Analysis by "The Brussels Times": Why did Rama and Vučić benefit more from delay than from membership?

An analysis published by "The Brussels Times" raises questions about how Albania and Serbia are progressing in the European integration process, suggesting that delaying membership in the European Union may serve their leaders more than its actual implementation.

According to the article, both in Tirana and Belgrade, civic discontent is growing, with ongoing protests and demands for political change. In Albania, protests have focused on issues related to corruption, the environment, and controversial investment projects, while in Serbia, similar movements have been seen against major development projects.

The analysis highlights that in both countries, citizens' trust in national institutions is low, while the European Union is increasingly seen as a point of reference and stability. However, this contrast is used politically by governments, which, according to the article, rely on the slow integration process to maintain room for maneuver in power.

"The Brussels Times" analysis:

Day after day, for two weeks in a row, people have gathered in Skanderbeg Square in Tirana—every evening at six o'clock sharp, with the insistence of a nation that survived nearly fifty years of dictatorship and is still waiting for what is supposed to come after it.

Protests are growing. So are calls for the prime minister to resign. Serbia, not long ago, experienced the same thing: mass protests that lasted for weeks. European assessments consistently show the same pattern: environmental standards are being sacrificed, corruption persists, and the media remains under political pressure.

The two countries share a common antagonist: Jared Kushner. In Albania, his plans for luxury resorts in environmentally sensitive areas sparked protests. In Serbia, protesters forced the abandonment of plans to demolish a former army headquarters for a luxury hotel.

But Kushner is not Rama and Vučić’s biggest problem. They have a more fundamental problem: their citizens no longer trust them; they trust the EU more. Albania remains one of the most pro-European countries in the region—more than 90% of the population supports EU membership—but only a small minority still trusts its own institutions.

Serbia reflects the same pattern: citizens distrust national institutions, while continuing to see EU membership as a national aspiration. The European Union has become the anchor precisely because everything in the country has collapsed.

Meanwhile, the political theater around enlargement continues unabated. At European summits, Rama presents himself as Albania’s great champion for Europe. “There is no alternative,” he declared recently in Montenegro. “Albania belongs to the European Union.” Vučić plays a different game, keeping one eye on the EU and the other on Moscow. Both leaders are undermining the standards required for membership, while ignoring warnings from the European Commission.

Rama has called the protests a “hybrid war” orchestrated by foreign enemies. The thousands who gather every evening in Skanderbeg Square will undoubtedly find comfort in that explanation. He has denied any significant developments in the Kushner case and has become increasingly confrontational with journalists. History suggests that politicians who begin to treat the press as the enemy are usually showing weakness, not strength. Rama’s recent interviews with CNN and Top Channel in Albania fit this pattern well.

Beneath this theater lies a political strategy with no way out. For years, these leaders have believed that a slow accession process would serve them better than full membership. Full EU membership would impose a binding regulatory framework and significantly limit their political space—a procedure that none seem entirely willing to accept. Candidate status, by contrast, keeps all options open. It allows them to choose political allies opportunistically, using the promise of Europe as a source of legitimacy without ever fully realizing it. For Rama, who secured his third term in office partly on a platform of European integration, the promise itself is the product. Real membership could weaken the very power he helps to maintain.

But every political strategy has an expiration date. Theirs is approaching. Slow accession may buy time, but it does not freeze the societies they govern. In both countries, young people have been at the forefront of the protests. They have grown up among departures—friends, relatives, and neighbors fleeing because they see no future in the country. They have waited for educational opportunities and jobs that never came. Their patience has run out, and, unlike the previous generation, they no longer trust domestic politics.

Rama and Vučić still have a choice—though we might ask whether it is already too late. They can align themselves with the EU standards they once pledged to uphold, or they can continue on their path until the political bill comes. That bill will come. The only question is when.

The accession process could take years. But on the streets, Albanian and Serbian citizens are already holding their governments to European laws and values. The fact that this pressure is coming from below is no small sign for a European Union whose public is divided on enlargement.