FLASH NEWS
An "invitation" from Trump/ When propaganda and vulgarity replace analysis
2026-01-18 16:01:16 / EDITORIAL
The 24-hour media battle over the “invitation” to the Gaza Peace Board was not a political debate. It was a duel of primitive reflexes. On the one hand, Edi Rama’s supporters elevated a multilateral procedure to the rank of an “epochal event”; on the other hand, his opponents, having failed to deny the fact, slipped into ridicule, belittling and brutal language, reducing everything to personal vulgarity.
Both sides were wrong. And the mistake wasn't just stylistic; it was a profound misunderstanding of how international politics works.
In the first phase, Rama’s skeptics questioned the very existence of the invitation. It was a typical reaction of Albanian politics: denial as an instinct. When it became clear that the letter existed and that it was part of a broader international framework, the tactics immediately changed: from denial they moved to belittling. “It’s a template invitation,” “there are 100 countries,” “there’s nothing personal.” All of these are factually true — but the way they were used was not aimed at public clarification, but at the political unmasking of the opponent.
On the other hand, Rama's supporters fell into the opposite trap. A standard diplomatic procedure was transformed into a narrative of personal triumph. There was talk of "historic role", "founding status", even absurdities like "part of the American cabinet". Here we are dealing with the old Albanian syndrome: the need to feel chosen, even when we are simply one of many.
There were articles that were not simply oppositional reactions; texts filled with insults, sexual metaphors, and vulgar cynicism that do not aim to inform, but to humiliate. They serve neither the truth nor serious political criticism. On the contrary, he shows that even the opposition, when it comes to complex international issues, often chooses the instinct of ridicule instead of analysis.
Ironically, the factual content these writings touch upon — that the letter was not personal, that it was the same for about a hundred countries, that it did not have elite status — are precisely the elements that should have formed the core of a rational critique. But they lose all force when they are wrapped in insults and innuendo.
This is the small tragedy of Albanian debate: the truth, when it comes from the wrong mouth and with the wrong tone, becomes inaudible.
Essentially, this episode shows the lack of institutional culture on both sides. The government did not calmly and clearly explain the procedural nature of the invitation and the real limits of the Albanian role. The opposition, instead of forcing the government to clarify these limits, chose the path of trivialization.
And the audience was left between two extremes: either feeling proud for no reason, or laughing contemptuously without understanding anything.
In international relations, prudence is capital. A small country gains nothing by overestimating its role, but it loses much by misinterpreting it. Equally, it gains nothing by mocking itself and the institutions of which it is a part. Diplomacy is neither a propaganda orgasm nor a coffee shop hopping.
If there is a lesson from this story, it is simple: an international resolution requires serious explanation, not exaltation; and cool criticism, not vulgarity. Without this minimal maturity, any topic — no matter how serious — will end up like this: a big noise, with zero meaning and a missed opportunity to grow as a public debate.
In the end, the problem wasn't the invitation. The problem was that neither side behaved like statesmen. And this, more than any letter from abroad, shows how much work Albania still has at home.
Happening now...
ideas
top
Alfa recipes
TRENDING 
services
- POLICE129
- STREET POLICE126
- AMBULANCE112
- FIREFIGHTER128