NATO's effectiveness in Kosovo does not depend on numbers

The violence against KFOR forces, the media and the police in May 2023 and the terrorist attack in Banjska did not happen because KFOR did not have enough soldiers in the country at that time. It happened because the perpetrators of these attacks had assessed that they had the right political moment to carry out these attacks. Now that NATO is deciding to “optimize” its presence in Kosovo, which means reducing it, there should be no concern. Because NATO's effectiveness in Kosovo does not depend on numbers, but on political circumstances. NATO should have learned lessons from the aforementioned attacks, insisted that the perpetrators be punished and that such things should not be allowed to happen again.

When NATO was created more than 76 years ago, the goal was not for it to start wars, but for its very existence to serve as a preventive force to protect its member countries. This was done based on the simple logic that no one would be crazy enough to attack a NATO country, which is the strongest military alliance that humanity has ever seen. And NATO successfully defended its member countries during the Cold War, without firing a single bullet, no one attacked them, and later the area of ​​democracy and the values ​​of freedom was expanded to countries that for half a century were part of the opposing bloc, the communist one led by Russia.
After the end of the Cold War, the debate began about whether NATO was needed anymore. Naively, in not only philosophical, but also political and economic circles, arguments began to be made that “now Russia is also democratizing and is no longer a threat” and therefore, according to these arguments, “there is no need to spend so much on NATO anymore.”

The wars in the former Yugoslavia, which were mainly Serbian aggression against neighboring peoples in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, showed that freedom, democracy and peace in Europe cannot be considered as guaranteed by themselves. Genocide also occurred in the eyes of Europe. And here NATO emerged again with a new role, that of interventions to stop genocide and humanitarian crises. The delayed and very limited intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina against the positions of the Bosnian Serbs, and then the air strikes to liberate Kosovo, were NATO's first engagement outside its borders. And with this it was proven that there is a need for NATO in Europe, although with a different role. With the change of circumstances, NATO also changed and now not only does it exist, but it has expanded to include countries like Sweden and Finland, which never dreamed that they would one day join this Alliance.

Exactly 27 years ago, NATO ended its airstrikes on Serbian military, police, and paramilitary forces. This intervention occurred for many reasons. In short, it came after all options for ending the ethnic cleansing and violence against Albanians in Kosovo by peaceful political means had been exhausted. It came after NATO had failed to stop the Serbian genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina and did not want to allow the same, and perhaps on an even larger scale, to be repeated in Kosovo. “NATO will not allow a repeat of Bosnia in Kosovo,” was the refrain that began to be used in NATO since the fall of 1997, until the airstrikes began. After 78 days of airstrikes, NATO entered Kosovo after reaching a military agreement with Serbia that Serbian forces would be removed from Kosovo.

Now, as the 27th anniversary of Kosovo's liberation is being marked, NATO continues to be in Kosovo, but with a much smaller presence than when the KFOR mission began. But NATO remains committed regardless of the number of soldiers.

Last week, NATO's European Command announced at SHAPE in Belgium that NATO would "optimize" its presence in Kosovo. This seemed like good news, as the improved security situation in Kosovo was cited as justification.          

"The security situation in Kosovo has continued to improve in recent years. As a result, in January NATO terminated the deployment of the reserve force in the Kosovo Force (KFOR) after more than two years of rotation. As the security situation in Kosovo remains generally stable, NATO will optimize its presence in Kosovo and gradually adapt the force over the coming year," announced NATO's command for Europe, SHAPE, headquartered in Mons, Belgium.

"Since 1999, KFOR's presence has been continuously adapted, so that the mission remains capable of implementing its purpose and responding to the changing security situation. Following the increase in tensions and violence in 2023, including unjustified attacks on KFOR peacekeepers in Zvecan, KFOR had its largest reinforcement in more than a decade with the deployment of approximately 1000 additional troops," the announcement said.

According to the latest data, as of April, the NATO-led KFOR mission in Kosovo has 4657 personnel from 31 countries, not all of them NATO members. The largest number of soldiers is from Italy, with 907, followed by 590 from the United States, 408 from Hungary, 382 from Turkey and 308 from Germany.
NATO headquarters in Brussels have repeatedly said that NATO in Kosovo will always have the appropriate number of soldiers required by the situation, in order to be able to implement its mandate.

The violence against KFOR forces, the media and the police in May 2023 and the terrorist attack in Banjska did not happen because KFOR did not have enough soldiers in the country at that time. It happened because the perpetrators of these attacks had assessed that they had the right political moment to carry out these attacks. Now that NATO is deciding to “optimize” its presence in Kosovo, which means reducing it, there should be no concern. Because NATO's effectiveness in Kosovo does not depend on numbers, but on political circumstances. NATO should have learned lessons from the aforementioned attacks, insisted that the perpetrators be punished, and not allowed to repeat such things.

also Arberi 2 August 2026 Ulutash on reducing KFOR presence in Kosovo: Will return if developments require it

No matter how small or large the number of NATO soldiers in Kosovo, they will be a warning to anyone who intends to attack Kosovo that they will enter into conflict with NATO. Serbia should also keep this in mind. In the meantime, Kosovo should continue to strengthen its security institutions, in cooperation with allies, if not formally through NATO, then bilaterally with those countries that want it. Meanwhile, work should also be done on normalizing relations with Serbia, because that in itself would reduce both tensions and fears of an escalation of the security situation. And NATO should remain in Kosovo until the time comes for Kosovo to enter NATO.