Prime Minister Edi Rama gave an interview to the Swedish media outlet Postimees, where he spoke about Albania’s European Union membership process and also responded to questions regarding the immunity case of former Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluku.

Full Interview:

– About six months ago, in an interview with The Observer, you said there is a gloomy mood in Europe and no clear strategy. What motivates Albania to aspire to the EU when Europe seems so uncertain and unclear about its direction?

Edi Rama: Because for Albania, the EU is extremely attractive and we are dependent on it. Unlike other countries around us, we do not have alternative plans, nor do we want any. We have no other major allies or partners. We only have the EU. So it is very clear why we want to be part of the EU. At the same time, however, I believe it is also clear to many people—not only to me—that Europe is not going through its best days right now.

– If you look at the processes currently taking place in Europe and the decisions being made, are they moving in the right direction and at the right speed?

Edi Rama: No, not at the right speed. Perhaps in the right direction, but definitely not fast enough. Speed is one of Europe’s problems because it is a large club of democratic countries, and democracy functions through procedures and many processes before decisions are made. But one way or another, we need to change.

– The enlargement process has also taken a very long time for the Western Balkans. You have said Albania’s goal is to become an EU member by 2030 at the latest. Do you still consider this a realistic goal?

Edi Rama: I think so. At the moment, it is realistic. But it was not realistic before the attack on Ukraine. And this could still change. But for now, yes, it is realistic.

– You proposed accelerating the accession process by giving up Albania’s veto right and commissioner position. Doesn’t this risk getting only half the benefits of EU membership for a very long time?

Edi Rama: No, this is not about benefits; it is about Europe. I did not say this merely to get there faster. I genuinely believe in a more practical and functional Europe. It is unreasonable for Europe to depend on 27 vetoes already, and imagine having 29, 33, or even 35 vetoes. This issue needs to be addressed seriously, together with many other things that prevent Europe from moving with greater speed and strength. As far as we are concerned, I believe this would also help reduce tensions that would surely arise in different countries when the time comes to make decisions.

– Recently, you said the EU made a mistake in foreign and security policy by deciding not to speak with Russia anymore. What should be done now?

Edi Rama: It was not just a mistake. In my opinion, it is not an appropriate stance for a great power like Europe because Europe’s history is not only a history of wars, but also of diplomacy and dialogue. We can fully support Ukraine in its just fight against aggression, while at the same time Europe cannot refuse to talk to Russia. Russia is not going anywhere; it is here to stay. Europe must also pursue diplomacy and dialogue. Israel and Hamas were fighting each other intensely, yet they continued talking throughout.

– For Estonia, the principle of not negotiating with the aggressor has been a cornerstone of foreign policy in recent years. How would you convince the Estonian Prime Minister that your position is correct?

Edi Rama: I am not someone who can convince your Prime Minister to do something regarding what Estonia feels. I am not talking about Estonia or the Baltic states because it would be foolish to lecture them on how to deal with Russia. I am speaking about the EU as a major power in the global architecture of the world. What Estonia and the Baltic states cannot and should not do, Europe can do. This is not about Estonia or Albania.

– Europe has, in a way, delegated negotiations with Russia to the United States. How well do the U.S. represent Europe, or do you think Washington negotiates mainly with its own interests in mind?

Edi Rama: This is another consequence of what Europe failed to do. It was wrong to leave leadership of this confrontation entirely in the hands of the United States. It was also wrong to leave leadership of the negotiations in American hands. Europe should have done it and still should do it itself—of course in cooperation and coordination—but Europe cannot delegate its existence and position in the world.

– Looking at the recent actions and decisions of the United States, are the U.S. still a reliable security partner for NATO allies?

Edi Rama: It depends on the perspective. If we look from yesterday’s perspective, then no. If we look from today’s perspective, then yes.

– Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. has been very transactional in foreign policy, often linking political positions to business interests. In recent years, there have been major American investments in Albania, including those linked to Trump’s inner circle, such as Jared Kushner. To what extent do you fear that mixing business and politics could become problematic?

Edi Rama: First of all, that is not accurate. Jared Kushner came to Albania and discussions about his investment interests began when Donald Trump was not president, and it was not even certain whether he would return to the White House or end up in prison. So this has nothing to do with Trump being president now, because tomorrow he will not be. The investment is still continuing and to see its full results, we will need to live beyond Trump’s term. This is about an American businessman, not political relations.

– How do you assess Albania’s success in fighting corruption, considering recent scandals involving your government? I am referring to the case of former Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluku. Why did your party vote against lifting her parliamentary immunity?

Edi Rama: The claims are inaccurate. First, this is not a corruption case. The prosecutor does not accuse her of corruption. It concerns mismanagement of public procurement, which under the Penal Code is very different from corruption. Second, we do not have immunity from investigation in Albania. Anyone can be investigated. Even I myself can be investigated by a prosecutor without knowing it. Parliament only decides whether someone’s freedom can be restricted. We believed—and I still believe—that restricting someone’s freedom solely on suspicions about something that is not corruption was not justified. I am increasingly convinced we did the right thing by allowing the investigation to continue without restricting her freedom.

– Albania has dropped in the press freedom index in recent years, and Reporters Without Borders mentions political pressure on journalists as one of the reasons. How do you comment on this?

Edi Rama: I do not feel the need to comment on that. A few weeks ago, I published the results of an analysis of Albanian online media using an AI model developed by an Albanian startup. According to the analysis, 57% of published material over the last two months was anti-government, a significant percentage was neutral, and less than 10% was pro-government. Also, 60% of broadcasting time in Albania belongs to the opposition. So while I understand there are issues regarding media ownership and other matters, there is absolutely zero pressure from the government on the media. In a country where media is under pressure, it would not overwhelmingly oppose the government.