This article explains the causes of the Russia–Ukraine war starting in 2014 from the energy and energy markets perspective, based on resource dependency theory and the conceptual framework outlined by Jeffrey D. Colgan (2013). Our findings reveal that Russia is critically dependent on revenue from gas exports to Ukraine and the European Union, but also that Ukraine’s energy deposits and pipeline system have the potential to be a direct competitive threat to Russia’s energy exports. This paper argues that this was the underlying reason and main causal pathway leading to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the subsequent war in eastern Ukraine.

In 2014, the new Ukrainian authorities decided to adopt a pro-Western foreign policy course. The EU supported this ambition: an Association Agreement with Ukraine was signed. This paved the way for the use of economic incentives, conditioned by the introduction of specific reforms. Besides acting within the EU, the Polish government also proposed independent support, mainly in the form of development assistance. Thus, this article aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Polish economic incentives, as well as to identify the factors that either strengthen or weaken such effectiveness. In this process, multiple variables are applied in the contexts of Polish policy goals and the situation in Ukraine. The article concludes that the applied incentives are properly aligned with the objectives that have been set. They could be effective despite the political obstacles in both Poland and Ukraine.

In this article, I summarize the justification for Ukrainian state sovereignty, in spite of Russia’s claim of the non-existence of such sovereignty. The Russians invaded Ukraine claiming their right to justify their interests. The occupation of Crimea by Russian forces and their declaration of its annexation to Russia was an act of aggression disapproved of by the United Nations (2014). I also outline the nature of the limited war between Ukraine and Russia that is managed by ethnic Russians living in the Donbas region and Russian emissaries.

This article focuses on the relationship between political parties and interest groups in contemporary democracies. Although this is a key topic for assessing the evolution of representative political systems and the quality of democracies, the theoretical and empirical studies have not developed a cumulative body of knowledge. As well as the lack of an integrated perspective, we argue that the literature on this topic has remained conceptually fuzzy and has failed to elaborate a common approach to examine how parties and interest organisations interact. Although some researchers point to a weakening of relations between parties and interest groups, the most current data point not to disappearance but to a change in the way both political actors interact. This article contributes to updating the research on the topic and also sheds light on why the literature has remained segmented. The study shows that the variety of conceptualisations, approaches and typologies has led to incongruent – and often non-comparable – results. The final section identifies a number of research gaps and suggest new topics and approaches that can unify this object of study in the near future.

Euroscepticism has become a stable component of the European Parliament. But is there one distinct Euroscepticism in the European Parliament or do various types exist there? Departing from the widely accepted definitions of hard and soft Euroscepticism, we analysed the behaviour of Eurosceptical groups in the European Parliament in order to assess how they differ. Using data from parliamentary questions, we argue that there are substantial differences between these two groups. This suggests that hard and soft Euroscepticisms do not represent different degrees of one phenomenon, but instead refer to two fundamentally different stances towards European integration.

The 2014 European Parliament (EP) elections witnessed an unprecedented wave of radical right parties (RRPs) not only enter the EP, but even outperform the centre-right and centre-left parties in several Member States (MSs). With few exceptions, the 2019 EP elections reconfirmed this state of affairs, although this time around Liberal and Green parties also made inroads into the EP. Despite these results, the performance of the RRPs tends to be taken with a grain of salt since EP elections are generally considered Second Order Elections (SOEs). Yet the electoral consolidation witnessed by these parties in various Member States indicates that their performance is more than a fluke and that therefore it should not be treated as an outlier that is going to be course-corrected by the next election cycle. The 2019 EP election showed that this was not the case. In this regard, this paper examines the notion of radical right mainstreaming by tracking how, at the EU level, RRPs vacillate between pursuing forms of respectable cohabitation in EP groups such as the European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR) or, as was the case in 2019, they are embracing policy congruent schemes (see the Identity and Democracy Group).

Edward Said, who is a key intellectual figure in the theory and interpretation of western European colonization and decolonization, sees criticism as personal engagement and a matter of character and not simply scholarship. He is highly influential in the fields of colonialism, postcolonialism, representation and interpretation. Of the many influences Said in turn has undergone, those in French deserve specific exploration. This article explores some of these influences, but it also looks at some of Said’s own representations of French and French-speaking culture. To this end I will examine how Said in some of his key works addresses, among other things, the role of the intellectual, Orientalism, colonialism, and literary theory. My approach is chronological. I will first turn to the role the French-speaking world plays in Said’s first published book, Joseph Conrad and the Fiction of Autobiography (1966), and then to a couple of Said’s most celebrated works: Orientalism (1978) and Culture and Imperialism (1993).

This article reads the German writer Jenny Erpenbeckʼs influential novel Go, Went, Gone (2015) as a significant contribution to connecting the current refugee problematic to the decolonization discourse in the German and European public sphere. Along with the public discussions about looted art objects during German colonialism in existing German museums and the emerging Humboldt Forum, the novel registers a shift in the culture of collective memory from a singular focus on the holocaust toward a more inclusive and more connected memory of multiple pasts of violence and atrocity, including German colonialism. This multilayered memory reveals the refugee problem not as something external and unexpected but as something that is deeply connected to German and European history. The novelʼs protagonist Richard, an educated former East German, is the novelistʼs experiment to articulate the urgent need for decolonization as a possible solution toward the refugee problematic. The novel depicts the reality and imagines a decolonized world in which less discrimination, less exclusion, more hospitality, and more acceptance might be possible.