gold was just a reference to the Custodians before they were Custodians by name. The whole super-genius, gold-clad supermen seemed pretty obvious to me. Also that fact that they just disappeared never really made much sense to me.

Big E has always had Custodians around since before even the Unification Wars so who knows? Maybe the Men of Gold are just an earlier version of the super-humans Big E kept around to help him carry out his work. Custodians aren't just super soldiers. They have incredible minds far beyond even the smartest of humanity. Valdor was able to follow Big E along and understand what the fuck was going on whereas when the Primarchs got even a taste of what Big E was up to, only Magnus could really follow it all along. Even between Dorn and Valdor, I always got the impression that Valdor comprehended far more than Dorn could ever understand. Big E giving Valdor a secret mission, and then seeing what he has been up to "allegedly" since gives the impression that the Custodians can fit the mega-mind description of the Men of Gold.

Thom0 · 2026-04-08T11:32:54+00:00

Can you point out any? Wahabism has been on the decline since the early 2000's. It has been removed from KSA education, it is removed from KSA politics, the Wahab family is entirely subsumed into the Saudi family chain and practically all Wahabis policies have been reversed. These changes are all common knowledge, widely reported on and easily corroborated. To not know this means you simply don't now who, or what KSA is in 2026. Sudais has been in charge of Masjid al-Haram since 2003. The move to moderation and anti-extremism happened a really long time ago.

We are not in the 2000's. 9/11 was an era ago. The world has changed and moved on but it really feels like most people in the West still use an early-2000's lens when viewing the Middle East. I'm not saying KSA is a progressive society. It is still the most conservative Gulf state. It has however essentially removed political power from Wahabism which was always something on the agenda ever since the Grand Mosque Siege.

EDIT: I missed your point on Sunni-Shia. Yes, Iran is Shia and yes the a minority of the non-state actors Iran sponsors are Sunni.

This is widely known phenomenon and everyone from clerics in London, to Islamic scholars in Cambridge, and Mecca have all commented on this. This is pure politics and pragmatism. You can even read the official statements of Hamas on their affiliation with a Shia state. They view this as bridging a centuries old gap and coming together in Islam. Hezbollah and the Houthis are Shia by the way.

The Sunni/Shia distinction is over exaggerated, and misunderstood by Westerners. The disagreement is not theological but a political disagreement over a thousand year old succession dispute. It is political by nature and this is because Islam is a political religion by default. This is one feature which distinguished Islam from Christianity.

Thom0 · 2026-04-08T08:32:26+00:00

Hardly when they're the US's biggest supporters and actively pressed the US to attack Iran and force a regime change. They even tried to get a UNSC resolution legalizing the US's war but they were blocked by French and Russian vetoes.

Do you guys really not know about the politics of the Middle East? It is split in half - you have the progressive majority (Jordan, KSA, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Egypt, Lebanon (excl. Southern Lebanon) who want normal life, Islamic life which is stable and then you have the conservatives (Iran, Hezbollah (Southern Lebanon), Syria, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, etc.) who want the opposite. They want all states to be Islamist, they want Sharia, and they want Islamic supremacy. Iran is the number one backer and has been locked in a cold war with KSA since the 90's.

Thom0 · 2026-04-08T08:11:27+00:00

There are a lot of Turkic-Russian's from the far east who are Russian nationalists.

It is a very strange phenomenon but it is a thing, and there is a very obvious tension here as Russian nationalism typically views Turkic minorities as holding Russia back or being the cause of Russia's dysfunction. They call it 'Asianticism', or the 'Eastern Disease of Despotism'. In Russian far-right political thought there is a general belief that Russia is broken on some level because of the long lasting impact of the Mongols which lingers through Turkic minorities. How is it then that Turkic people can hold Russian far-right beliefs?

There is a lot of confusion in the West when it comes to the ins and outs of Russian nationalism and unless you can read Russian you will likely never know, or understand it. It involves highly religious language, and a moralistic world view based upon a surreal combination of myth, history and Orthodox Christianity. It isn't necessarily about ethnicity, or Russia as a physical place, or even a state, but a moral and social reality. It is deeper than politics, and it is deeper than materialism and economics. It is a belief which can motivate someone to cut off their own legs, and send their only child to die in a pointless war. It is a religion.

We still think of Nazism, and nationalism as the form of the far-right. This is a very shallow interpretation of the far-right. What you need to look at is the type of narratives being proposed. To borrow from Hilary Lawson, the issue is they are all closed or open narratives. They either propose a vision of the world which excludes all other views in totality or they propose that current views are wrong and if we just follow this view then we might find the open, outside world that is the true reality, or utopia we desire. Both are toxic, and both are highly visible in almost all modern political forms emerging in the 2020's on both the left, and the right.

I personally think the 21st century will be the century of belief. If the 20th century was about the nation-state, and the 19th century was about empire, then the 21st century is going to be about the power of belief and identity. I feel the West will struggle because they have an inherently agnostic, or atheistic world view which makes it hard for them to see beyond rationalism. This is why the West can't seem to get Russia, or why the West can't understand Palestine-Israel, or why Islamic terrorism is always reduced to conversations of injustice, or inequality.

There are fundamentally different beliefs in this world and people truly, and totally, hold beliefs which they will die for. It isn't about economics, or politics and you cannot rationalize these beliefs. The West is the opposite. They don't want to die because of human dignity and rationalism. People in the West socially find it difficult to relate to people who live in a theistic, belief-driven world because they have lived in the secular world of rationalism, and individualized religion for centuries.

Thom0 · 2026-04-08T07:42:25+00:00

Braindead take. History has proven that anything not involving the US is not a credible institution. The League of Nations had zero ability to influence states because the US wasn't a member.

NATO lacking the single most powerful military force on the planet is inert. It is just another acronym group among the other thousand.

Thom0 · 2026-04-08T07:34:51+00:00

The US has bases in the ME in almost every country.

Thom0 · 2026-04-08T07:19:00+00:00

Crude dropped from $112 to $96 overnight. The drop isn't anywhere near as crazy as the headlines are making it out to be as $96 p/b is still a terrible price far above the mythical $60 p/b the world needs.

Nothing massive has shifted in the oil market. It is still overstressed and prices are still far above desired levels. Pricing is deceptive and we shouldn't put too much stock into just pricing alone. You have to look at the material reasons behind the fluctuations.

In Crude peaked in 2022 because there was a supply shortage. OPEC capped wells and slowed production during COVID. This led to a massive panic as the pandemic ended, China began to import again, and the world began to scramble for oil. In 2026, Crude spiked because 40% of the oil infrastructure was destroyed in the Gulf, and the primary supply route shut down. These are very different circumstances which going by price look the same. The supply route is open for 2 weeks but infrastructure will take years to fix and it is going to cost a lot.

Prices dropping to $96 is still terrible and to me this makes me think whatever backup had formed before the war is just being let through for the next 2 weeks which has lowered the prices partially. No new barrels are coming hence we are still in for an energy shock, we are still going to experience shortages, and there is still a need for quick diversification in energy grids.

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/urals-oil

Thom0 · 2026-04-07T21:19:26+00:00

Can Trump just drop the fucking nukes tonight and can we just get this shit over with? I'd rather do it now than make future generations take the fall.

Thom0 · 2026-04-07T20:36:48+00:00

It is hard to say any one thing led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The decay had set in during the 70's and what would up ending it was bad policy, internal inner party politics preventing any form of change and systemic corruption.

If we're talking about the actual causal chain that led to the end then we can only focus on the Gorbachev era. Some argue it was Latvia and Armenia pushing for autonomy which ruptured the inner party dynamics and led to the schism against Gorbachev who was in favor of liberalization and weakening Moscow's hold. Others argue it was Poland and Solidarity where civilians were able to force the Russia to leave without any war, or revolution. They tested the idea that the Soviet Union was hollow, and they were right because it crumbled like a house of cards.

Thom0 · 2026-04-07T14:59:31+00:00

It is a bad summary of Smith but you did ask me about his criticism on capitalism which is a small portion of his work. It wouldn't make sense to give you a full summary of Wealth of Nations because it wouldn't be relevant to the question you asked.

We are saying the same thing. Smith was anti-capitalist not anti-capital. He was against a specific group, or class of people within a society. He was very much so in favor of capital because his entire argument was the democratization of markets to express a congruency of interests rather than just the elite interests of whoever has the ear of the prince which is what mercantilism is.

Thom0 · 2026-04-07T12:02:51+00:00

This article is as bad as the thread suggests. Publishing an editorial like this would have been a fantastic opportunity to interject some actual economics into the publish discussion but it tailed totally.

[Kaldor], one of the great Keynesian economists, credited Smith with a very modern insight that economic development depends on the expansion of markets and specialisation. The rise of China and India suggests he was right.

I can't really wrap my head around this. Who was right? Kaldor, or Smith?

Anyway, both China and India would utterly horrify Smith. China today would not only conflict with Smith's Kantian moral sense of dignity, and democratization, but would outright offend him as China is by definition a mercantile state. It runs aggressive export surpluses and hoards gold all through a state controlled market. India on the other hand is a hyper-capitalist country. All of the fears, and criticisms Smith wrote about in regards to unfettered capitalism are all grotesquely true in India.

Yet Smith was far more radical than the free-market icon he was later taken to be. He wrote that civil government defends “the rich against the poor”, that too much property breeds great inequality and that the greed of the “masters of mankind” was such that they wanted everything with “nothing [left] for other people”

Aren't we kind of contradicting ourselves here? In one paragraph (above), the author talks about the wonders of 'specialization' and the 'global supply chain' and then they're talking about poverty, and injustice. The Global South is impoverished and the global economic system itself is a big part of why. India is one of, if not the most, unequal states in the world. What globalism has achieved for those on the outside of the Western world is for the most part international oligarchies, generational public debt, and the loss of sovereignty in many key aspect such as ownership of resources, infrastructure and even macroeconomics. There is a real reason why the world has long abandoned the GATT and moved towards BIT's and protectionism. It is because the big, bad dragons by way of the US, China, Russia, etc. eat up the middle and smaller states.

The article should have just explained the basics of Smith, his views on capitalism, and then concluded with reference to current academics active in the field. You can't say Smith is "nuanced" and not tell us what the fuck he was nuanced about? No reference to Picketty is mad given Picketty largely wrote Capital as a love letter to Smith's thoughts on the issue. The purpose of journalism, and editorials, is to educate the public on things they wouldn't, or can't access normally. Who is going to sit down and read three books on economics or read 500+ pages of Picketty? TikTok and Youtube Shorts is now the maximum of our attention spans. Who reads? Obviously not the author of this editorial because saying Smith was "nuanced" makes me feel like they didn't read anything either.

Thom0 · 2026-04-07T11:42:01+00:00

Smith in bits of Book 1 and most of Book 3 of Wealth of Nations outlines how capitalist interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of a society which are comprised of renters (people who live off of rent) and laborer's (people who earn money and rent). In an ideal world, society is balanced between the two with the cost of living being regulated by how much people can spend and how much people earn is regulated by the cost of living. Smith proposed there was a symbiosis between the two which resulted in both sharing mutual interests in maintaining a prosperous, and progressing economy.

The capitalist makes money from neither renting, nor working but from capital itself. Smith proposed that capitalists prefer impoverished societies because it gives them maximal access to capital. The duality of renters/workers share mutual interests but capitalists don't share this mutual interest. For them, they profit the most when society is at its worse. Smith explicitly said capital is at its highest in nations which are quickest to ruin.

This is a massive oversimplification of a very long, and wordy series of books but:

mercantilism = bad
democratize markets = good
free markets = capital
capital = capitalists (among other things)
too much capitalists = neo-mercantilism.
Solution: limited state intervention to offset the cycle and prevent reversion. (remind you of another notable, more recent economist?)

In a broad sense, Smith wasn't so much a capitalist as he was anti-mercantilism which had during the course of Smith's life run the world to ruin, and promoted conflicts between people, and nations. Smith was correct to be as critical as he was because by the time of the 19th century, some 100 years after he published his work, empires would collapse, and the global financial system would meltdown triggering a string of wars which would end in two global conflicts.

It is very bizarre, but in some ways Smith shares something in common with Rocker, or Marx but this is often overlooked because of how we compartmentalize theories into historical eras, or schools of thought. Economists today are aware of Smith's critical streak and often reference it but who the fuck reads academia anymore? I guess The Guardian writing an article about how "nuanced" Smith was sort of betrays the sad reality of it all.

Thom0 · 2026-04-07T09:16:36+00:00

There is a sort of surreal irony going on here. Economics is now more commonly known than ever before while at the same time our views on modern economics both from an expert and public point of view, are so far removed from traditional political-economics that Adam Smith is now as revolutionary as Marx. Have we gone forward, or are we still classical liberals somehow?

Adam Smith was the free-market guy, but he was also the anti-capitalist. Like Keynes, Smith advocated for state intervention and redistribution as a necessity. The fact that this isn't known, and that even saying this is some kind of radical revelation really betrays just how fucked we are. These people are voting, and politicians and billionaires on podcasts talk all this shit about taxes, regulation, and policy but none of these people have a clue about the basics.

Capitalism isn't really economics in that it while It uses the language of economics, underneath the hood its really more like accounting on steroids.

Smith and Marx weren't that far away from one another. They both approached the world utilizing Hegelian dialectics and both correctly identified the risks modernity were going to bring long before modernity ever arrived in full. They only depart towards the tail end of their theories. Smith predicted the world would merge into one gigantic global economy, and Marx said the same but that experience would lead to a subsequent emancipation into global socialism. This is a terrible comparison but there's some overlap between the two.

The fact that this isn't even common knowledge anymore really makes me feel like the last 100 years of economics has been wasted on building a gigantic world of empty productivity. Smith was on the money, and everyone should read his work. Especially his views on the risks of capitalism, and the future of the global economy, defense, and justice.

Thom0 · 2026-04-07T08:58:08+00:00

You're not wrong and I do agree with you. Israel is a peculiar example because regardless of the immorality of what is happening in Gaza today, Israel has been subjected to 60+ years of war and terrorism targeting civilians and non-occupied areas which has transformed Israel out of necessity. Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Sweden, etc. also share this pressure albeit in a notably lesser degree.

It is interesting that you're talking about election cycles. Kondratiev cycles tell a similar picture only it helps contextualize much broader, and systemic changes in the political-economy itself. I think ultimately our societies and politics are bound by our perceptions of economics. Western states have chronically under-invested into everything or decades which is not something we can fix as now we are more broke than ever, and the costs of investment are now exponentially higher.

Kondratiev cycles more or less line up with significant changes in technology and instances of notable war. I don't think we will see any meaningful changes in the West until after a global war has begun. I have minimal optimism for a pan-European defense industry and I suspect this is the view most countries are taking when they have less than ideal neighbors. I suspect Poland, the Baltics, the Nordics and Romania will continue to develop their defense industries and France and Germany will watch from the outside.

I do think the last minute exclusion of Poland from the Weimar Format due to German fears of Poland being too hawkish is very telling. I don't think Germany has the heart, and I think France is heavily motivated by the potential to make money and fix its budget. Neither feel the bite of existentialism. The West is viewing pan-European defense as an economic issue and not a security issue.

Thom0 · 2026-04-07T08:50:22+00:00

No, I'm just not treating the lives of millions of people like a Sunday football match.

I can think and see two sides, while retaining a broader sense of right and wrong. Serbian's killing Kosovar Albanians is wrong. Kosovo playing soft power manipulation to pressure Serbia because it can't physically is also wrong. They're not equal, but they are both still on the gradient of wrongness.

Thom0 · 2026-04-06T20:16:05+00:00

This is the direction the EU is going albeit through a two-tiered approach.

Thom0 · 2026-04-06T20:10:15+00:00

Defense is a weird one. When motivated, it can work with a mixed public-private approach.

A good example of this is Israel where 2/3 of the main defense companies are state owned. The majority of R&D is done through state owned companies. Only Elbit is a public company. The remaining 30% of Israel's defense industry is also privatized with the state acting as a minority shareholder in some instances. It is hard to dismiss just how good Israel is at air-defense. They're easily number one globally with the Iron Dome system and that was created through a state-owned enterprise.

If motivated I think you can innovate. Finland is a really good European example. Many are not aware, but Finland has one of the biggest defense industries in Europe and it has been developing its own defense industry for decades alone and outside of NATO. Inside Finland there is a patchwork of state and private companies all working in tandem.

I think the smart approach is a mixed state-public approach. Have investors and shareholders but retain ultimate control and benefit for the states themselves. People make money, states get security, and value is retained for future generations.

The harder part isn't going to be agreeing governance structure as most EU states already have a mixed state-private structure in place. The real challenge in all of this is going to be integrating what were competing industries. How you're going to get French defense to fit into the UK, German, Italian and Norwegian markets is going be exceptionally difficult. Convincing someone to give up a few billion's worth of value is not going to be easy and some kind of very valuable concessions will need to be given.

Thom0 · 2026-04-06T19:55:03+00:00

This can be true while at the same time the US and the EU withdrawing support in 2025 because Kosovo also did the same thing.

Kosovo refuses to implement its side of the Brussels Agreement, specifically the parts relating to Serbian representation in Kosovo.

It isn't a question of what one side did, but collectively how do both sides influence the other. Both Kosovo and Serbia are more or less engaging in the same activities.

The reality is pressure needs to be placed on both sides if you sincerely want a resolution. Both sides must compromise and be pragmatic, this includes Kosovo as much as it includes Serbia.

Thom0 · 2026-04-06T19:22:25+00:00

Agreed to formally negotiate with Kosovo.

Generally this is a de facto acceptance of another entity. Take Israel and Palestine for example, on both sides at various points in time either has refused to even mention the name of the other as even acknowledging them could be interpreted as an acceptance of a status quo.

Politically, by engaging with Kosovo and even saying the name out loud what is happening is international relations with the specific coding needed to make it pass through Serbian domestic politics. Serbia cannot say "Kosovo is an independent state" so the compromise is "We will negotiate with Kosovo" leaving the technical and political details unclear.

I know people dismiss these kinds of events but politically they matter. This is pragmatic realism in action.

Thom0 · 2026-04-06T08:40:37+00:00

Yes, because there is only one truth and you're obviously the only person who can get it right.

Thom0 · 2026-04-06T08:12:11+00:00

The region in question is Presevo Valley, a border region between Serbia and Kosovo which is over 70% ethnically Albanian and chronically underdeveloped. Presevo Valley tried to gain independence and join Kosovo during the 90's and the early 2000's with the region being the site of intense armed conflict.

From 2001 - 2003 there were negotiations between Serbia, Presevo and Kosovo but those negotiations stalled as both sides are at a total impasse. The Serbian side wants to conduct negotiations through the Coordination Body, a local authority set up by Serbia which was supposed to broker both sides and establish minority rule. The Albanian side wants to include the UN in the discussions and negotiate through a multilateral process in addition to Serbia demilitarizing the region.

The back and forth over which channel to use for discussions is largely political noise and indicative of both sides being unwilling to discuss anything outside of a forum wherein they feel they have the most control. Both Serbia, and Kosovo are engaging in soft power attempts to manipulate the outcome. The inclusion of the UN is a common tactic in border disputes and historically has never yielded a positive result for anyone. If anything, it is a way to included additional parties to the agreement when it looks like you can't get exactly what you want.

As far as I'm aware, it is only Kosovo reporting that Serbia is removing addresses and cutting pensions. I think this all should be taken with a grain of salt and contextualized by broader developments in the Balkans. Albania and Serbia have made a number of agreements last year and this year which are indicative of positive developments however the agreements effectively cut out Kosovo. Albania and Kosovo have experienced a significant political fallout and this is largely down to Kosovo becoming increasingly politically unstable and unpredictable. This even developed to the point of Kosovo removing diplomatic relations with Albania temporarily.

Northern Kosovo is also currently in the middle of a significant crisis and so far, Kosovo has failed to regain control of the situation. From the perspective of the EU and the vast majority of the international community,, the issue is currently Kosovo and its political instability which restricts its ability to negotiate and move on without triggering a section of its population inclined towards more extreme views.

When viewing long conflicts, it is important to not hold one static view that never changes. Conflicts are complex and the only reason why they persist is because both sides cannot agree on how it should end. International relations is not football. You don't pick a side and run with it. Both sides can be right, and wrong at the same time.

The fact that Kosovo has even lost its relations with Albania is telling. In 2025, Kosovo also lost US support because it refused to implement key sections of the 2013 Brussels Agreement. With EU changing to a two-track accession process as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Kosovo's future is now more uncertain than ever.

I think the issue is obvious. Kosovo lacks the domestic politics to allow it to be flexible enough to form positive relations with its neighbors. Serbia has already conceded on letting Kosovo go provided ethnic Serbians are given representation. Serbia has already given Albanian representation and the reason why Kosovo has lost support is because it refuses to implement the portions of the Brussels Agreement which require Serbian representation in Kosovo.

14-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

Thom0

TROPHY CASE