Energizing Cross-Border Cooperation in Central Europe

How can Central Europe cooperate most effectively on the energy transition? Michael Stellwag and Rebecca Thorne put the spotlight on CES7 (Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia). 

In the lead up to the European elections, the continent witnessed a backlash against green policies. The European Green Deal, which was introduced four years ago and outlines the continent’s path to climate neutrality by 2050, came under particular scrutiny. Integral to the Green Deal is the energy transition, including issues such as where the energy resources come from, how power is generated and who can access the final products. 

While the Greens did indeed lose influence in Germany, France and Belgium, they retained their seats in Austria and even gained their first seats in Croatia and Slovenia. Indeed, the seven Central European states of the EU – Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia (CES7) – are faced with the tangible effects of climate change, geopolitical instability and economic challenges, which necessarily provokes discussion about the decarbonisation of the energy sectors in the region along with questions of security and affordability. Effective cross-border cooperation is key to solving this conundrum. 

In the aftermath of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the knock-on effects on the prices and supply of energy across Europe, it may appear worthwhile pursuing the goal of self-sufficiency at national level to reduce dependency and the corresponding risk of vulnerability. However, not every country has the capacity to meet all their energy needs through domestic power generation. While some countries possess an abundance of natural energy resources such as wind, water and sun, others run the risk of continuing the detrimental resource exploitation of coal mining. Power generation from coal still dominates the energy landscape of countries with a history of mining, accounting for 44% of the total electricity generation in Czechia and 70% in Poland. Instead of maintaining or even exacerbating this trend, regional cooperation provides alternatives, some of which remain controversial, while others offer clear benefits. 

Diversification and bridge technologies: different approaches 

First of all, cooperation should not come at the cost of security. The region’s historical energy partnership with Russia has highlighted its vulnerability: reducing this dependence is crucial. The EU attempted to enforce immediate diversification by introducing an oil embargo against Russia in 2022. However, the Central European states without a sea border – Austria, Czechia, Hungary and Slovakia pushed for an exemption, resulting in the continuation of imports of Russian oil via the Druzhba pipeline that runs through Ukraine 

Regarding the gas supply, even though the proportion of Russian pipeline gas in EU imports has fallen from over 40% in 2021 to currently 8% in the EU as a whole, the share in parts of Central Europe remains higher. Austria and Hungary are currently the most dependent on gas from Russia and have fought most intensively against possible EU sanctions. In Austria, the share of Russian gas in the total supply has not fallen significantly since the attack on Ukraine due to a non-transparent long-term supply contract that was extended in 2018 and to which, until recently, not even members of the government had access.  

The response of these states to the energy supply crisis has been different. The four Visegrad states are primarily focusing on diversifying both their oil and gas suppliers in order to reduce their dependence on Russia without significantly reducing their consumption. Poland is using the Baltic Pipe as well as importing more from the USA, while increasing the capacity of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals and pipeline infrastructure. Slovakia and Hungary are increasingly sourcing oil from Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, with security of supply being a priority – yet it is important to note that a certain amount of imports from these countries comes from Russia anyway. Czechia is also making efforts to diversify as well as focusing on energy efficiency measures. 

In an example of minilateral cooperation, Austria has been investing in the LNG terminal on the Croatian island of Krk. This terminal has already existed for some time but is now being expanded far beyond the national requirements of Croatia in order serve as a regional hub. Poland has also been enlarging its LNG capabilities from 5 billion m³ a year via its Świnoujście terminal, aiming to double its capacity with the expansion and planned new construction in Gdańsk. The trend is clear: no reduction in gas, but the reduction of dependence on one single country. Yet a decrease in both would be possible with more intensive coordination and more coherent planning within the group – especially as investing in gas projects poses the danger of Central Europe tying itself further into a dependence on a resource that is ultimately a fossil fuel. 

Nuclear power remains a contentious issue, with many convinced it is the way forward to reducing dependency on fossil fuels. In a further example of cross-border cooperation, Slovenia shares its nuclear power station with Croatia, which is in an earthquake zone and cannot build its own without compromising safety. Slovakia, Hungary and Czechia have also opted to invest in nuclear technologies: 59.7%, 44% and 36.6% of their respective electricity generation comes from nuclear. Hungary furthermore intends to increase this percentage with a new power plant that is to be built using Russian state funding. Poland currently has no domestic nuclear energy production but is developing plans to build its first nuclear power station. 

However, others remain wary of a technology that has the potential to cause widespread harm. Austria is one of few outspoken opponents in Central Europe following the referendum of 1978 and subsequent law against generating nuclear power. Having set a goal to source 100% of its electricity from renewables by 2030, Austria moreover intends to show that the green transition is possible without nuclear energy. 

Fast-growing markets 

The renewable energy markets have been rapidly growing, especially the solar industry, with the demand for photovoltaic energy busting market expectations across Europe. There is also significant potential for energy generation from other renewable sources in Central Europe. Poland has begun to make use of the wind on its northern coast with its first offshore farm currently under construction, which is anticipated to generate 1.1GW. Nonetheless, there is still a lot of room for growth, with estimated potential for up to 33GW. Likewise, the Adriatic Sea offers considerable offshore wind power that is not being utilised. While it has been agreed that no wind farms will be built on Croatia’s islands, there is still an area of 29,000 km² that could be developed without encroaching on high-impact zones 

Furthermore, there are natural geothermal heat reservoirs across the region. Indeed, following the European Parliament’s recent call for an EU geothermal energy strategy, the European Committee of the Regions released an Opinion on the “great potential” of geothermal for both cities and regions. To give three examples from the region: in Poland, geothermal reservoirs have been found in around 50% of the country’s area, particularly in central and northwestern Poland. Hungary has already quadrupled its use of geothermal energy since 2010 and is now planning to double its use again by 2030, while Slovenia has been developing a pilot geothermal project that only requires one dry well for operation. 

Prioritise the grid 

With such promising potential of renewables, both large- and small-scale, what is preventing an exponential growth of the clean energy sector? The supply chain is currently not the limiting factor in terms of what is possible. While the manufacturing of solar panels is at present dominated by China, the EU has established initiatives such as the Net Zero Industry Act and the European Solar Charter, which aim to support solar manufacturing in Europe.  

Instead, with a rapid expansion of the renewable energy sector, the grid is the main bottleneck. Energy systems are largely centralised through national grids, which currently do not have the capacity to integrate the rapidly expanding renewable sector. Sectors that were predominantly running on fossil fuels are now being converted to electricity. To further complicate the problem, the grid in Poland, for example, is concentrated on regions in the south of the country that produced energy from coal, whereas the up-and-coming renewable sector is focused on the north. Moreover, the grid does not offer sufficient capacity for large projects at sea. 

Cooperation among the countries of Central Europe would allow a pooling of renewable resources, which is indispensable given the fluctuating nature of supply and demand inherent to renewable energy. Within this partnership, a priority must be the full synchronisation of the grid across the region as well as the expansion of cross-border grid interconnectors. In particular, the triangle between Austria, Hungary and Slovenia has been identified as critical 

Huge potential 

The European Green Deal promises long-term potential for growth, but currently the transition requires significant financial investment, challenges the economies and could threaten established industries in this underperforming region. Among some governments and sections of the population in the Central European countries there are narratives that they are second-class countries within the EU. Many regulations are seen as originating from Western European countries and Brussels, which member states then have to implement regardless of economic feasibility, resulting in a sluggish implementation of individual EGD regulations. Nonetheless, renewable energy sources, even in the year of installation, are cheaper than fossil fuels. In 2022, the global average cost of solar energy was 29% lower than the cheapest fossil fuel option, while the cost of onshore wind energy was 50% lower. An integrated grid would also boost price competitiveness as cheaper, cleaner electricity from neighbouring countries in the region becomes available to consumers. 

Central Europe has significant potential for a green energy transition, as well as for a more dynamic economy and policymaking than is often assumed. Cooperation is essential to accelerate progress – whether a pooling of financial, knowledge or human resources. With the rapid growth of renewables and increasing electrification of the energy sectors, the expansion and improved international interconnectivity of the grid must be a priority not only for the EU, but also on regional level. 

Rebecca Thorne is a research associate at the Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe (IDM) in Vienna. Her research focus is climate, energy and the environment in Central Europe and the EU candidate countries. 

Michael Stellwag is a research associate at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Vienna. Having studied political science in Vienna and Tallinn, he now specialises in politics in Central and Eastern Europe and in EU foreign, security and defence policy. Professional projects have taken him to numerous countries in the region. 


Both authors attended the expert workshopCentral Europe Plus – Bridge technologies with regard to a sustainable energy supply organized by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Zagreb. The workshop series has existed since 2021 and focuses on the role of Central European States for the future of the EU. It aims to bring together decision-makers and researchers from the countries concerned and to present positions and demands from these countries in Brussels. In 2024, the project has been developed further to include other regions as well, hence the workshop title Central Europe Plus. 














Péter Techet for Napunk (Denník N) on the “Patriots for Europe”

In the Hungarian-language edition of the Slovak daily newspaper “Denník N”; Péter Techet analyzed the new group “Patriots for Europe”, which was founded in the European Parliament with far-right parties, including those from Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Austria. Techet thinks that the new faction is essentially a rebranding of the former “Identity and Democracy” (ID) faction, as most member parties come from this group. However, the rebranding allows Viktor Orbán and Andrej Babiš, who were not part of ID, to present the new faction as their success. Techet interprets Marine Le Pen’s decision to remain in this group as a choice against the moderate path taken by Giorgia Meloni and her “European Conservatives and Reformists” (ERC) faction. Although the new “Patriots” faction will become the third strongest force in the new European Parliament, Techet does not expect it to significantly influence European politics, as the informal coalition between the European People’s Party (EPP), the Socialists (S&D), and the Liberals (Renew) still holds a majority. Additionally, the far-right parties are still divided on issues such as the war in Ukraine.

The article (in Hungarian) can be read here.

Daniel Martínek at the 13th EUSDR Annual Forum

© Daniel Martínek

On behalf of the Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe (IDM) as well as the Danube Rectors’ Conference (DRC), Research Associate Daniel Martínek attended the 13th Annual Forum of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region, which took place at Aula der Wissenschaften in Vienna on 20 June 2024. Under the title Shaping transformation, creating opportunities, topics such as urban transformation, green transition or geopolitical shifts were elaborated, emphasizing the pivotal role of the Danube region. In addition, Daniel Martínek participated in the session on “Skills and education for the green transition hosted by the EUSDR Priority Area 9 – People & Skillsin cooperation with EUSDR Priority Area 7 – Knowledge Society – where both IDM and DRC act as important stakeholders. 

Péter Techet for Partizán on the European Parliament elections in Austria and Croatia

For the independent Hungarian media platform “Partizán”, Péter Techet analyzed the political situation in Austria and Croatia before the European Parliament elections.

The interview (in Hungarian) can be seen here (starting from 39 minutes).

Air Schengen – progress or precedent?

Congratulations are in order for Romania and Bulgaria as they join the Schengen area, with the lifting of maritime and air border controls after years in the waiting room. However, there is a catch to this long-awaited moment. In their new entry on the IDM Blog, Sophia Beiter and Sebastian Schäffer explain what is problematic about this solution and why its gravity is not as substantial as announced.

Romania, Bulgaria and Austria have apparently made progress in their negotiations on the accession of the two Black Sea countries to the Schengen area. It has been reported that Austria may agree to the establishment of the so-called “Air Schengen” for Bulgaria and Romania as early as March 2024, which was proposed by the Federal Minister of the Interior Gerhard Karner earlier this month.

What is “Air Schengen”?

Partial Schengen entry by air would mean that passengers from Romania and Bulgaria would no longer have to fly to other Schengen countries via the international terminal. In terms of air (and sea) transport, Bulgaria and Romania would therefore be part of the Schengen area. However, border controls by land would continue.

In principle, opening the borders for air traffic represents progress in the protracted Schengen accession negotiations and is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, “Air Schengen” does not replace full Schengen membership.

Why “Air Schengen” is not enough:

1. The agreement comes rather late, especially in view of the fact that the European Commission declared Bulgaria’s and Romania’s readiness to join the Schengen area back in 2011. A compromise like Schengen entry by air and/or sea could therefore have been struck over a decade ago and especially helped to avoid the diplomatic faux pas from last December, when Austria vetoed the accession. However, there is a strong possibility that the decision was ultimately not taken by Karner, but in the Federal Chancellery. In any case, such a compromise could potentially set a dangerous precedent. If additional barriers are added to the criteria that need to be fulfilled e.g. to join Schengen, this could ultimately be extended to other policy areas or enlargement in general. This compromise therefore not only creates an additional possibility to veto and thus extort countries but also contributes to a multi-layered, potentially two-class EU, which adds unnecessary complexity as well as frustration.

2. Border controls in air traffic affect far fewer people and are far less problematic in terms of waiting times, bureaucracy and CO2 emissions. Business travellers and tourists to and from Bulgaria and Romania may have less waiting time at the airport, but trucks will continue to get stuck at border controls for long periods of time. Even with the (mostly questionable) reintroduced border controls among Schengen members, the average waiting time between Upper Austria and Bavaria, for instance, is 20 minutes, compared to a mean six hours at the border to Romania and/or Bulgaria.

3. Austria has announced a number of conditions for the implementation of Romania’s and Bulgaria’s partial Schengen accession: an increase in the Frontex mission; more money, personnel and material for the protection of external borders; and that Romania and Bulgaria take in more asylum seekers, particularly from Afghanistan and Syria. While stricter border controls could be accepted by Romania and Bulgaria, the last demand is logistically and politically rather unrealistic. In mid-December, Prime Minister Denkov still vehemently rejected this “migrants for Schengen” offer. It also undermines to a certain extent the deal struck just over a week before on 20 December at the European Parliament, which commits the national governments of member states to show more solidarity and share responsibility regarding asylum and migration.

For more on the topic watch the discussion: The Future of the Schengen Area: Exploring its Enlargement.

Read the op-ed (in German) in Die Presse.

IDM at the youth event “Young Danube Bridges”

On 19 September, Sophia Beiter attended the event “Young Danube Bridges” at the Collegium Hungaricum in Vienna. Organized by the regional cultural advisor from the Danube Swabian Central Musuem in Ulm, the seminar was part of the project “International Youth Encounters in the Danube Region” and aimed to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and ideas on key issues concerning the area. 

Participants from Germany, Hungary, Croatia, Montenegro, Romania, Bulgaria and Moldova came together to learn about the EU Strategy for the Danube Region. The young people, who are all learning German, presented their countries, brought some typical food from their region and gathered knowledge about the Danube region during creative games and interactive activities. Alongside the IDM, several cultural institutes and embassies of the respective countries were present at the event. 

Der Aufstieg des Ostens

Kinga Brudzinska wurde kürzlich in einem Artikel von Die Welt zitiert, der die wirtschaftliche Transformation in Mittel- und Osteuropa (CEE) analysiert und wie diese Länder – zum Beispiel in der Digitalisierung von FinanzdienstleistungenWesteuropa überholt haben.

Lesen Sie den Artikel hier.

Polens Präsident in Wien: Gegenpol oder Brückenbauer?  

Anlässlich des heutigen Staatsbesuches des polnischen Präsidenten Andrzej Duda in Wien betrachtet unsere Kollegin Malwina Talik die politischen Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede der beiden Länder. 

Auf der Landkarte sind Polen und Österreich nicht weit voneinander entfernt, außenpolitisch allerdings schon: Polen ist ein aktives NATO-Mitglied, das auf die enge Zusammenarbeit mit den USA setzt, Österreich hingegen ein militärisch neutrales Land; Polen führte seit Jahren eine (über)vorsichtige Politik gegenüber Russland, Österreich pflegte bis Februar 2022 eher freundschaftliche Beziehungen. Der heutige Staatsbesuch des polnischen Präsidenten Andrzej Duda in Wien bietet also genügend Anlass, sich die politischen Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede der beiden Länder genauer anzusehen. Der polnische Präsident wird sich mit seinem Amtskollegen, dem österreichischen Bundespräsidenten Alexander Van der Bellen, und mit Bundeskanzler Karl Nehammer treffen. Dabei sollen vor allem die europäische Politik in Bezug auf den russischen Invasionskrieg in der Ukraine, bilaterale Beziehungen sowie Erinnerungspolitik um das KZ Mauthausen-Gusen und die Schlacht am Kahlenberg besprochen werden. 


Wer ist der polnische Präsident? 

Wenn es um das Vertrauen der polnischen Bevölkerung in ihre Politiker*innen geht, ist Andrzej Duda laut Umfragen auf Platz zwei – vor ihm der liberale Bürgermeister Warschaus Rafal Trzaskowski. Duda war bis zu seiner überraschenden Wahl zum Präsidenten 2015 Mitglied der konservativen Partei Recht und Gerechtigkeit (PiS). Sein Sieg gegen den amtierenden liberal-konservativen Präsidenten Bronislaw Komorowski war das erste Signal, dass die Präferenzen der Wähler*innen nach rechts rutschen. Auf den Erfolg des ausgebildeten Juristen folgte der nächste für PiS: Im selben Jahr kam die Partei unter der Parole „Guter Wandel“ an die Macht. Im Laufe seiner zwei Amtszeiten pflegte Duda gute Beziehungen zum US-Präsidenten Donald Trump. Insgesamt dreimal besuchte er ihn im Weißen Haus, einmal empfing er ihn in Polen. Aus Angst vor Russland und um die militärische Sicherheit durch die Präsenz der US-Armee in Polen zu verbessern, schlug er sogar vor, eine US-Militärbasis namens “Fort Trump” im Land zu gründen – dieses Vorhaben wurde schlussendlich aber nicht verwirklicht. 


Die alte Angst vor Russland 

Während für Österreich der unprovozierte Angriff Russlands auf die Ukraine ein Schock war, stellte er für Polen eine nachvollziehbare Erfüllung der schlimmsten Albträume dar. Die Russland-Politik beider Länder bildet zwei Gegenpole, was insbesondere nach dem  Georgienkrieg 2008 spürbar wurde. „Es ist uns bewusst, dass heute Georgien, morgen die Ukraine, übermorgen die baltischen Staaten und später vielleicht mein Land, Polen, an der Reihe sind“, rief 2008 der mittlerweile verstorbene polnische Präsident Lech Kaczyński bei einer Kundgebung in der Hauptstadt Georgiens, nachdem russische Truppen das Land angriffen. Diese Worte spiegelten pointiert die Wahrnehmung der polnischen politischen Elite über den Kreml wider. Polen protestierte heftig gegen den Bau von Nord-Stream II, nach der Annexion der Krim durch Russland und dem Ausbruch des Konflikts in der Ostukraine 2014  reduzierte esschrittweise seine Energieabhängigkeit von Russland. Während 2014 noch 95% des Öls aus Russland importiert wurde, waren es am Vorabend des Krieges nur mehr 62%. Infolgedessen sind die Energiepreise nach der Invasion zwar auch in Polen gestiegen, aber nicht so stark wie in Österreich. 


Enger Verbündete der Ukraine 

Polen gilt als starker Befürworter der Ukraine in der EU, erst letzte Woche hat Andrzej Duda den ukrainischen Präsidenten Wolodymyr Selenskyj in Warschau empfangen. Als Nachbarland der Ukraine hat Polen den Krieg ante portas – vor der eigenen Haustür und beherbergt die größte Anzahl an Geflüchteten. Da zu den Nachbarländern auch Lukaschenkas Belarus und die russische Exklave Kaliningrad zählen, spielt die eigene Sicherheit eine größere Rolle als je. Das Gefühl, dass die Ukraine „für uns kämpft“ ist sehr präsent. Das ist einer der Gründe, warum Polen, auf eigene Aufrüstung setzt und für weitere militärische Hilfe für die Ukraine plädiert. Neutralität hin oder her, Polen hofft auf Engagement seitens Österreichs: „Wir sind uns bewusst, dass Österreich ein neutrales Land ist, aber es kann politische und humanitäre Unterstützung leisten“ steht es in der Pressemitteilung der Präsidentschaftskanzlei. 

Was Polen und Österreich weiters unterscheidet ist ihre Position zu der Anwesenheit der von der sanktionierten russischen Spitzpolitiker*innen an internationalen Treffen und Konferenzen. Polen verweigerte Russlands Außenminister Sergei Lawrow eine Einreise zum OSZE-Außenminister-Treffen in Lodz. Diese Entscheidung kritisierte der österreichische Außenminister Alexander Schallenberg. Dies lies Andrzej Duda nicht ohne Kommentar: „Es tut mir leid, solche Stimmen zu hören. Wenn wir berücksichtigen, dass dies von einem europäischen Politiker eines Landes gesagt wird, das der Europäischen Union angehört, zerbricht für mich zweifellos die europäische Einheit.“ Die russische Delegation, in der auch sanktionierte Diplomat*innen waren, konnte im Februar 2023 nach Österreich einreisen – trotz internationaler Kritik. Diese Meinungsunterschiede sind zweifellos ein weiterer Grund, warum sich Polen für einen hochrangigen Besuch in Wien entschied. 



In Polen ist das Image von Österreich als Brückenbauer kaum bekannt. Das Land versucht aber eine ähnliche Rolle einzunehmen, z.B. mit von polnischen Regierungen initiierten Formaten wie der Östlichen Partnerschaft oder der Three Seas Initiative (3SI), die vorwiegend ehemalige kommunistische Länder miteinbezieht. Interessanterweise ist Österreich das einzige „westliche“ Land in der 3SI.  

Beim Thema Migration vertreten beide Länder hingegen wieder ähnliche Meinungen: Während Polen illegale Pushbacks ausübt und Zäune und Mauern an der Grenze zu Belarus baut, setzt Österreich auf immer strengere Abschiebungspolitik. “Illegale” Migration wurde auch als ein Grund zitiert, um Rumänien und Bulgarien den Schengenbeitritt zu verweigern, weil laut Österreich die beiden Länder unzureichend ihre Grenzen schützten. 

Trotz Unterschieden gibt es also auch viele Gemeinsamkeiten in der Politik beider Länder. Die Frage besteht, ob diese als positive Entwicklungen betrachtet werden sollten. Die jüngsten Reden des österreichischen Bundeskanzlers zeigen, dass die konservativen Parteien in den Regierungen Polens und Österreichs sich in vielen Bereichen annähern statt sich wie Gegenpole abzustoßen. 

IDM Short Insights 22: Controversies over the sanctioned Russian delegates visiting Vienna


It has been nearly a year since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine inflicting immense suffering to the civilian population, violating international law and challenging international security architecture. Despite sanctions and a visa ban, the Russian delegation will attend the  Winter Meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly on 23 and 24 February in Vienna. Sebastian Schäffer, IDM’s Managing Director, sums up the controversy around it in the newest Short Insight. 


One year ago, the world watched in horror as the Russian Federation launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, causing a trail of destruction and countless lives lost. The invasion was a clear violation of international law and an affront to the principles of peace and sovereignty. The war has also taken a toll on the wider global community, heightening tensions and threatening international security.  

Peace in Europe is something that the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) should provide, yet has failed to do so. It is a very unfortunate coincidence that the winter conference of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly is taking place on 23rd and 24th February and that the delegation from Moscow will be able to travel to Vienna despite the visa ban issued against the Russian parliamentarians. However, also in past years this conference was organized around these dates and there is an obligation to allow participation, as Vienna is the official seat of the OSCE. Otherwise, Austria would be violating international law, and this might have further ramifications, since the capital is home to other international organisations.   

Also, dialogue is a good thing, right? Well certainly, but already before the unjustified attack on Ukraine and all the heinous atrocities committed by the Russian regime, at the OSCE there was merely the statement of the different points of views rather than trying to work on common ground. It is also unclear how a negotiation between Kyiv and the Kremlin would look like given that the Russian annexation of parts of Ukraine not only violates international law, but also creates a constitutional deadlock, as neither party could cease claims on these territories.

Therefore, the decision of the Ukrainian delegation to not participate in the meeting is understandable. What is incomprehensible, though, is the alleged invitation of the Russian delegation to attend a ball, something forbidden by their very limited visas, as Austrian authorities have stated. Clearly, some people are still willing to bow before a president who has not only destroyed the security architecture in Europe, but numerous lives on delusional claims.  


This might be of inerest to you:  

Four Challenges Facing a Ukrainian-Russian Truce. Part I: The Constitutional Impasse, Andreas Umland

Opinion: Burning bridges? Sebastian Schäffer