In the video I react angrily to support for flights serving the diaspora. I put it beside everyday problems at home: healthcare, roads and the difficulty of getting institutions to work together.
I also call it vote-buying. That is an accusation in the clip, not a legal finding established by this article. The stronger way to pursue the concern is to read the decision and ask what result the money is meant to deliver.
What the decision actually says
Government Decision No. 01/21, dated 26 May 2026, allocated €2 million under Measure 4.5, support for the diaspora, for air routes serving diaspora destinations. It authorised a cooperation agreement with Pristina airport to design and implement incentives to maintain or add routes during the remaining summer aviation season.[1]
That is a route-support allocation. The decision does not establish a fixed cash payment to every traveller or show that each ticket became cheaper. It also cannot, on its own, establish electoral intent, illegality or an observed benefit.
Divide the budget, but name the denominator
Suppose the full €2 million were spent. How much would that be per supported one-way passenger journey? Without verified participation data, we can only show scenarios:
| Hypothetical supported journeys | Budget divided by journeys |
|---|---|
| 20,000 | €100 |
| 50,000 | €40 |
| 100,000 | €20 |
The formula is €2,000,000 ÷ journeys. These numbers are neither a promised payment nor a measured ticket discount. A person making a return trip can account for two one-way journeys, so journeys and individual people are not interchangeable.
The exercise shows why an announcement needs an outcome report. A budget total tells me the resources committed. It does not tell me who benefited, whether more seats were offered or what would have happened without support.
The questions I want answered
I would look for the final scheme terms, selection criteria, amounts actually paid and routes supported. Then I would ask about additional capacity, comparable fares and how the programme assessed its results. Fare comparisons need matching routes, travel dates, baggage and booking lead times; two screenshots of different tickets will not settle the question.
I would also want the public discussion to explain the alternative uses of the money. That does not mean pretending €2 million alone would solve healthcare or infrastructure. It means comparing the expected benefit with other specific, costed options.
That connects with my question about focusing politics on living standards. The diaspora matters. So do the people using services in Kosovo every day. A useful debate can take both seriously.
I can be angry at an announcement. To judge the policy fairly, I need to follow the money through to the result.
Sources and calculation notes
-
[1] Government decisions of 26 May 2026, No. 01/21, pages 1–2. This is evidence of the allocation and its stated purpose, not proof of final spending, ticket savings or misconduct.
-
The three journey counts are hypothetical. Reproducible budget division. No measured programme-effect estimate is claimed.
-
Original video and thumbnail: Eduard Luta on TikTok. Published 2026-05-27. Research checked 27 September 2026.