Albanian Daily News had an extensive interview with the Ambassador of Croatia Zlatko Kramaric which was prompted by the trilateral pact between Kosovo, Croatia and Albania signed in Tirana on March 18, 2025. "I believe that with this Agreement, we have sent a more than clear political message, as the Western Balkans still represent a dangerous crisis hotspot," noted the Ambassador.

Many other issues were discussed during the interview which are below:

-Mr. Ambassador, the Ministers of Defense of Kosovo, Albania and Croatia signed a trilateral pact on military alliance in Tirana on March 18, 2025. What could you say on its aims and timing?

-I believe that with this Agreement, we have sent a more than clear political message, as the Western Balkans still represent a dangerous crisis hotspot. Namely, no international agreement—be it the Dayton, Ohrid, or Kumanovo agreements—which were supposed to resolve all outstanding issues in the region, has unfortunately solved any problem other than putting an end to armed conflicts. And as the world's attention is currently focused on stopping the war in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as monitoring the newly emerging situation in Syria after Assad’s fall, it was necessary to alert the international public to the current political developments in the Western Balkans—ranging from months-long student protests in Serbia, the lack of political dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, the latest secessionist activities in the Republika Srpska, identity conflicts in Montenegro, all the way to the challenges North Macedonia faces on its EU path.

I have already stated multiple times that the stability of the region is one of Croatia’s most important foreign policy priorities. The region is our immediate neighbourhood, and we follow all these processes with great attention. Therefore, it was important to send a clear political message to the international community, urging it to take notice of these insufficiently defined processes.

Finally, both Croatia and Albania are full NATO members, and this membership obliges them to cooperate. Moreover, a large NATO base is located in Kosovo, serving as a strong guarantee of Kosovo’s survival as a sovereign state. In this context, I believe that the signing of this Agreement has come at the right time.

The reactions to this Agreement confirm that we were right. Some of them are nervous and exaggerated, but there are also those who share our concerns about the current regional situation and recognize that this Agreement serves as a strong guarantee of security and stability for this European region! This Agreement serves the purpose of peace and does not constitute a hostile act against any country in the region. The claim that the signatories of this Agreement were obliged to consult anyone regarding its content is completely unfounded.

- Seeing the pact from the geostrategic angle what is its significance given the unfolding of events in W. Balkans, Europe and the world, as well as the moves made for achievement of a peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine with the mediation of Trump?

- I have already partially addressed your question. I would like to remind your readers that in our last interview with ADN, we praised the peace initiative of the new U.S. President, Donald Trump, regarding achieving peace/a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. However, even then, we stated that a sincere desire to end military operations in Ukraine is not enough; the content of that peace initiative is equally important.

At the time, in December last year, we were not familiar with the details of the initiative. We were quite skeptical. Unfortunately, time has proven that our skepticism was justified. What is proposed in that peace plan falls far short of our expectations. If implemented, it would completely dismantle the existing international order—something that is unacceptable to all, but especially to small states and small nations.

Any arbitrariness or voluntarism in making major political decisions, such as peace plans, poses a threat to our civilization, which is based, among other things, on respect for international law. It is inconceivable that in the 21st century, we would simply abandon the principles of the "Peace of Westphalia" and all its positive values, which serve as a firm guarantee of the sovereignty of all states, especially the "small" ones. The Peace of Westphalia was signed back in 1648 after the bloody wars in Europe when European leaders realized that a (just) peace has no alternative. They decided to sign this document, which protects us from the arbitrariness of great and powerful empires.

Can you even imagine what the world would look like today if, in 1943, America had demanded that Great Britain pay for all the military aid it had provided up to that point? Or what would have happened to Europe after World War II if America had not established the Marshall Plan for its reconstruction? I find it hard to believe that today’s political awareness and responsibility among world leaders have degenerated so much compared to those shining examples from the recent past—examples that not only offered hope for a better future but actively worked to turn that hope into a tangible reality!

It is in this context that I interpret the significance of this (symbolic) Agreement, signed by three relatively small states that are fully aware that respect for international law is the only guarantee of lasting stability and security—both for this region and for Europe as a whole! Small nations rely on the stability of these institutions to protect their sovereignty and territorial integrity.

-Do you believe that after three years the Ukraine war could be over?

- I want to believe that military operations in Ukraine will soon come to an end. However, the mere cessation of hostilities does not mean much on its own. It will be crucial for any future peace agreement to equally satisfy both parties in the conflict. It is unrealistic to expect a return to previous agreements (Minsk I, Minsk II…).

That said, there were other agreements as well—ones that Russia blatantly violated—such as the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, in which Ukraine relinquished its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia. Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 severely undermined that agreement, calling into question the credibility of international security guarantees.

In the context of the war in Ukraine, historical parallels are often drawn with the Munich Agreement of 1938, when European powers yielded to Hitler’s demands for the annexation of the Sudetenland, believing they were securing peace. Today, this precedent serves as a warning against seeking peace at Ukraine’s expense through territorial concessions to Russia. Such an approach would not only be morally and politically unacceptable but would also have far-reaching consequences for the international order, reinforcing the logic of force as the dominant principle in international relations.

Ukraine’s NATO membership is frequently mentioned as a key issue in this war, yet the fact remains that it was never seriously considered at official NATO summits before 2022. While Ukraine had a perspective of Euro-Atlantic integration, a formal accession process never truly began. Nevertheless, Russia exploited the narrative of NATO expansion as a justification for its aggression, even as the Alliance itself always carefully weighed the sensitivities of such a move.

It is important to note that NATO—particularly its European members, such as the UK, France, Germany, and Poland—while confronted with the reality of war, is striving to strengthen Ukraine’s defensive capabilities while avoiding direct military confrontation with Russia. In this context, the question of how to compensate for Ukraine’s territorial losses, particularly the annexation of Crimea, becomes crucial for the future European security architecture.

- President Bajram Begaj had a meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense of Croatia, Ivan Anusic, where they focused on bilateral relations, cooperation in the field of defense, economy, and the situation in the Western Balkans. While Begaj stressed the importance of the strategic partnership between Albania and Croatia, he praised the signing of the joint declaration between Albania, Croatia and Kosovo as a 'testament' to the successful cooperation over the years. What is your comment on such assessment (testament)?

- I express my deep respect for the military and political wisdom of President Begaj and fully support his assessment of the importance of this Agreement. The Agreement comes at a crucial moment and clearly demonstrates the principles on which small countries should cooperate, which is of utmost importance for the stability and development of the region.

I hope that this Agreement will remain open, primarily for Bulgaria, but also for other smaller Western Balkan countries, including Montenegro and North Macedonia, in order to further strengthen regional cooperation. I am convinced that this Agreement not only enhances bilateral relations but also contributes to the broader context of security and stability in the Western Balkans.

- Serbia has demanded explanation from Croatia and Albania following the trilateral declaration of cooperation. Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that it will urgently request detailed explanations from the Foreign Ministries of Albania and Croatia. According to Belgrade, Albania and Croatia, by signing this document, "took steps that undermine regional stability." Authorities in Belgrade, which do not recognize Kosovo's statehood, said this initiative represents "open provocation and gross disregard for the reality on the ground." What is your take on this view?

- Honestly, I do not understand Belgrade’s nervous reaction to the signing of this benign Agreement. If anyone fails to grasp reality, it is precisely Belgrade—Kosovo is a political fact! Kosovo has been recognized by almost all EU member states, as well as by the United States, Israel, and many others. I truly do not see how the wheel of history could be turned back to the state of affairs before the bombing of Serbia. It is well known who walked away from the Rambouillet Agreement in March 1999.

Furthermore, Serbia remains silent about the incident in September 2023, when a terrorist group infiltrated northern Kosovo. The participants in that act have still not been punished, despite this being one of the demands of the international community. Belgrade has also forced Kosovo Serbs to abandon all Kosovan institutions. However, it is a positive sign that Serbian political parties participated in the recently held parliamentary elections.

If anyone is destabilizing the region, it is precisely Serbian politics, which has not come to terms with its recent past—the wars of the 1990s—which provides political support to the secessionist activities of Milorad Dodik in Republika Srpska and refuses to acknowledge the rulings of the International Court in The Hague that genocide was committed in Srebrenica. Without that reckoning, there can be no catharsis!

I repeat, this Agreement serves the stability of the region. As Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic recently stated, Croatia does not need anyone’s permission to decide what it can or cannot sign. Sometimes, I get the impression that certain Serbian politicians still believe we live in the same, shared state. It would be good if someone reminded them that Yugoslavia no longer exists and that Zagreb makes its own decisions independently, in accordance with its interests and international law.

- What does it mean such a trilateral pact for Kosovo, which is striving in its path of joining NATO and EU?

- I think this agreement is extremely important for Kosovo, which is facing many problems, both in the interior (permanent crisis in the north, the obstruction of the Serbian political parties, the undefined situation after the parliamentary elections) and the one in the International Plan (not just Russia and China did not recognize Kosovo this still did not do five EU countries...), so this agreement should better position Kosovo on the International Plan. Furthermore, this agreement in the best possible way witnesses that there is no basis on the narrative of the creation of the great Albania, the unification of Kosovo and Albania

- Mr. Ambassador, Trump Jr. paid a visit and met Vucic a few days ago amid the 'hottest' winter of anti-government protests spread across Serbia. My question is about the timing of the visit as there are senior officials in Washington who criticize the bombardment of Serbia by NATO to put an end to the Milosevic genocide against Kosovars. What are the messages of this stance?

- I personally would not attribute significant political importance to Donald Trump Jr.'s recent visit to Belgrade. After all, the Trump family has been present in Serbia for quite some time. For instance, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, signed an agreement last year for the construction of a luxury hotel and a business-residential complex on the site of the former General Staff Headquarters of the Yugoslav Army, which was damaged during NATO’s bombing of Serbia in 1999. This project, which will carry the Trump brand, is planned as a significant step in strengthening economic and political ties between Serbia and the United States. However, I hear that there are serious objections within Serbia regarding this project. Conservationists from both the national and city-level Institutes for the Protection of Monuments have publicly opposed the removal of the cultural heritage status from the old General Staff complex in the heart of the city. They argue that cultural heritage is a "non-renewable resource," and its loss would erase permanent universal values from the national heritage.

I agree with your view that many high-ranking American officials in Washington have criticized NATO’s bombing of Serbia, but I do not believe that these positions will significantly influence any change in U.S. foreign policy regarding Kosovo’s status. I am convinced that Donald Trump will insist on the full implementation of the 2020 Washington Agreement. After all, that agreement was his achievement, and I highly doubt he has forgotten that detail.

Regarding Kosovo, while there were no official statements during his son’s visit that would directly indicate a shift in U.S. policy on the matter, the presence of members of the U.S. president’s family and their involvement in business projects in Serbia can be interpreted as a signal of potential strengthening of bilateral relations. However, the official policy of the United States on Kosovo’s status remains unchanged, and any modification of that stance would require formal diplomatic steps and decisions at the highest level.

- To touch upon the situation in Serbia what is happening in that country in the light of the massive protests with students as protagonist joined by other people of walks of life. What does it lack to achieve to topple down Vucic?

- I would prefer not to comment on political processes in Serbia. The issues facing Serbian society (corruption, nepotism, party loyalty, institutional capture, media control…) are for the citizens of Serbia to address. They alone have the full right to decide who will earn their trust in future elections to manage the political and economic processes in Serbia. Only they can determine the future political direction of Serbian society.

Of course, I have been closely following these months-long demonstrations by Serbian students. Honestly, I must admit that I am fascinated by the energy of Serbian youth, their persistence, playfulness, and wit. However, my fascination ends there, as it remains unclear what their political agenda is. I have not noticed EU or NATO flags at these protests, yet there are plenty of slogans like "Kosovo is the heart of Serbia." The musical repertoire is also quite diverse, ranging from rock music to nationalist folk trash.

It is still uncertain what their ultimate political goals are.

All in all, this is a rather heterogeneous and politically undefined movement. If we were to paraphrase Erich Maria Remarque, we could say: in Serbia—nothing new!

- To conclude Croatia has hit its first major roadblock in joining the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), following a shift in U.S. foreign policy under Donald Trump. Please Mr. Ambassador which are the reasons of such an act by the US, a key ally of Croatia?

-The postponement of Croatia’s accession to the OECD is not the result of a U.S. blockade but rather stems from procedural issues within the organization and current trade tensions between the U.S. and the EU. We are merely collateral damage in this (unnecessary) dispute. After all, our State Secretary Zdenko Luci? has stated that Croatia is aligned with OECD trade policies and that a formal vote is awaited before the Trade Committee. The American partners have requested that the vote be held at a later date, which has nothing to do with U.S.-Croatia bilateral relations.

Croatia is fully aware of the importance of all forms of partnership with the United States—political, military, and economic. We continue to believe in the values of American democracy, which, among other things, were an ideal for my generation—an ideal not only to dream about but to practice in real life!

This case clearly illustrates the possible negative (and, of course, unnecessary) consequences of a capricious, unpredictable policy—one that can generate a series of additional harmful effects that were not even considered when making such poorly thought-out decisions. I want to believe that the foundations of American democracy are strong enough to withstand all types of political and economic recklessness. A state cannot be run like a private company, where pure profit is the sole priority.

Furthermore, I find it illogical that the U.S. perceives Europe as its biggest problem. Europe and the United States must remain natural allies. After all, the world has always advanced when this logical coalition functioned. That is why it seems absurd that, in my later years, I would transform from an old-school Atlanticist into a European Gaullist!