You are here: Home
Bosnia and Herzegovina and the European Challenge: Between the Hope of Integration and the Labyrinth of Fragmentation
Created on Wednesday, 15 October 2025 12:35 | Last Updated on Wednesday, 15 October 2025 12:35 | 
I. Introduction: Europe as Horizon
Bosnia and Herzegovina is both a promise and a puzzle. Located in the heart of the Balkans, it carries the scars of a recent past marked by war, division, and reconstruction. Its candidacy for the European Union represents more than a technical accession process: it is an attempt at historical transcendence, a way to overcome internal wounds through belonging to a common project. But that path is anything but linear.
The European Union sees Bosnia as an opportunity to consolidate peace in the Western Balkans, reinforce its regional influence, and affirm the values of diversity and reconciliation. However, the country’s internal obstacles-from its labyrinthine institutional structure to persistent ethnic tensions-cast doubt on the viability of that integration. This essay explores, with depth and nuance, the merits and shortcomings of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the context of its European ambition.
II. Merit I: Regional Integration Potential and Cultural Diversity
Bosnia and Herzegovina is a microcosm of the Balkans. Its ethnic composition-Bosniak Muslims, Orthodox Serbs, and Catholic Croats-reflects the region’s complexity. But this diversity, far from being merely a challenge, is also a strength. The coexistence of multiple identities, languages, and traditions offers Europe an example of pluralism that, if well managed, could become a model.
On a regional level, Bosnia has shown capacity for cooperation with its neighbors. It participates in economic integration initiatives, security forums, and cross-border infrastructure projects. Its strategic geographic position allows it to serve as a bridge between the Adriatic and the Balkan interior, between the Slavic and Latin worlds, between East and West. This interconnection vocation is an asset the EU cannot ignore.
III. Merit II: Participation in Pre-Accession Programs and Dialogue with the EU
Despite internal obstacles, Bosnia has maintained a steady dialogue with Brussels. It participates in pre-accession programs, receives technical and financial support, and has gradually sought to align its legislation with the EU acquis. This engagement demonstrates political will and institutional mobilization capacity, even if limited.
The EU’s presence in the country-through diplomatic missions, development projects, and monitoring mechanisms-has contributed to stabilization and reform promotion. Bosnia has responded with incremental progress, notably in public administration, border management, and judicial cooperation. These steps, though insufficient, reveal a dynamic of approximation that deserves recognition.
IV. Shortcoming I: Complex and Fragmented Institutional Structure
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s institutional architecture is, without exaggeration, one of the most complex in the world. Resulting from the Dayton Accords, the country is composed of two autonomous entities-the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska-and a special district, Brčko. Each of these units has its own government, parliament, and judicial system. Additionally, there is a central government with limited powers and an ethnically rotating presidency.
This fragmentation hinders decision-making, policy implementation, and administrative coordination. Structural reforms demanded by the EU often run into institutional deadlocks, cross-vetoes, and jurisdictional disputes. The absence of a strong central authority compromises the country’s ability to respond effectively to the challenges of European integration.
V. Shortcoming II: Ethnic and Nationalist Tensions That Hinder Reform
Bosnia’s ethnic diversity, though potentially enriching, remains a source of tension. Ethnic nationalism is still alive, fueled by war memories, polarizing political discourse, and segregated education systems. A unified Bosnian national identity is fragile, often eclipsed by community loyalties.
These tensions obstruct political consensus-building, constitutional reform, and inclusive policy implementation. The EU demands respect for human rights, equality, and non-discrimination-principles that clash with local practices of exclusion and segmentation. Reconciliation is an unfinished process, and without it, full EU membership will remain a mirage.
VI. Shortcoming III: Low Administrative Capacity to Implement EU Legislation
Transposing the EU acquis requires an effective, competent, and transparent administrative apparatus. Unfortunately, Bosnia still lacks this capacity. Public administration suffers from underfunding, insufficient training, and clientelist practices. Corruption is endemic, and public trust in institutions is low.
Implementing EU legislation requires not only political will but also technical structures, oversight mechanisms, and a culture of legality. Bosnia has made progress, but the gap separating it from European standards remains significant. Without deep administrative reform, integration will always be partial and vulnerable.
VII. Between the European Ideal and Bosnian Reality
EU membership is, for Bosnia and Herzegovina, more than a political goal-it is a promise of normalization, development, and belonging. But that promise confronts a harsh reality: persistent internal divisions, institutional fragility, and slow reform. The country lives in a paradox: it desires Europe but resists the transformations Europe demands.
The EU, for its part, faces the dilemma of how to deal with a candidate that represents both a risk and an opportunity. Bosnia’s integration could reinforce regional stability but might also import unresolved conflicts. Europe’s response must be firm yet sensitive. It must demand reform but also support reconciliation.
VIII. Europe as a Catalyst for Reconciliation
The European Union has always been a project of conflict resolution. Franco-German reconciliation, the integration of former Soviet bloc countries, and the pacification of the Balkans are chapters in that narrative. Bosnia and Herzegovina fits into this effort, but with unique complexity. The EU must be more than an institutional destination-it must be a catalyst for internal reconciliation.
To achieve this, Europe must engage not only with governments but with communities. Support for intercultural education, independent journalism, shared historical memory, and youth mobility can build bridges where walls now stand. EU accession must be accompanied by a deep process of collective healing, where the past is not denied but transformed.
IX. Reforming to Integrate: Structural Proposals
Bosnia’s EU accession requires structural reforms across multiple fronts. Below are some proposals that could accelerate the process:
1. Constitutional Reform
The current constitution, based on the Dayton Accords, must be revised. A more functional model with clear competencies and effective decision-making mechanisms is essential. Creating a common citizenship that transcends ethnic identities should be the goal.
2. Smart Decentralization
Decentralization must not mean fragmentation. It is possible to design a governance model that respects local autonomy while ensuring national coordination. Digitalizing administration can help overcome physical and bureaucratic barriers.
3. Education for European Citizenship
The education system must promote European values: tolerance, pluralism, democratic participation. Introducing school programs on the EU, human rights, and comparative history can help shape a new generation that is more open and less polarized.
4. Anti-Corruption Measures
Creating an independent anti-corruption agency with real powers and institutional protection is urgent. Transparency in public contracts, digitalization of administrative processes, and accountability for leaders are indispensable measures.
5. Strengthening Civil Society
Civil society organizations are engines of change. Their funding, legal protection, and involvement in decision-making processes must be reinforced. The EU can play a crucial role in supporting them.
X. Future Scenarios: Between Stagnation and Transformation
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s European future could follow different trajectories. Below are three possible scenarios:
1. Prolonged Stagnation
In this scenario, reforms continue to be postponed, ethnic tensions persist, and the EU loses strategic interest. Bosnia remains in a kind of institutional limbo, with accession formally possible but politically unviable.
2. Gradual Transformation
Here, European pressure combined with internal mobilization generates a reform dynamic. Bosnia advances step by step, with slow but consistent progress. Accession becomes a realistic goal within the next decade.
3. Strategic Leap
In this scenario, a regional crisis or internal political shift accelerates the process. The EU decides to invest heavily in Bosnia’s integration to consolidate the Balkans. Deep reforms are implemented, and accession occurs in a shorter timeframe.
XI. Geopolitical Implications of Accession
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s entry into the European Union would have significant geopolitical implications:
- Stabilization of the Western Balkans: Bosnia’s accession could anchor regional stability, reduce conflict risk, and promote cooperation.
- Reduction of External Influence: EU presence could counterbalance the influence of powers like Russia, Turkey, or Gulf States, which have strategic interests in the region.
- Strengthening European Identity: Integrating a country marked by ethnic and religious diversity would reinforce the idea of a plural and inclusive Europe.
- Pressure on Other Candidates: Bosnia’s accession could accelerate or hinder other countries’ processes, depending on how it is managed.
XII. Conclusion: Bosnia as Europe’s Mirror
Bosnia and Herzegovina is, in many ways, a mirror of Europe. It reflects its dilemmas: identity versus diversity, sovereignty versus integration, memory versus future. Its EU accession will not be merely a political act-it will be a test of Europe’s ability to reinvent itself, to embrace complexity, and to transform pain into hope.
Bosnia does not need to be perfect to join. It needs to be sincere in its commitment to European values. And Europe, in turn, must be courageous in its willingness to include. Bosnia’s resilience will also be Europe’s resilience. And in that encounter, perhaps a new form of belonging will be discovered-more human, more profound,
Turkey and the European Dilemma: Between Geopolitical Bridges and Democratic Fractures
Created on Sunday, 05 October 2025 13:28 | Last Updated on Sunday, 05 October 2025 13:28 |
Turkey occupies a unique position on the global geopolitical chessboard. Situated between Europe and Asia, with a millennia-old history that spans empires, religions, and cultures, the country is often seen as a bridge between East and West. However, this bridge has been marked by tensions, contradictions, and challenges that call into question its full integration into the European Union (EU).
The human rights situation in Turkey has been the subject of recurring criticism from international organisations and European institutions. Since the attempted coup in 2016, the Turkish government has intensified repressive measures, leading to the arrest of thousands of military personnel, judges, journalists, and academics. The institutional purge that followed was justified by the executive as a matter of national security, but its effects on the rule of law have been deep and lasting.
Freedom of the press, once vibrant, is now severely restricted. Several journalists have been detained for alleged links to terrorist organisations or for criticising the government. Independent media outlets face censorship, closure, or nationalisation. The BBC and Reporters Without Borders have denounced the expulsion of correspondents and the suspension of opposition channels, undermining media pluralism and democratic transparency.
The judiciary, in turn, has been accused of lacking independence. Cases such as that of Osman Kavala, a political activist detained for political reasons, and the continued pre-trial detention of journalists despite rulings from the Constitutional Court, illustrate the fragility of legal guarantees. Executive interference in judicial decisions erodes trust in institutions and distances Turkey from European standards of justice.
Turkey’s relations with Cyprus and Greece are historically complex and remain a major obstacle to its European integration. The occupation of northern Cyprus since 1974, following a pro-Greek coup, led to the creation of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, recognised only by Ankara. This situation remains a point of friction with the EU, which recognises only the Cypriot government in the south of the island.
With Greece, tensions have manifested in territorial disputes in the Aegean Sea and the delimitation of exclusive economic zones. The exploration of hydrocarbons in the region has exacerbated conflicts, leading to diplomatic and military confrontations. Despite periods of rapprochement, such as after the 1999 earthquake, the two countries maintain a relationship marked by distrust and rivalry. Resolving these issues is seen as essential for any progress in Turkey’s EU accession negotiations. The Union has called for dialogue and mediation, but progress has been limited and often reversed by episodes of tension.
The EU is founded on principles such as democracy, respect for human rights, the rule of law, and freedom of expression. Turkey’s political alignment with these values has been increasingly questioned in recent years. The government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has promoted a centralisation of power, with constitutional reforms that strengthened the presidential role and weakened parliament. The repression of social movements, persecution of political opponents, and restriction of civil liberties are incompatible with the Copenhagen criteria, which define the requirements for EU accession.
The banning of LGBTI events, discrimination against religious and ethnic minorities, and censorship on social media are examples of practices that clash with European values. Although formally a candidate for accession since 1999, Turkey has seen its process stagnate, with several negotiation chapters blocked. The EU has conditioned pre-accession funding on improvements in human rights, but results have been limited.
Despite these challenges, Turkey offers a significant set of contributions that could benefit the EU. Its economy, though marked by currency volatility and inflation, is robust and diversified. With a domestic market of over 85 million people, it presents relevant commercial and industrial opportunities.
Turkey’s geographic position is strategic. Located between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, it serves as a vital energy and logistics corridor. Pipelines, gas routes, and trade routes pass through its territory, making it an essential partner in energy security and connectivity.
Turkey’s industrial and agricultural capacity is also remarkable. The country is one of the world’s largest producers of textiles, automobiles, and agricultural products. Its integration into the European value chain could enhance the EU’s competitiveness and diversify its supply sources.
Moreover, Turkey has played an important role in managing the migration crisis, hosting millions of Syrian refugees and cooperating with the EU to contain migration flows. This role, though controversial, has been recognised as essential for regional stability.
However, Turkey’s integration into the EU carries significant risks. Growing authoritarianism and political repression threaten the democratic cohesion of the bloc. The entry of a country with practices incompatible with European values could undermine the EU’s credibility and generate internal tensions.
Diplomatic conflicts with member states such as Greece and Cyprus could be exacerbated within the European structure, complicating decision-making and compromising political unity. Managing divergent interests would be complex and potentially paralysing.
The risk of institutional destabilisation is also relevant. Turkey’s entry would require significant adaptation of European institutions, notably in the European Parliament, where the number of Turkish deputies would impact the political balance. Full integration could provoke resistance among member states and fuel Eurosceptic movements.
Furthermore, the issue of religious freedom and secularism-pillars of the EU-could be tested in a country where political Islam has gained ground. Cultural and social compatibility would be a challenge, requiring efforts in integration and intercultural dialogue.
Thus, the relationship between Turkey and the EU is complex, multifaceted, and marked by advances and setbacks. Turkey represents both a strategic opportunity and a political challenge. Full integration would require deep reforms, mutual commitments, and a redefinition of Europe’s cultural and institutional boundaries.
The EU must continue to engage with Turkey, promoting democratic values and encouraging reform. The rapprochement should not be abandoned, but rather conditioned on respect for the fundamental principles that underpin the European project.
Turkey, for its part, must decide whether it wishes to be a full partner of Europe or pursue an autonomous path-with all the implications that entails. The bridge between East and West still stands, but crossing it requires courage, vision, and a commitment to the values that unite the peoples of Europe.
Internal Political Fragmentation: The Rise of Far-Right Populist Parties in Europe
Created on Monday, 04 August 2025 12:37 | Last Updated on Monday, 04 August 2025 12:37 |
The rise of far-right populist parties across various European nations poses a significant challenge to political consensus and undermines core European Union values, such as the rule of law and the protection of minority rights. Starting with the factors fueling the rise of far-right populist parties, it is essential to acknowledge the growing dissatisfaction among citizens regarding the traditional political landscape. Economic instability, unemployment, and social inequality have left many feeling disenchanted with mainstream political entities. Events such as the 2008 financial crisis heightened public awareness of these issues, exacerbating sentiments of insecurity and disenfranchisement. During this time, populist parties began to capitalize on citizens’ grievances, positioning themselves as alternatives that promise to restore national pride and address the concerns overlooked by established parties.
Moreover, globalization has played a crucial role in fostering these sentiments. As Europeans have experienced an influx of immigrants and refugees, fears over cultural homogenization and job competition have fueled anti-immigrant sentiment. The far-right has effectively utilized these fears, creating narratives that frame immigrants as threats to national identity. Political leaders such as Marine Le Pen in France and Matteo Salvini in Italy have employed rhetoric that emphasizes national sovereignty and security, leading to increased support for their respective parties.
The influence of the media in shaping public opinion cannot be overlooked. Social media platforms have enabled far-right populist parties to bypass traditional media channels, allowing them to spread their messages directly to the public. This shift has created information echo chambers, where misinformation and extremist views can thrive, further polarizing society. The case of the Alternative for Germany party illustrates this trend, as its leaders effectively used social media to reach a broad audience, promoting an anti-immigrant and Eurosceptic agenda.
The consequences of this internal political fragmentation are multifaceted. On one hand, the rise of far-right populist parties often results in a breakdown of political consensus. In countries such as Hungary under Viktor Orbán, the ruling party has systematically weakened democratic institutions and attacked the independence of the judiciary. Such actions undermine the rule of law, a fundamental principle within the European Union. The situation in Poland further showcases these dangers, as the Law and Justice Party has pursued policies that threaten judicial independence and media freedom.
On the other hand, the growing influence of far-right populism threatens to dismantle the delicate fabric of minority rights that the EU has worked to establish. Populist parties often adopt exclusionary policies that marginalize vulnerable groups, including migrants and ethnic minorities. This shift in political discourse can lead to an increased normalization of xenophobic attitudes and violence against minorities. For instance, hate crimes against immigrants rose significantly in various European countries, signaling a troubling societal shift.
Key individuals have played pivotal roles in the rise of far-right populism. Figures like Marine Le Pen, who leads the National Rally in France, have sought to rebrand their parties, distancing themselves from overtly extremist rhetoric. Le Pen’s efforts to soften the party’s image have indeed garnered support among more moderate voters. Similarly, leaders like Matteo Salvini have harnessed media and public sentiment to forge alliances with other far-right parties across Europe, seeking to create a cohesive populist movement.
Various perspectives exist concerning the response to this rise in far-right populism. Proponents argue that addressing the underlying grievances of disillusioned citizens is essential for countering the influence of these parties. This means ensuring economic stability, enhancing social cohesion, and promoting inclusive policies that recognize the contributions of immigrants. A more responsive political environment could reinvigorate faith in traditional parties.
However, opponents warn against normalizing far-right rhetoric. Democratic institutions and civil society must remain vigilant against the encroachment of extremist ideologies. Upholding the values of tolerance, inclusivity, and the protection of rights for all individuals is crucial in this struggle. The EU must not only advocate against the erosion of democratic norms but also support member states in addressing societal divisions.
Looking to the future, the trajectory of far-right populism within Europe remains uncertain. While these parties have achieved considerable success recently, their fate may hinge on their ability to translate populist sentiments into effective governance. If populist parties fail to deliver on their promises, public support may wane, providing an opportunity for mainstream parties to reclaim the political narrative.
In conclusion, the rise of far-right populist parties in various European countries signifies a profound internal political fragmentation that threatens political consensus and core EU values. By examining the factors behind this trend, its impacts, key players involved, varying perspectives, and potential future developments, one can better understand the challenges faced by contemporary European politics. As Europe grapples with issues of identity, governance, and social cohesion, the balancing act between embracing diversity and ensuring security will prove crucial in safeguarding democratic values for years to come.
References:
Michał Stambulski, and Karolina Kocemba. "Populism, non-state actors and right-wing legal mobilization in Europe | International Journal of Law in Context | Cambridge Core." www.cambridge.org, 01 Sep. 2024, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-law-in-context/article/populism-nonstate-actors-and-rightwing-legal-mobilization-in-europe/782B892FE6FBB9B1423935088B3B4EA7.
Debashis Chatterjee, Satish Krishnan, and Pramukh Nanjundaswamy Vasist. "The Polarizing Impact of Political Disinformation and Hate Speech: A Cross-country Configural Narrative - PMC." pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, 17 Apr. 2023, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10106894/.
Tim Immerzeel, and Jasper Muis. "Causes and consequences of the rise of populist radical right parties and movements in Europe - PMC." pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, 14 Jul. 2017, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5600260/.
Katharina Lawall, Sara B. Hobolt, and James Tilley. "The Polarizing Effect of Partisan Echo Chambers | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core." www.cambridge.org, 01 Aug. 2024, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/polarizing-effect-of-partisan-echo-chambers/5044B63A13A458A97CA747E9DCA07228.
Oliver Schmidtke. "The ‘Will of the People’: The Populist Challenge to Democracy in the Name of Popular Sovereignty - PMC." pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, 29 Jan. 2023, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10651415/.
War in Ukraine and European Security
Created on Sunday, 03 August 2025 10:34 | Last Updated on Sunday, 03 August 2025 14:07 |
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has profound implications for European security, challenging the unity of member states and testing their commitment to collective defense and democratic values.
The war in Ukraine began in 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, leading to increased tensions in Eastern Europe. Since then, the situation has escalated with a full-scale invasion launched by Russia in February 2022. This act violated international law and sparked widespread condemnation from European nations and beyond. The EU's response included imposing severe economic sanctions on Russia, aiming to weaken its military capabilities while sending a strong political message in support of Ukrainian sovereignty.
The conflict has significantly altered the security landscape in Europe. For decades, Europe enjoyed relative peace, especially after the end of the Cold War. The war in Ukraine has shattered this illusion, highlighting the fragility of security arrangements established after World War II. Member states are now grappling with the reality of threats on their borders and the need for collective defense mechanisms. The principle of mutual defense, enshrined in NATO's Article 5, has gained renewed importance. Countries such as Poland and the Baltic states, which are geographically closer to Russia, have heightened their military readiness.
Influential political figures have played crucial roles in shaping responses to the conflict. Leaders such as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson have worked to unify European nations in their stance against Russian aggression. Scholz's decision to send arms to Ukraine marked a significant shift in Germany's defense policy, while Macron's approach sought to balance military readiness with diplomatic engagement. These leaders, among others, have emphasized the need for a united front not just for Ukraine's sake, but for the future of European security as a whole.
The EU's approach involves a delicate balance between military support for Ukraine and a commitment to diplomacy. The Union has provided military aid, financial assistance, and humanitarian support to Ukraine while simultaneously promoting dialogue for conflict resolution. This dual approach reflects the EU's core values of upholding human rights and democratic principles. However, the challenge lies in the long-term consequences of military involvement. Increased military spending and resources devoted to arms procurement raise questions about the EU's capacity to invest in social programs and economic development.
Moreover, the war has raised significant human rights concerns. Reports of atrocities committed in conflict zones highlight the need for robust mechanisms to protect civilians and respond to war crimes. The EU's promotion of human rights must remain central in its response to the war. Support for Ukraine is not merely military; it involves humanitarian assistance, protection of refugees, and restoration of war-torn communities. Achieving a balance between military aid and human rights advocacy remains crucial to maintaining the legitimacy of European actions.
Different perspectives on the war also shape the EU's responses. While most European countries have rallied behind Ukraine, some member states exhibit hesitance. Countries that have strong ties with Russia or rely heavily on Russian energy resources, such as Hungary, express caution in supporting escalating military actions. This divergence highlights the complexities of solidarity within the EU, where national interests may sometimes conflict with collective security goals.
The broader implications for European security stretch beyond immediate responses to the Ukrainian conflict. They raise questions about the future of NATO and the EU's role in global security. The war has united many member states in a renewed commitment to defense spending and military readiness. Nonetheless, fostering a united European defense identity remains a long-term challenge, particularly as member states balance their own national interests.
Looking to the future, the conflict in Ukraine is likely to continue shaping European security dynamics. A durable peace will require comprehensive negotiations that address not only territorial disputes but also the underlying issues of security and cooperation in the region. The EU's role will be pivotal in fostering alliances, mediating interests, and promoting stability through economic and political integration. However, the path to peace remains fraught with challenges, as the international community grapples with the implications of a resurgent Russia and shifting geopolitical realities.
In conclusion, the war in Ukraine has fundamentally altered the landscape of European security. It has tested the unity of European nations and raised questions about the balance between military support and adherence to democratic values and human rights. Influential leaders have sought to navigate this complex terrain, emphasizing both military readiness and diplomatic efforts. As Europe faces the future, it must remain vigilant in balancing security needs with its foundational principles, recognizing that the struggle for peace and stability in the region is far from over. The lessons learned from this conflict will likely shape the continent's security policy for years to come.
References:
Eva Michaels. "Full article: (Not) Coming of age? Unpacking the European Union’s quest for strategic autonomy in security and defence." www.tandfonline.com, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09662839.2024.2376603.
Ivan Krastev, and Mark Leonard. "The meaning of sovereignty: Ukrainian and European views of Russia’s war on Ukraine | ECFR." ecfr.eu, 02 Jul. 2024, https://ecfr.eu/publication/the-meaning-of-sovereignty-ukrainian-and-european-views-of-russias-war-on-ukraine/.
Unknown Author. "Untitled." onlinelibrary.wiley.com, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/glob.12502.
Mahedi, Hasan, and Mahedi Hasan. "Russia–Ukraine Propaganda on Social Media: A Bibliometric Analysis." www.mdpi.com, 01 Sep. 2024, https://www.mdpi.com/2673-5172/5/3/62.
Azeta Tartaraj. "Economic effects of the war in Ukraine and recession - PMC." pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, 09 Oct. 2023, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10811416/.
Rajan Menon, and William Ruger. "NATO enlargement and US grand strategy: a net assessment - PMC." pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, 11 May. 2020, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7212247/.
Rokicki, Bórawski, Piotr, Piotr Bórawski, Tomasz, András, András Szeberényi, Tomasz Rokicki, and Szeberényi. "The Impact of the 2020–2022 Crises on EU Countries’ Independence from Energy Imports, Particularly from Russia." www.mdpi.com, 01 Jan. 2023, https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/18/6629.
Translate
