Prime Minister Edi Rama has further hardened his tone in the clash sparked by his statements on the Ibër River, turning his latest response into a direct attack on critics in Pristina and Belgrade. At the center of his message remains the claim that “Serbia lost Kosovo,” while the political debate is shifting from the concrete issue to rhetoric and labeling.
Rama’s second reaction after the debate over the Ibër
Rama reacted again one day after his statement on the recent discussions over changing the course of the Ibër River. This time, he focused more on the wave of criticism on social media and on the objections that, according to his version, came from both Belgrade and Pristina.
In his post, the head of government used strong language against his opponents, describing them as part of a “nationalist turbofolk.” The chosen rhetoric shifts the debate from the substance of the diplomatic position to a political and personal clash with critics.
‘Serbia lost Kosovo,’ the point where the clash ignited
According to Rama, the essence of his position is a simple fact: “Serbia lost Kosovo.” That very sentence, according to him, triggered harsh reactions and made him a target of accusations and labeling online.
He claims that the opposition to him came even though, according to him, the intervention he made in the debate over the Ibër had been clearly against Serbian provocation. However, the public controversy has focused on the wording he used and on the way he is interpreting the reaction coming from Kosovo.
Attack on critics in Pristina
In the published reaction, Rama says he uses the wave of attacks against him as a kind of test of the accuracy of his own positions. According to him, whenever critics in Pristina erupt against him, he sees this as a sign that he has acted correctly in relation to Albania, Kosovo, and regional cooperation.
This is a political interpretation that Rama presents as proof in his own favor, but which at the same time avoids confronting the core of the objections. Instead of clarifying the disputed points, his response relies on irony, labeling, and an escalation in tone.
Between declared diplomacy and harsh rhetoric
Rama presents the alignment of criticism from Belgrade and Pristina as a “compliment” to Albania’s diplomacy. According to him, the fact that he is being attacked from both sides proves that his position was correct.
But beyond this self-assessment, the reaction leaves open the question of whether the language used by the prime minister actually helps a serious debate on a sensitive regional issue, or simply further burdens the political climate. Instead of a cool institutional clarification, the public received another response built on divisive rhetoric.
The debate of recent days over the Ibër River is thus being accompanied not only by political tension between the sides, but also by an increasingly confrontational tone from the prime minister himself.
At its core, the issue remains linked to the way foreign policy is articulated in relation to Kosovo and Serbia, but Rama’s latest reaction showed that the clash is also unfolding just as strongly on the domestic level of political communication.