Source: Politologický časopis - Czech Journal of Political Science
Czech Journal of Political Science
Location: Czech Republic
Author(s): András Deák, John Szabo, Csaba Weiner
Title: New Dynamics of Great-Power Energy Politics in South-Eastern Europe: The EU versus the
US and Russia?
New Dynamics of Great-Power Energy Politics in South-Eastern Europe: The EU versus the
US and Russia?
Issue: 1/2022
Citation
style:
András Deák, John Szabo, Csaba Weiner. "New Dynamics of Great-Power Energy Politics
in South-Eastern Europe: The EU versus the US and Russia?". Politologický časopis Czech
Journal of Political Science 1:32-49.
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1027206
The Central and Eastern European Online Library
The joined archive of hundreds of Central-, East- and South-East-European publishers,
research institutes, and various content providers
You have downloaded a document from
CEEOL copyright 2024
CEEOL copyright 2024
CZECH JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE / POLITOLOGICKÝ ČASOPIS 1/202232
New Dynamics
of Great-Power Energy Politics
in South-Eastern Europe:
The EU versus the US and Russia?*
András Deák, John Szabo, and Csaba Weiner**
Abstract
South-Eastern European (SEE) countries are typically keen to maintain the status quo in their energy
systems, generally characterized by underinvestment, high coal share and utility affordability needs.
Their energy mixes have historically been determined by external factors, currently mainly related
to decarbonization pressure. This article assesses how the EU’s ongoing decarbonization-driven
withdrawal from supporting natural gas projects shapes fuel choices in nine selected SEE countries
and may have geopolitical consequences. It is based on more than 70 interviews with stakeholders
from these countries, EU institutions, and international organizations. In exploring and theorizing
the geopolitical ramifications of the energy transition in SEE, it applies a novel approach, which
draws on theories of power and the concept of an assemblage, which we link to theories on entanglement
and disentanglement. We find that the EU’s climate policy significantly changes local
infrastructural assemblages and the EU’s disentanglement from natural gas goes against Russian
and US efforts. By wielding its power to support such an energy transition, the EU has shifted the bipolar
system ‘EU/US vis-à-vis Russia’ defined along a single geopolitical ruleset (supply security), to
a tripolar disposition ‘EU-Russia-USA’ defined along two rulesets (supply security and climate policy).
In addition, China has become involved. States will thus have to take crucial energy policy decisions
in a new geopolitical context.
Keywords: energy transition; South-Eastern Europe; assemblage; natural gas; geopolitics; EU; Russia
DOI: 10.5817/PC2022­‑1‑32
*	 This article was supported by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office of Hungary
under Grant No. FK-138317.
**	Senior Research Fellow and Head of the Research Group on Economics of Globalisation, Institute
of World Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Tóth Kálmán u. 4, Budapest, H-1097,
Hungary, and Senior Fellow, Institute of Strategic and Security Studies, National University of Public
Service, Ludovika tér 2, Budapest, H-1083, Hungary, email: deak.andras@krtk.hu. ORCID: 0000-0002-
8623-1912. PhD candidate, Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University,
Nádor u. 9, Budapest, H-1051, Hungary, and Junior Research Fellow, Institute of World Economics,
Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Tóth Kálmán u. 4, Budapest, H-1097, Hungary,
email: szabo.john@krtk.hu. ORCID: 0000-0002-8224-1013. Senior Research Fellow, Institute of World
Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Tóth Kálmán u. 4, Budapest, H-1097, Hungary,
email: weiner.csaba@krtk.hu. ORCID: 0000-0002-9524-1215.
CEEOL copyright 2024
CEEOL copyright 2024
3333SPECIAL SECTION
1. Introduction
Energy policy in South-Eastern Europe (SEE) is deeply interwoven with geopolitical considerations.
Historically, countries in the region took decisions linked to natural gas and
nuclear projects that either aligned them with the ‘West’ (i.e. the EU and the USA) or Russia.
EU and US interests typically converged around their support for the diversification
of natural gas import routes, the development of interconnections, and a general openness
to back the uptake of non-Russian natural gas. This is now changing with the energy
transition, as the EU is suspending its support for fossil fuel projects. Coal offers the most
evident case for this, a sector in which the EU has undertaken a ‘coal defunding’ (Rogelja,
2020), also leading China to step in and back a number of projects and expand its political
involvement in the region. A withdrawal of European support for natural gas is, however,
not so clear cut, since in many SEE countries, gas is discussed as the only means of substituting
coal and meeting climate targets. There is a reluctance from the EU to back new
gas projects, and those that it decides to support are subject to unprecedented scrutiny.
Such a shift in its approach to energy policy carries geopolitical ramifications, since it
reconfigures the relations between SEE, the EU, the US, Russia, and, to a lesser extent,
China in the region.
With this piece, we contribute to the ongoing academic and policy discussion focused
on the energy transition. This paper begins by asking the question, what are the implications
of the EU’s decision to withdraw support for natural gas projects in SEE? In answering
this, we contribute to the scholarship that explores the geopolitical ramifications
of the energy transition. This field is generally in its infancy, particularly in the analysis
of the impact of the phase-out of natural gas. We begin to explore and theorize these dynamics
in the case of SEE and by applying a novel approach, which draws on theories of
power and the concept of assemblage, which we link to theories on entanglement and disentanglement
(see below). This piece shows how external influences shape the fuel choices
of countries that are reliant on external resources to execute an energy transition, but it
does not stop there, since these changes recursively have implications that shape the relations
between the external powers involved in the region. Simply put, the EU’s decision
to withdraw support for fossil fuel use in SEE not only has local repercussions, but shapes
the EU’s relations with Russia, the US, and China. Considering such implications is essential
to execute a swift and successful energy transition while minimizing confrontation.
This article assesses how the EU’s withdrawal from gas shapes local fuel choices and
shows how the EU’s environmental sustainability-driven policy is creating a new geopolitical
formation. The SEE case illustrates how countries are driven to undertake a transition
and how this transition changes political affairs in the region. In this study, the SEE region
comprises nine countries, including three EU members (Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece)
and six Energy Community contracting parties (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo,
Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia). It draws on more than 70 interviews with
stakeholders from these countries, EU institutions, and international organizations.
The structure of the article is as follows: Section 2 introduces our theory of the EU’s gas
withdrawal, followed by Section 3 which provides an overview of our research design.
CEEOL copyright 2024
CEEOL copyright 2024
CZECH JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE / POLITOLOGICKÝ ČASOPIS 1/202234
Section 4 discusses how the attitudes towards natural gas from the EU, Russia, and the US
shifted in SEE. Section 5 considers the implications of these changing attitudes on the SEE
energy and geopolitical landscape, and Section 6 analyzes the EU’s natural gas withdrawal
and responses. Section 7 discusses the paper’s findings and elaborates on its contributions
to the literature. Finally, conclusions are presented at the end of the article.
2. Theory: changing energy assemblages in SEE
Theories focused on the EU’s external influence predominantly deal with how non-EU
parties accept its rules and norms to gain access to its market (Hadjiyianni, 2021). Scholars
have often characterized the EU as a ‘regulatory power’, which has been especially
pronounced in energy affairs. Andersen, Goldthau and Sitter (2017, p. 18) suggest that
‘[d]espite an occasionally strategic use of its energy policy toolkit, the external power
the EU has exerted so far is regulatory power’, through which it – as the actor holding
power – imposes conditionality on its partners. In contrast to this ‘softer’ form of power,
we propose that the EU also wields a ‘harder’ form of power, which includes a coercive
capacity, the ability, whether latent or open, to enforce its will. Goldthau and Sitter
(2020) as well as Prontera and Quitzow (2021) have begun to explore this dimension of
the EU’s capacities, which goes beyond its reliance on the attractiveness of its markets and
the imposition of regulations, extending into geopolitical power. This form of economic
power, for example the EU’s climate policy-driven energy investment decisions, has geopolitical
ramifications.
Eyl-Mazzega and Mathieu (2020) note that the EU is leading the global energy transition,
but it still has to develop a political-legal and economic toolkit for influencing the actions
of other states. We posit that it has begun to build and use this toolkit, which is based
on its ability to wield economic power through its external trade and investment decisions
(Woolcock, 2016). The EU has begun to undertake a ‘natural gas withdrawal’, most notably
its act of limiting investment in natural gas projects, which will increase the reliance of
neighbouring countries on the fuel. Our point of departure to theorize how the EU wields
its power is rooted in a Dahlian (1957) conception of power which emphasizes actors’
‘power over’ others, i.e. their ability to use ‘a resource to shape the actions or conditions
of action of others’ (Barnett & Duvall, 2005, p. 45). Balmaceda (2021) says that in the field
of energy this interpretation has entrenched an understanding of power as something
closely linked to states wielding energy as a ‘weapon’, through the suspension of supplies,
for instance. To overcome this, she explores another face of power, namely, the ‘power
to’ (also see Dowding, 1996), which emphasizes ‘“what capacities and practices” various
actors are “socially empowered to undertake”’ (Balmaceda, 2021, p. 13).
Balmaceda (2021) uses this approach to demonstrate the roles of actors throughout
the value chain and their ability to wield power in energy affairs, which she conceptualizes
by identifying a number of relevant physical and institutional nodes. These nodes may
include the regulatory institutions of the EU, which underpin the bloc’s ability to play
the role of a regulatory power (Andersen, Goldthau, & Sitter, 2017). The addition we make
CEEOL copyright 2024
CEEOL copyright 2024
3535SPECIAL SECTION
to this is to suggest that the EU has gone beyond being a mere regulatory node in energy
affairs as the energy transition unfolds. We propose that this is not necessarily geopolitical
in its intention, in contrast to the approach applied by Goldthau & Sitter (2020), but
rather in its impact. The EU has developed and exercised a ‘power to’ shape the energy
transitions of countries in the SEE region through its economic power, which it wields by
providing financing for countries to develop their energy systems. The EU exercised its
‘power to’ when it withdrew support for fossil fuel projects. It shaped the agenda, which
led these states to take actions that excluded the interests and limited the involvement
of other actors, while altering socio-political and socio-economic relations in support of
the transition (Clegg, 1989; Pansardi, 2012).
As the body responsible for developing the EU’s climate and energy agenda (Barnes,
2011), the European Commission’s actions carry the most weight in the EU’s external
energy affairs. The Commission’s push to support an energy transition manifests directly
through its support for renewable energy projects or energy efficiency measures, but
also by influencing the funding made available to SEE countries from other sources as
well. Multilateral development banks, including the European Investment Bank (EIB) and
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), were instrumental in
stimulating a wave of sectoral investment (Steffen & Schmidt, 2019) closely guided by
the policies developed and introduced by the Commission (Xinyue & Gallagher, 2021). By
withdrawing its support for fossil fuel projects, the Commission also reduced the availability
of private credit, constraining those that rely on external donors and credit markets
to finance fossil fuel projects. It used its ‘capability to shape and determine the structures,
rules, and institutions within which other states operate’ (Keukeleire, 2003, p. 47). This
first materialized with the EU’s ‘coal defunding’ initiative (Pavlićević, 2019; Rogelja, 2020)
and is now taking form in its ‘natural gas withdrawal’ as well.
The EU takes actions in the context of a web of power relations, where inter alia local,
Russian, US, and Chinese actors are involved in shaping the geopolitics of the SEE region.
This limits the EU’s ‘power to’, given the ‘reluctant compliance’ of SEE states (Proedrou,
2018) and the EU’s clash with the geopolitical objectives of other external powers wielding
both ‘power over’ and ‘power to’ in the region. To theorize these dynamics, this paper
draws on the concept of ‘assemblage’ (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987; DeLanda, 2006; Müller,
2015). This posits that infrastructure is not merely a feat of engineering, but emphasizes
that it is also social construction that is embedded in socio-economic relations. The assemblage
approach explores the complexity and fragility of infrastructure development,
highlighting how the specificities of development depend on the relations within which
it is embedded. It refutes the notion that infrastructures materialize due to single countries
pursuing their own geostrategic interests, but rather from a sequence of interactions.
This is consistent with the inability of the EU to definitively shape events in neighbouring
states: it can only be one – albeit one of the most prominent – forces shaping outcomes.
Assemblages work like ‘machines’ that have a purpose (Deleuze & Guattari, 1988), where
the interaction between various parts and heterogeneous actors permanently cause interferences,
making outcomes uncertain. Given the complexity of energy infrastructures,
using the concept of an assemblage can help capture the relations that shape them (Han
& Weber, 2020; Rogelja, 2020).
CEEOL copyright 2024
CEEOL copyright 2024
CZECH JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE / POLITOLOGICKÝ ČASOPIS 1/202236
Our paper theorizes that as the EU withdrew its support for fossil fuel projects, it
altered the assemblage of infrastructures in the region. This follows assemblage theo-
ry’s presumption that as relations shift, assemblages evolve (Dittmer, 2014). To better unpack
how this change is unfolding, we draw on the two concepts of ‘disentanglement’ and
‘entanglement’. This was originally introduced by actor-network theory (ANT) (Callon,
1999), but was later applied within the assemblage framework (Appel, 2012). The two
terms do not reflect a binary oppositionality, but capture how relations are woven into
and withdrawn from local political and social contexts. The involvement of actors reconfigures
assemblages, but in doing so they themselves become entangled or disentangled
in prevalent relations. When actors are involved with infrastructures, they are woven into
the complex social fabric in which the infrastructure is embedded. They cannot intervene
without socio-political ramifications, which, however, not only shape their local presence
and agency, but also their relation to other external actors that are involved. Simply put,
we hypothesize that the EU’s climate policy cannot take effect without manifold political
implications, including an impact on international politics.
We posit that the EU’s support for investments in renewable energy sources and energy
efficiency both entangles and disentangles. It entangles the EU in the social relations
of SEE countries through its involvement in financing these projects and reconfiguring
the existing assemblage by shaping the dominant political agenda, which alters practices
and drives the emergence of new relations between actors. This is paired with a disentanglement,
since it is a political intervention that curtails the use of fossil fuels and affects
the web of relations in which respective infrastructures are embedded. It disentangles
the involvement of those that have been supportive – and possess or allocate lesser power
to enact their objectives – of fossil fuels. This dynamic increases the EU’s involvement in
the region’s energy sector and, more generally, political affairs, while decreasing the potential
for involvement by Russia or the US (see e.g. Sharples, 2016). This has been met with
resistance by these powers, as well as from the locals with whom these were entangled.
3. Methodology
Our research was prompted by the changing policy narratives and academic literature
discussing energy relations in SEE. Until the mid-2010s, local energy discourses focused
on energy security and diversification, but these issues have been downplayed by a new
focus on climate change and analyses preoccupied with the energy transition. We identify
the ‘EU natural gas withdrawal’ as an area where accentuated discursive shifts are taking
shape, and which have wide-ranging implications. Accordingly, we explore how natural
gas has been represented in energy transition-related discourses in SEE. We identified
themes emerging between 2016 and 2021 in nine countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Greece, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, and Serbia.
Two streams of research informed our work. Csaba Weiner’s three-year-long research
project on supply security in Eastern Europe provided the foundation for the article, since
it assessed the motivations for energy diversification in the region, with a focus on natural
CEEOL copyright 2024
CEEOL copyright 2024
3737SPECIAL SECTION
gas.1
Weiner’s project, concluded in 2019, addressed, inter alia, the role of geopolitical
considerations in energy consumption patterns and analyzed both the local contexts and
the external pushes shaping the national energy systems. It provided this paper with a solid
foundation as to how regional actors think about energy supply and how this ties to
geopolitics.
The second aspect of our work focused on how things began to change as the energy
transition accelerated. We first scrutinized key energy policy documents, such as the available
National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) and long-term energy strategies. Drawing
on these, András Deák and John Szabo identified relevant interviewees and conducted
more than 70 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders from SEE countries, EU institutions,
and international organizations between November 2020 and September 2021.2
They selected evenly from the regional countries, and sought to include the perspectives
of government representatives, corporate actors (fossil fuel and renewable energy), regulators,
finance institutions, experts, and NGOs. In addition, they conducted interviews
with EU policy officers and European donor organizations, including the European Commission,
the Energy Community Secretariat, the EBRD etc. They began the interviews
with general questions aiming to map the energy transition, and building upon this they
posed natural gas-specific questions that were tailored to the expertise of the given interviewee.
We then coded and analyzed the data we had gathered to find common themes,
which we triangulated with studies, reports, the academic literature, policy documents,
and news pieces.
4. SEE’s energy scene
SEE comprises of a variegated group of countries with quite different energy systems based
on differing infrastructure assemblages, but they share three key commonalities: low energy
prices, a reliance on typically old coal infrastructure, and a reluctance to change
the status quo. Energy prices are significantly below Western European levels (Figures 1
and 2), which have been a historical mainstay and are at the core of the region’s politics.
Maintaining low energy prices is a top priority on most political agendas, especially
since Bulgaria’s case highlighted how the proposition to increase household prices can
lead to the downfall of a government. Household electricity prices were less than half of
the ­EU-28 average in the Western Balkans and Bulgaria – Kosovo was the lowest at 28.1 %
of the EU-28 average price and Greece the highest at 77.0 % in 2019 (Eurostat, 2021b).
Few interviewees expected this to change, even though they generally agreed that it would
have to in order to incentivize investment in energy efficiency and reduce wasteful energy
consumption. They tended to agree that while energy prices would have to reflect costs,
the move away from the current system should be undertaken in a gradual manner that is
paired with a social policy that supports the least well-off. Ultimately, what this means for
the energy system is that any substantial investment has to come either from the govern-
ment’s budget or external donors, given the inability of companies to finance investments
from price increases.
CEEOL copyright 2024
CEEOL copyright 2024
CZECH JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE / POLITOLOGICKÝ ČASOPIS 1/202238
Figure 1: Electricity prices (including all taxes and levies) for medium-sized household
consumers (with an annual consumption of between 2,500 and 5,000 kWh) in SEE, 2019
(EUR, EU-28 = 100)
Source: Eurostat (2021c).
Figure 2: Gas prices (including all taxes and levies) for medium-sized household consumers
(with an annual consumption of between 20 GJ and 200 GJ) in SEE, 2019 (EUR, EU-28 = 100)
Source: Eurostat (2021d).
Hardly any investment has been channelled into the energy sector since the fall of
communism, when one excludes the foreign-controlled oil sector and natural gas transmission
assets. For instance, the most ‘modern’ major coal generation unit in the former
Yugoslavia was built in 1985, if the Chinese-built Bosnian Stanari power plant is not
considered (Europe Beyond Coal Database, n.d.). The situation is only slightly better in
Romania and Greece due to relatively newly built gas-fired plants, while Bulgaria relies
CEEOL copyright 2024
CEEOL copyright 2024
3939SPECIAL SECTION
heavily on a coal plant modernized and expanded in 2011 and its nuclear power station,
the two operational units of which were commissioned in 1987 and 1991. The lack of new
investments was primarily due to the sharp decline and slow recovery of energy demand
after the fall of communism. This, coupled with access to locally produced inexpensive
coal, allowed for energy prices to remain relatively low and also allowed stakeholders
to limit their investment in developing the system. Greece is a notable exception, where
stakeholders anticipated capacity bottlenecks on the back of rapidly rising demand in
the early 2000s – but this did not materialize due to the collapse in energy demand following
the economic crises. Nonetheless, generally speaking, SEE mostly relies on old,
inefficient, and carbon-intensive energy infrastructure that is in dire need of upgrades.
SEE not only relies on old, but also coal-based infrastructure. The share of coal is
still significant in energy consumption, with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Serbia
leading the way, using coal to meet approximately 50 % of energy needs (Eurostat, 2021a).
The resource’s role amounts to approximately 30 % in North Macedonia, Montenegro,
and Bulgaria. It is somewhat lower in Romania and Greece, with figures of around 15 %,
while it is the lowest in Albania, where this ratio is only 5 %. Coal has a long-standing and
deeply entrenched history in the region, as it is at the core of the energy infrastructure
assemblage, a key dimension of which is providing jobs for thousands, frequently employing
entire regions. Coal use has largely remained a domestic issue, albeit China’s recent
involvement has increased the entanglement of a foreign power. A disentanglement from
the sector has been slow to unfold, but there is some domestic push to reduce the role of
coal and move towards alternative sources of energy. This has been driven by concerns
over air pollution, which is notoriously bad in the region during the winter months. Multiple
interviewees noted that many voice their concerns seasonally, but little action is taken
since the issue is forgotten as the air clears with the end of the heating season.
There is a deep entrenchment of SEE’s energy systems. The reliance on coal and an
extensive infrastructure that underpins existing energy consumption practices inhibits
the ability of the region to change its energy system. This was demonstrated through Ro-
mania’s failure to develop its offshore natural gas deposits with the involvement of US and
European investors (Energy Industry Review, 2020), highlighting the inability of local
politics to adapt and form realistic expectations that align with global energy investment
trends. Through its decisions, the Romanian government perpetuated the stasis of its energy
system, while the window to develop its fields is closing. Interviewees nonetheless suggested
that some progress could be made, given the pressure of EU climate policy through
carbon prices and other targets. Without these tools, the propensity of SEE countries to
change is weak. Serbia offers a case where change is effectively unimaginable, which, in
part, is due to the lack of drivers and the entrenchment of the current assemblage. It is not
an EU member and therefore does not have an obligation to meet any targets. Its government
signed the 2018 Sofia Declaration indicating that it will decarbonize, but the path
forward is contingent. Its fossil fuel industry is entangled with Russian interests, impeding
substantial change. The EU failed to engage and entangle in a way that offers a sufficiently
disruptive force, and is limited to a tiny, albeit growing, renewable energy industry. This
may change if Serbia continues the EU accession process and policymakers open the energy
chapter of negotiations, but the timeline for this is still in limbo.
CEEOL copyright 2024
CEEOL copyright 2024
CZECH JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE / POLITOLOGICKÝ ČASOPIS 1/202240
It is worthwhile to note that in most cases a change would be necessary to allow for
the further uptake of natural gas as well, which currently plays a limited role in SEE.
The region consumed around 22 billion cubic metres (bcm) in 2019, while producing
10.5 bcm in that year. However, both gas consumption and production are very concentrated.
Romania has the largest demand (11 bcm), which it mostly meets from domestically-sourced
flows. This is followed by Greece (9 bcm), and then the substantially smaller
Bulgaria and Serbia, which rely on imports. Alongside these relatively natural gas-reliant
countries, Albania has small demands that it can meet with local supplies, while at
the other extreme are Montenegro and Kosovo where no gas is used (Eurostat, 2021f).
This suggests that to grow the role of natural gas, there is a need for the political will to
support a natural gas-intensive energy transition, since most countries would like to simply
maintain the status quo for as long as possible.
5. SEE’s energy transition
The requisites for an energy transition have been absent in most SEE countries until recently:
domestic financial resources, a regulatory framework, market dynamics, political
incentives, and social drivers are all lacking. The EU’s push to support renewables has
prompted these countries to explore the further development of hydropower. This source
of energy is already a key component of the infrastructure assemblage and is a core element
of the portfolios of domestic stakeholders. Hydro already plays a major role in meeting
the electricity demand of Albania (100.0 % in 2019), Montenegro (56.2 %) and Romania
(42.0 %), which local stakeholders plan to expand to substitute for more polluting sources
of energy and to meet rising demand (Eurostat, 2021e). This has its upper limitations,
as locals contest small-scale hydro projects, which are especially problematic in Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and North Macedonia. Nonetheless, governments’ turn
to hydropower suggests that they have begun to respond to the EU’s push towards a decarbonized
energy sector, but they have sought to limit external entanglement by expanding
technologies already deeply interwoven into their pre-existing energy infrastructure
assemblage. Simultaneously, hydro potential has limitations and is insufficient to cover
the incremental demand in electricity, especially if it needs to substitute for coal and oil.
The EU’s support for renewables has materialized in a limited number of projects,
as investors are cautious of becoming entangled with the local energy scene. Solar and
wind energy continue to be relatively underrepresented in these countries, with Greece
(14.9 %) and Romania (11.4 %) registering the highest shares of wind-based electricity
generation, and Montenegro following somewhat behind (8.6 %). Greece sources 9.1 %
of its electricity via solar photovoltaics, while, with a considerable gap, Bulgaria (3.3 %)
and Romania (3.0 %) follow behind. Other SEE countries are generally far behind in solar
and wind energy penetration rates, with the share of these sources in power generation
in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, and Serbia remaining around
1–2 % (Eurostat, 2021e; IRENA, 2021). This is not to say that they have not been active
in the field, as governments have become involved with developing renewable-intensive
CEEOL copyright 2024
CEEOL copyright 2024
4141SPECIAL SECTION
strategies and designing respective support schemes with the support of EU institutions,
as well as German and other development agencies.
The diffusion of these intermittent sources of renewable energy is hampered by
the scepticism of local stakeholders over increasing their role without assuring baseload
electricity generation as well. Many in the region see solar and wind only as additions to
baseload generation or, in more radical cases, their outright prohibition has also been
discussed or implemented. Until recently, Bulgaria had effectively banned solar and wind
projects, mainly due to the regional ‘baseload fixation’ which stems from the region’s high
reliance on electricity in the  residential space heating sector. Households in Bulgaria,
Kosovo, and Serbia rely on electricity to meet their heating needs in the winter, which
necessitates an energy system capable of providing high baseload demand during the grey
and frequently windless winter months. Solar and wind are not able to fill the void that
coal-based generation provides during this period. Regional capacity scarcity led to serious
supply problems in the winter of 2017 (Interview 1). The way in which these energy
systems have been set up is what leads many to seek a role for natural gas once a largescale
coal phase-out is launched by governments, but there is little indication that the SEE
states will change their energy systems.
The countries in the region – with the most notable exception of Greece – strive to
maintain the status quo with regard to their energy systems, but a number of factors will
force them to change their energy consumption patterns. EU member states are pressured
by climate regulations and EU ETS prices. While Albania and Kosovo face rising energy
demand, North Macedonia is confronted with the depletion of local coal mines, and Bosnia
and Herzegovina’s electricity exports will be impacted by the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment
Mechanism (CBAM). Local energy strategies seem to underestimate the power
of the EU to prompt an energy transition. For instance, Kosovo plans to meet growing
energy demand by investing in local coal output and combustion, despite the lack of financing
(Bankwatch, n.d.). According to its draft Energy Strategy, Bulgaria would like
to maintain its nuclear-coal combination until 2045 and limit investments in renewables
(Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Bulgaria, 2020). The strategies published by
governments, however, provide little certainty about how these countries will adapt to
the newly emerging context.
One method of adaptation is to attempt to secure external financing for projects that
perpetuate the status quo. The EU may have withdrawn its funding for the coal sector, but
the US and China both have major interests which can prompt entanglements in the local
coal scene. Bulgaria’s most prominent lignite plants are in the hands of US investors, while
Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina constructed new coal thermal stations supported by
Chinese investment via the One Belt, One Road initiative (Bankwatch, 2020). Coal is thus
intertwined with geopolitics; although, here too, the declining profitability of such projects
will lead foreign donors to withdraw support. Natural gas projects are also reliant
on external funding, with the completion of cross-border and transit pipelines effectively
inconceivable without the involvement of major external donors. Nuclear increasingly
entails the involvement of Russian or other foreign infrastructures, the construction of
which would entangle Russian interests with local objectives – an outcome that many
locals do not want. All this suggests that foreign donors heavily shape SEE energy policy
CEEOL copyright 2024
CEEOL copyright 2024
CZECH JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE / POLITOLOGICKÝ ČASOPIS 1/202242
choices, where decisions tend to follow available financing options as opposed to pursuing
specific strategic outcomes.
6. The EU’s natural gas withdrawal and responses
The EU’s plans to decarbonize suggest that it will reduce natural gas consumption relatively
quickly, with its tapering beginning before 2030. According to the 2030 Climate Target
Plan, natural gas consumption will decrease by more than 25 % compared to 2015 levels by
as soon as 2030 (European Commission, 2020d, p. 10). Natural gas is thus not categorized
as a transition fuel, since demand for it will not be allowed to rise to substitute for other,
more polluting, fossil fuels. A drop of this magnitude would leave most of the currently
existing infrastructure capacities significantly underutilized, even if natural gas continues
to play a pronounced role in meeting demand in some segments of the energy mix. Unlike
in the case of coal infrastructure or nuclear units, there has been no indication that asset
owners will be compensated for their stranded assets, nor do regulators expect that policymakers
will take such politically risky action (Interview 2).
The EU will become increasingly restrictive regarding its support for natural gas in its
non-decarbonized form. Most EU institutions have prohibited investment in new natural
gas projects and even those that still allow natural gas projects are highly selective and
cautious as to which ones they support. Both the new 2020 TEN-E Regulation proposal
and the Just Transition Fund explicitly exclude fossil fuel investments (European Commission,
2020a, 2020c). The draft Taxonomy Regulations also explicitly avoid including
any natural gas projects that are not based on decarbonized gases (European Commission,
2021). The EIB decided not to accept natural gas projects from 20213
, while the EBRD has
also been decreasing its support for such undertakings, which it will likely phase out entirely
by 2023 (Interview 3). Financing natural gas investments from the EU budget is thus
only possible from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), but, even in this
case, their rationale will be closely scrutinized. Thus, European development banks have
signalled their withdrawal from natural gas projects after suspending financing for coal.
The decision to withdraw natural gas project financing is driven by climate policy, and
the window is closing for investors to recuperate their investments in these projects. EU
policy has begun to discourage investors from supporting new projects, although the results
of these policies will materialize only with some delay. Discussions as to what can be
supported are still ongoing with the Commission’s Directorate-General for Neighbourhood
and Enlargement Negotiations (DG NEAR), and the Energy Community is conveying
a greater inclination to support local natural gas projects than the Directorate-General
for Energy (DG ENER) or the Directorate-General for Climate Action (DG CLIMA),
which generally oppose investments in the field. However, debates divide these institutions
internally. This became especially pronounced when the EUR 9 billion Economic
and Investment Plan for the Western Balkans was negotiated between EU institutions
and recipients in late 2020 (Interview 4). Initially, the plan included numerous natural
gas projects, but the final guidelines for the Green Agenda for the Western Balkans only
CEEOL copyright 2024
CEEOL copyright 2024
4343SPECIAL SECTION
supported these investments in the countries most reliant on coal, and under rigorous
scrutiny (European Commission, 2020b). The Commission is withdrawing its support for
natural gas projects both within the EU and beyond its borders.
Projects that have already been approved and financed will generally be implemented,
allowing for some minor additions to the natural gas grid in the Western Balkans and,
possibly, SEE more broadly. The decisions still allow for some leeway, as the examples of
Romania and Bulgaria show, which have been able to negotiate short-term derogations.
In parallel, the natural gas sector may reinvent itself, which it has undertaken by offering
to decarbonize the fuel it provides (ENTSOG, 2019; GIE, 2019; Szabo, 2022), but these
potential infrastructure assemblages still face significant technological and economic
limitations (Szabo, 2021). Nonetheless, policymakers have already sent a clear signal to
the commercial community that new natural gas investments may become stranded assets,
having to be retired earlier than their initial economic and technical design suggested.
The experience with coal may be indicative: commercial banks withdrew investments
from regional projects much earlier than formal coal exits were announced. This suggests
that emergent discourses questioning the future of natural gas are the premonitory signs
of formalized policy.
SEE national governments and their energy champions will have to respond to this
changing policy context. If they opt to maintain the current infrastructure assemblages,
governments will have to provide support and financing for their fossil fuel energy systems.
This applies to ambitions to rely on natural gas as the transition fuel. Governments would
have to actively back the gasification of their countries and develop the local assemblage
in a direction that fortifies the sector and its role in the energy system. This has limitations
within SEE countries that are EU members, given the restrictions on state aid – the Com-
mission’s competition policy in this case becomes increasingly entangled with the trajectory
on which local energy systems are developed. Moreover, these are unlikely to be economically
viable projects without capacity reserve mechanisms – the introduction of which
has been slow. This has led a number of natural gas-dependent member states to publicly
oppose proposed regulations, with seven Eastern European countries and Greece pushing
to allow for the continued financing of natural gas projects in May 2020 (Euractiv, 2020).
Limitations on the ability of national governments to take action will lead SEE countries
to seek closer cooperation with actors from so-called third parties (i.e. non-EU
stakeholders). In the case of Bulgaria, for instance, this would likely mean the extension of
current infrastructural assemblages with the development of natural gas distribution and
power generation based on the gaseous energy carrier, leading to the deeper entanglement
of Gazprom. Similar patterns are set to emerge in Serbia, which is not as confined in its
actions as EU members, but its Energy Community membership and ongoing EU accession
talks confine how it develops its energy system. Countries with minuscule natural gas
industries or lacking them altogether, such as Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, and North Macedonia, need to establish the sector for the energy carrier to
take on a transition fuel role. These steps are difficult because there is a reluctance to disentangle
coal interests which are deeply woven into many of these countries’ social fabrics.
Natural gas is also generally resisted by dominant local actors that have little experience
with the fuel and which challenges their traditional coal and hydro-based business
CEEOL copyright 2024
CEEOL copyright 2024
CZECH JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE / POLITOLOGICKÝ ČASOPIS 1/202244
model. It also entangles foreign interests through SEE’s increased reliance on external
suppliers – especially Russia – which local politicians are carefully considering whether
to accept or not.
Local actors have shown relatively limited interest in introducing natural gas, especially
if they would have to finance the development of the sector and respective infrastructure.
With the exceptions of Greece and – natural gas rich – Romania, local policymakers
have allocated a limited role to natural gas and have only greenlit investments
when alternatives were not available. Natural gas is often viewed as a fuel advocated by
foreign powers, but one for which there is little local demand. For instance, the natural
gas pipeline in Bosnia and Herzegovina connecting Sarajevo with Serbia to provide what
would be Russian natural gas has not been used since it was commissioned in 2014 due
to the lack of demand (Interview 5). Kosovo is keen to receive foreign support for its first
gas interconnection, but local energy planners are only looking to use the fuel to power
a 100 MW combined heat and power (CHP) plant (Interview 6). Serbia has also effectively
failed to meet its rather humble gasification plans set in its 2016 Energy Strategy (Ministry
of Mining and Energy of the Republic of Serbia, 2016). A lack of interest from these
countries and the EU’s general approach that the region should ‘leapfrog’ by implementing
a coal-to-renewables shift would not require using natural gas as an intermediary.
Nonetheless, these countries are still reluctant to opt for this path, given their concerns
over baseload power generation.
The reluctance of domestic actors to increase their reliance on natural gas has been
met with relatively coherent Russian and US policies, both of which promote natural
gas penetration in potential export markets. The major supplier of the region, Gazprom
(providing approximately 60 % of SEE imports in 2019), expects that demand for the fuel
will continue, indicating its scepticism towards the EU’s ability to impede investment in
related projects. Gazprom expects to maintain its current 200 bcm per annum export
levels to Europe until 2030. Stable exports compensate for declining EU production and
climate policy, as member states turn to natural gas to substitute for coal and nuclear
generation (Gazprom, 2020). Gazprom expects such additional demand to offset the reduced
consumption stemming from energy efficiency programmes, which were seen by
all interviewees are as a crucial pillar of EU and SEE energy policy in the coming decades.
Adopted in 2020, the new Russian Energy Strategy up to 2035 is even more direct when
it states that demand may lead natural gas to become the fastest growing energy carrier,
partly due to higher climate and environmental standards (Russian Government, 2020).
Historically, the US sought to wield influence in European energy affairs by advocating
for the curtailment of reliance on Russian piped gas, but was unable to offer competitive
alternatives (Gustafson, 2020). This changed with the North American shale gas revolution
in the early 2010s and the subsequent launch of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports
which turned the US into a competitor on global markets. Tapping into these resources,
combined with its pre-existing ambitions to limit other political influences in SEE, turned
the US into a force shaping natural gas affairs. In principle, the US does not have a single
strategy for the region beyond the continued push to support the expansion of infrastructure,
which would allow for states in the region to access non-Russian piped gas. This grants
US exporters the ability to target these markets and increase US LNG sales, ­supporting
CEEOL copyright 2024
CEEOL copyright 2024
4545SPECIAL SECTION
the ­diversification away from Russian suppliers. Thus, the US’ strategic and economic interests
are for SEE countries to import natural gas from the US and other LNG suppliers, as
opposed to the EU’s vision of shifting to domestically produced renewable energy.
Although both Russia and the US may have taken a pro-natural gas stance, neither is
willing to provide the funding necessary to develop infrastructure. Russia’s support for
transit infrastructure primarily aims to provide fuel for EU countries beyond SEE and
not to expand local demand. Thus, Russia and the US seek some access to markets, but
without the political and economic entanglement that would emerge through the ties they
forge with local actors. The rationale for this links to the fact that SEE is a rather marginal
market for both parties. Historically, the US and Russia have only invested in strategic
projects and their involvement has remained relatively modest compared to the roles they
have played in shaping EU natural gas affairs. Financing gas-fired generation capacities,
modernizing district heating, or extending distribution are relatively uncommon actions
by these external actors, and such ambitions are likely further curtailed with the EU limiting
its willingness to support projects from which Russian and US actors could benefit.
The US and Russia provided only 1.2 % and 4.6 % of local inward foreign direct investment
(IFDI) stock, respectively, in 2017. In contrast, 70.5 % of the total IFDI stock originated
from the EU-28 (Adarov et al., 2019, p. 62). Thus, the EU’s decision to suspend financial
support for natural gas projects may very well entail the end of the sector’s growth in SEE.
7. Discussion
The impact of the EU’s climate leadership is becoming increasingly pronounced in its
neighbourhood, where states seeking to join the EU have received support and developed
their political agendas to harmonize their institutions with EU norms and objectives.
In addition, the EU has begun to use its power to shape what projects can receive
funding. This is becoming an increasingly disruptive force in SEE with broad political
ramifications, given the intertwinement of energy and geopolitics in the region. Local
energy systems were generally built on locally-sourced coal and imported hydrocarbons.
Russia, a prominent supplier of natural gas to the region, became involved by marketing
its resources and developing infrastructure, a process through which it became entangled
with local politics as well. The socio-political relations linked to the consumption of energy
in SEE became entrenched in the past. Pressure to change was minimal and was limited
to how energy resources were consumed and traded. The EU and the US developed
a united front in support of diversified natural gas imports and the introduction of free
market mechanisms. The EU used its regulatory power to push SEE countries to adopt
market principles aligned with the EU’s regulatory framework. The EU’s climate action
has, however, shifted this focus and severed the alignment between the EU and the US, as
the EU has begun to wield its power to shape the energy agenda in the region, which may
snowball into a disruptive force.
The EU’s decision to lead an energy transition both within its borders and beyond
emerged in a historical context, where SEE’s traditional, entrenched energy infrastructure
CEEOL copyright 2024
CEEOL copyright 2024
CZECH JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE / POLITOLOGICKÝ ČASOPIS 1/202246
assemblages are aging. Thus, change would have to take place sooner or later, but the specific
form and direction of change is what the EU is now shaping. The EU has become
a staunch advocate for renewable energy and energy efficiency measures, becoming entangled
in local politics. This has not only uprooted coal, but is shaping the role of natural
gas as well. After acting as a regulatory node that pushes for the development of interconnections,
alternative import routes, and a free market framework, it is emerging as an economic
node that shapes the flow of investment into these countries’ natural gas sectors.
The EU is not only a regulatory power, but an economic one as well. This has materialized
through its involvement with climate policy, leading to its natural gas withdrawal. With
this, it has begun its disentanglement with the region’s natural gas affairs, which it substitutes
for a deeper entanglement in the renewable energy scene.
The EU wielding power to shape events in SEE has led to the emergence of objectives
that are in opposition to other actors in the space. Russia’s prominence as a supplier
led it to shape agendas as well as influence formal and informal institutions that favour
the consumption of its natural gas. Proedrou (2018, p. 84) suggests that not only has Russia
had this power, but it ‘retains the potential to influence the evolving rules of the game’.
Through its role as a supplier in a number of countries and by controlling transit volumes,
it became entangled with socio-political relations. And past engagement by the EU with
Russia was directed at how natural gas is consumed in the region. It never fundamentally
questioned whether natural gas could be consumed at all. This is a major clash in longterm
objectives, as Russia may not be seeking to increase entanglement, but certainly
looks to continue to export to these markets. It would like to continue to do so without
a deeper entanglement, given that the SEE markets are quite small and have a fraught history
which underpins the reluctance on both sides to deepen ties there. The EU’s entanglement
with the region’s energy transition also disentangles Russian involvement, given
the bleaker prospects of natural gas.
The EU’s natural gas withdrawal also severs the alignment that it has maintained with
the USA. In the past, the latter promoted energy security and policies that limit Rus-
sia’s ability to influence SEE political affairs. It undertook this through diplomatic and political
channels, while also relying on economic statecraft. Involvement by the US became
especially pronounced after it developed LNG export capacities, leading its enterprises to
see the Balkans as a market that can buy LNG. However, the US has sought to access these
markets while minimizing entanglement. With the EU’s shift to decarbonization, EU and
US interests have diverged and the EU’s power to shape the general investment environment
has overshadowed the US’ continued support for the uptake of natural gas. Russia
and the US differ in terms of how they have related to the EU’s policy, but the experiences
of both reflect how the entanglement of the EU in SEE has prompted either their disentanglement
or led to barriers that hampered the deeper entanglement of other external powers
in the region. These dynamics have altered the infrastructure assemblages as the renewable
phase-in and coal phase-out have begun. With the latter, a further dynamic is
unfolding, as the entanglement of China responds to effectively all investors withdrawing
their support for coal projects. While Chinese involvement remains marginal, the general
implication of the EU’s approach to climate policy is that it is increasingly in opposition to
US, Russian, and Chinese objectives and activities in the region.
CEEOL copyright 2024
CEEOL copyright 2024
4747SPECIAL SECTION
8. Conclusion
In this article, we explored how the EU’s decision to limit investment in SEE natural gas
infrastructure affected local and external actors involved in the region. These policies have
only begun to be implemented and their disruptive impact is still minimal, but the contours
of change are taking shape. This paper offered a point of departure for understanding
these dynamics by using a novel toolkit to theorize the transition. It helps us conceptualize
how local assemblages change and shows how the EU’s actions in the region have geopolitical
implications, reconfiguring the alignment between itself, Russia, the USA, and
China. By wielding its power to support an energy transition, the EU has shifted the bipolar
‘EU/US vis-à-vis Russia’ system, defined along a single geopolitical ruleset (supply
security), to a tripolar ‘EU-Russia-USA’ disposition, defined along two rulesets (supply
security and climate policy). In addition, China has become involved. What this shows is
that the EU’s climate policy has geopolitical implications, whether intended or not.
Endnotes:
	1.	‘Central and East European Energy Security Concepts’, János Bolyai Research Scholarship of
the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2016–2019.
	 2.	Data was gathered as a part of the European Climate Foundation-backed project: ‘Natural Gas in
Southeast Europe’s Energy Transition: The Great Winner or the Neglected Source-Fuel?’, 2020–2021.
	 3.	Theoriginaldatewas2020,butwaspushedbackatthe requestofthe EuropeanCommission(BBC,2019).
List of cited interviews:
Interview 1: a senior researcher from Bulgaria (25.11.2020).
Interview 2: a senior representative of a European regulatory association (22.12.2020).
Interview 3: a senior representative of a European development bank (18.12.2020).
Interview 4: representatives of the European Commission (12.01.2021, 03.12.2021).
Interview 5: a senior researcher from Bosnia and Herzegovina (29.01.2021).
Interview 6: a senior representative of the Kosovar energy regulatory community (16.12.2020).
References:
Adarov, A., Ghodsi, M., Hunya, G., & Pindyuk, O. (2019). Foreign investments mostly robust despite global
downturn: Shift into services. FDI Report. Vienne: WIIW.
Andersen, S., Goldthau, A., & Sitter, N. (2017). From Low to High Politics? The EU’s Regulatory and
Economic Power. In S. Andersen, A. Goldthau & N. Sitter (Eds.), Energy Union: Europe’s New Liberal
Mercantilism (pp. 13–26). UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Appel, H. C. (2012). Walls and white elephants: Oil extraction, responsibility, and infrastructural violence
in Equatorial Guinea. Ethnography, 13(4), 439–465.
Balmaceda, M. M. (2021). Russian Energy Chains: The Remaking of Technopolitics from Siberia to Ukraine
to the European Union. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press.
CEEOL copyright 2024
CEEOL copyright 2024
CZECH JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE / POLITOLOGICKÝ ČASOPIS 1/202248
Bankwatch. (2020, September 14). Chinese-built coal projects in Europe. Retrieved from https://bank-
watch.org
Bankwatch. (n.d.). The energy sector in Kosovo. Retrieved from https://bankwatch.org
Barnes, P. (2011). The Role of the Commission of the European Union: Creating External Coherence
from Internal Diversity. In R. Wurzel & J. Connelly (Eds.), The European Union as a Leader in Climate
Change Politics (pp. 41–57). Oxon and New York: Routledge.
BBC. (2019, November 14). European Investment Bank drops fossil fuel funding. Retrieved from https://
www.bbc.com
Callon, M. (1999). Actor-network theory: The market test. The Sociological Review, 47, 181–195.
Clegg, S. R. (1989). Radical revisions: Power, discipline and organizations. Organization Studies, 10(1),
97–115.
Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201–215.
DeLanda, M. (2006). A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. Annotated
edition. London, UK; New York, NY, USA: Continuum.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. 2nd edition.
Minneapolis, MN, USA: University of Minnesota Press.
Dittmer, J. (2014). Geopolitical assemblages and complexity. Progress in Human Geography, 38(3), 385–401.
Dowding, K. M. (1996). Power. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Energy Industry Review. (2020, January 13). ExxonMobil to exit from Neptun Deep project. Retrieved
from https://energyindustryreview.com
ENTSOG. (2019). ENTSOG Roadmap 2050. Brussels: ENTSOG.
Euractiv. (2020). Role of natural gas in climate-neutral Europe: Position paper of Bulgaria, Czechia, Greece,
Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia. Retrieved from https://www.euractiv.com
Europe Beyond Coal Database. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://beyond-coal.eu
European Commission. (2020a, December 11). Commission welcomes the political agreement on the Just
Transition Fund. Press Release. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu
European Commission. (2020b). Guidelines for the implementation of the Green Agenda for the Western
Balkans. SWD (2020) 223 final. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu
European Commission. (2020c). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Regulation (EU) No 347/2013.
COM (2020) 824 final. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu
European Commission. (2020d). Stepping up Europe’s 2030 climate ambition: Investing in a climate-neutral
future for the benefit of our people. COM (2020) 562 final. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu
European Commission. (2021). Commission Delegated Regulation supplementing Regulation (EU) 2020/852.
COM (2021) 2800/3. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu
Eurostat. (2021a). Complete energy balances. Retrieved from https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu
Eurostat. (2021b). Electricity prices components for household consumers – Annual data. Retrieved from
https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu
Eurostat. (2021c). Electricity prices for household consumers – Bi-annual data. Retrieved from https://
appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu
Eurostat. (2021d). Gas prices for household consumers – Bi-annual data. Retrieved from https://appsso.
eurostat.ec.europa.eu
Eurostat. (2021e). Production of electricity and derived heat by type of fuel. Retrieved from https://appsso.
eurostat.ec.europa.eu
Eurostat. (2021f). Supply, transformation and consumption of gas. Retrieved from https://appsso.eurostat.
ec.europa.eu
Eyl-Mazzega, M.-A., & Mathieu, C. (2020). The European Union and the Energy Transition. In M. Hafner
& S. Tagliapietra (Eds.), The Geopolitics of the Global Energy Transition (pp. 27–46). Cham: Springer.
Gazprom. (2020). Gazprom Investor Day presentation. Retrieved from https://www.gazprom.com
GIE. (2019). GIE Vision 2050. Brussels: Gas Infrastructure Europe (GIE). Retrieved from https://www.
gie.eu
CEEOL copyright 2024
CEEOL copyright 2024
4949SPECIAL SECTION
Goldthau, A., & Sitter, N. (2020). Power, authority and security: The EU’s Russian gas dilemma. Journal
of European Integration, 42(1), 111–127.
Gustafson, T. (2020). The Bridge: Natural Gas in a Redivided Europe. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard
University Press.
Hadjiyianni, I. (2021). The European Union as a global regulatory power. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies,
41(1), 243–264.
Han, X., & Weber, M. (2020). From Chinese dam building in Africa to the Belt and Road Initiative: Assembling
infrastructure projects and their linkages. Political Geography, 77, 1–12.
IRENA. (2021). Statistical profiles. Retrieved from https://www.irena.org
Keukeleire, S. (2003). The European Union as a diplomatic actor: Internal, traditional, and structural
diplomacy. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 14(3), 31–56.
Müller, M. (2015). Assemblages and actor-networks: Rethinking socio-material power, politics and
space. Geography Compass, 9(1), 27–41.
Ministry of Mining and Energy of the Republic of Serbia. (2016). Energy Sector Development Strategy
of the Republic of Serbia for the period by 2025 with projections by 2030. Retrieved from http://me-
emp-serbia.com
Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Bulgaria. (2020). Proekt na Strategiya za ustoĭchivo energiĭno razvitie
na Republika Bŭlgariya do 2030 godina s khorizont do 2050 godina. Retrieved from https://www.
parliament.bg/
Pansardi, P. (2012). Power to and power over: Two distinct concepts of power? Journal of Political Power,
5(1), 73–89.
Pavlićević, D. (2019). Structural power and the China-EU-Western Balkans triangular relations. Asia
Europe Journal, 17(4), 453–468.
Proedrou, F. (2018). Russian energy policy and structural power in Europe. Europe-Asia Studies, 70(1),
75–89.
Prontera, A., & Quitzow, R. (2021). The EU as catalytic state? Rethinking European climate and energy
governance. New Political Economy.
Rogelja, I. (2020). Concrete and coal: China’s infrastructural assemblages in the Balkans. Political Geography,
81, 102220.
Russian Government. (2020). Energeticheskaya Strategiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii na period do 2035 goda.
Retrieved from http://static.government.ru
Sharples, J. D. (2016). The shifting geopolitics of Russia’s natural gas exports and their impact on EU-Russia
gas relations. Geopolitics, 21(4), 880–912.
Steffen, B., & Schmidt, T. S. (2019). A quantitative analysis of 10 multilateral development banks’ investment
in conventional and renewable power-generation technologies from 2006 to 2015. Nature
Energy, 4(1), 75–82.
Szabo, J. (2021). Fossil capitalism’s lock-ins: The natural gas-hydrogen nexus. Capitalism Nature Socialism,
32(4), 91–110.
Szabo, J. (2022). Energy transition or transformation? Power and politics in the European natural gas
industry’s trasformismo. Energy Research & Social Science, 84, 102391.
Woolcock, S. (2016). European Union Economic Diplomacy: The Role of the EU in External Economic
Relations. London, UK: Routledge.
Xinyue, M., & Gallagher, K. P. (2021). Who funds overseas coal plants? Boston, MA, USA: Boston University.
Retrieved from https://www.bu.edu