Forces of energy welfare in Central Europe: The Russian war in Ukraine as a game changer 89Baranowski, M. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 89–101.DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.73.1.6 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 2024 (1) 89–101. Introduction The Russian invasion on Ukraine on 24 Feb- ruary 2022 shattered the public’s dreams of peaceful coexistence and recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, and the consequences will be felt around the world for many years to come (Bäcker, R. and Rak, J. 2022; Sági, M. 2022; Uwishema, O. et al. 2022). Due to the proximity of military action, this conflict “has challenged Europeans’ most basic assump- tions about their security, brought the spectre of nuclear confrontation back to their conti- nent and disrupted the global economy, leav- ing energy and food crises in its wake” (Ash, T.G. et al. 2023, 2). All European Union (EU) countries have been affected by the war in Ukraine because economic, political and cul- tural relations with Russia have been signifi- cantly reduced. However, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic – the four Central European countries referred to as the Visegrad Group (or V4 countries) – are expe- riencing the immediate threats of the conflict even more due to their geographical proxim- ity to Ukraine and close ties with Russia. Since, until recently, Russia had very close political and economic relations with Germany, the EU country that has the larg- est economy and sets the fundamental di- 1 Faculty of Sociology, School of Social Sciences, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań. Szamarzewskiego 89c. 60-568 Poznań, Poland. E-mail: mariusz.baranowski@amu.edu.pl ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6755-9368 Forces of energy welfare in Central Europe: The Russian war in Ukraine as a game changer Mariusz BARANOWSKI1 Abstract The Russian war in Ukraine has changed global geopolitical priorities and the policies of individual countries. The consequences of this ongoing war will be felt for decades to come, including the militarisation of states and the strengthening of political-military alliances. This article explores the effects of this conflict through the lens of energy welfare, which is used as an essential litmus test for the transforming economies of the Visegrad Group (V4) countries in Central Europe. Energy security and the energy transition have become critical top- ics, and energy security and its impact on social welfare affect the sensitive areas of policy choices that will determine the direction of development in this part of Europe. The V4 countries – Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary – illustrate a wide range of domestic and geopolitical orientations that place individual countries in different decision-making situations. The ideological and political forces determine the scope for achieving energy welfare and are, therefore, the subject of this article. Based on macroeconomic and survey data results, the article’s primary research query examines how the V4 countries’ reliance on Russian fossil fuels affects their political attitudes and societal perceptions of the conflict in Ukraine, and the implications for their energy security and welfare in the face of the European Green Deal efforts. The different strategies adopted by the four countries considered translate into energy transition pathways to a low carbon economy described in the European Green Deal and strategies to provide energy at a reasonable price at the expense of a coherent European policy towards Russian aggression. Keywords: Russian war in Ukraine, energy welfare, just transition, Visegrad Group (V4 countries) Received October 2023, accepted March 2024. mailto:mariuszb@amu.edu.pl https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6755-9368 Baranowski, M. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 89–101.90 rection of European policy, most commenta- tors have analysed the German Zeitenwende (‘turning point’) in the context of the Russian war in Ukraine (Blumenau, B. 2022; Bunde, T. 2022; Angenendt, M. and Kinski, L. 2023; Helferich, J. 2023; Mader, M. and Schoen, H. 2023). In contrast, this article focuses on the V4 countries and their dependence on Russia for energy security and welfare in light of the ongoing conflict (see Iacobuta, G.I. and Onbargi, A.F. 2022, 6). We decided to use energy issues as a lens to analyse the political positions of the V4 gov- ernments and societies due to the multifaceted nature and interpenetration of various deter- minants that have led individual governments and the public to support either Ukraine or Russia in this conflict. This choice was by no means meant to downplay the casualties of the Russian onslaught, its implications for global food security (Behnassi, M. and El Haiba, M. 2022) or the geopolitical changes to the balance of power in Europe (Siddi, M. 2022) and the world (Wang, Y. et al. 2022). In the article, we aimed to show the impact of the armed con- flict on the energy welfare of the V4 countries, which is rooted in the policy initiatives of the European Green Deal (EGD). Energy welfare is a component of social wel- fare related to meeting the energy needs of in- dividuals and groups in society. These needs, which include powering heating and cooling sources, cooking, lighting, electrical appliances and transport, determine the critical dimen- sions of modern societies’ broader social wel- fare and national energy security issues. It is essential to be aware that, accord- ing to the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), energy is “cru- cial for achieving almost all the Sustainable Development Goals, from its role in the eradi- cation of poverty through advancements in health, education, [the] water supply and in- dustrialisation, to combating climate change” (ECOSOC 2016, 11). In light of the Russian war in Ukraine and geopolitical tensions, the EU is intensifying its efforts to decrease its depend- ence on Russian fossil fuels. In 2021, Russia supplied over 40 percent of the gas, 46 percent of the coal, and 27 percent of the oil consumed by the EU (European Commission, 2022). This situation of dependence on fossil fuels highlights the importance of accelerating the EU’s transition to a diversified, resilient energy mix with increased reliance on renewable ener- gy and energy efficiency measures. This aspect, in turn, makes visible the V4 countries’ links, sympathies and political-economic antipathies concerning the Russian Federation, which af- fect not only the positions of their ruling par- ties and businesses but also their societies. Materials and methods This study investigates the impact of the Rus- sian war in Ukraine on energy dynamics and social welfare in the V4, which, with the ex- ception of the Czech Republic, directly bor- der Ukraine (Figure 1). Data were collected from various sources, including Eurostat’s macroeconomic indicators of primary pro- duction by energy source, IEA national reli- ance on Russian fossil fuel imports, Euroba- rometer surveys, and existing scholarly lit- erature. All this to answer the main research question consisting of two parts: How does the dependence of V4 countries on Russian fossil fuels, particularly in their energy mixes and technology supply chains, influence their political attitudes and societal perceptions to- wards the Russian war in Ukraine, and what implications does this have for their energy security and welfare in the context of efforts towards the European Green Deal? To assess public attitudes towards the con- flict and EU responses, Eurobarometer survey data were analysed, focusing on questions related to EU support for Ukraine and sanc- tions against Russia. A comparative analysis approach was employed to examine energy mixes, dependencies on Russian hydrocarbons, and political responses across the V4 nations. Scholarly literature provided theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence, guid- ing the interpretation of findings within the broader energy security and social welfare context. 91Baranowski, M. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 89–101. Energy welfare as a component of (nature- based) social welfare Energy welfare is part of energy security (Kammen, D.M. 2020), which is “highly con- text dependent (and includes various factors), such as a country’s special circumstances, level of economic development, perceptions of risks, as well as the robustness of its energy system and prevailing geopolitical issues” (Ang, B.W. et al. 2015, 1078). From a socio- logical perspective, energy welfare concerns the needs of a society whose “quality of life depends on uninterrupted energy supply” (Ang, B.W. et al. 2015, 1078) and increasingly includes respect for the role of the environ- ment in meeting human needs (Nathwani, J. and Kammen, D.M. 2019; Baranowski, M. 2022a). In other words, energy welfare is a component of nature-based social welfare, which aims to respect nature by initially re- ducing and eventually eliminating the use of fossil fuels in the energy mix as planned in the EGD targets (Schunz, S. 2022; Almeida, D.V. et al. 2023; Piasecki, A. 2023). Therefore, an essential element of energy transformation is a just transition that combines the transfer to renewable energy sources with egalitar- ian access to it at the national and household levels. Its opposite in the form of energy in- equalities or energy-related inequalities fits into welfare scarcity (Sovacool, B.K. and Dworkin, M. 2012; Bouzarovski, S. and Sim- cock, N. 2017; Baranowski, M. 2019). Since citizens’ material living conditions (and subjective well-being) (cf. Baranowski, M. 2019) set the framework for state institutions (Bilan, Y. et al. 2020), which are also guided by directives related to external security and international agreements, energy issues are political. Energy issues can also be described as social because they are economic, techno- logical and environmental, as well as related to people’s quality of life and habits (Figure 2). Fig. 1. Geographical position of the V4 countries, with Ukraine in their eastern neighbourhood Fig. 2. Energy welfare as a component of social welfare and its dimensions. Source: Adapted from Baranowski, M. 2019. Baranowski, M. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 89–101.92 The dimensions of an individual’s soci- etal functions that influence social welfare/ scarcity are shown in Figure 2. The complex nature of energy welfare, which is a subset of social welfare, is determined by a set of con- tingent factors, i.e., linkages between the en- vironment and technology and the economy as well as linkages between health, culture and social relations, education and politics. Therefore, when examining the energy wel- fare of the V4 countries in the context of the Russian aggression against Ukraine, it is im- portant to consider the wider implications of this phenomenon on the quality of life in the V4 countries and, consequently, on political perceptions of the conflict. V4 countries and energy issues According to political commentators, the V4 countries do not currently constitute a monolith, primarily because of “the growing divergence between Poland and Hungary – (which are) dropping fast in most measures of what makes a liberal democracy – and Slovakia and the Czech Republic, both of which have seen recent government changes sending them back into the EU mainstream” (Bayer, L. and Cienski, J. 2022). There are more dissimilarities, and close cooperation between these countries is hindered by their significantly different political attitudes to- wards the Russian war in Ukraine. These differences are evident when juxtaposing the views of the prime ministers of Slovakia and Poland, who were both elected at the end of 2023. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has been described as a ‘pro-Moscow leader’ (Goryashko, S. 2024), while Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk is a supporter of the “full mobilization of the free world, the Western world, to help Ukraine in this war” (Dickinson, P. 2023). The V4 alliance, established in 1991, was built on the countries’ shared experience of the post-Soviet bloc and common goals and ambitions (Cienski, J. 2012; Bauerová, H. and Vošta, M. 2020; Utama, M.A. and Ramadhani, A. 2022). This alliance has en- abled more than three decades of cooper- ation between these countries, especially Poland and Hungary. However, in the face of Russian aggression against Ukraine, it is worth analysing the coherence-divergence of the political attitudes of the V4 coun- tries through the prism of energy welfare, a critical component of energy security, i.e., economic growth and development (Graff, M. et al. 2019; Kasperowicz, R. et al. 2020; Baranowski, M. 2022b; Dobbins, A. 2022; Klitkou, A. et al. 2023). It is also important to be aware that Ukraine “has immediate borders with the Visegrad region” and, over the last few years, has “developed remark- able economic, political and cultural rela- tions with the V4 states” (Kucharczyk, J. and Mesežnikov, G. 2015, 11). Therefore, when considering energy wel- fare/scarcity in the context of the war in Ukraine, it is worth bearing in mind the fol- lowing statement by Beare, M. (2018, np): “[M]odern energy is the lifeblood of the modern economy, central to almost every economic activ- ity, from manufacturing to transport to schooling to communicating, and, thus, integral to any country’s development. It is also one of the main topics on the table at COP24, where policymakers, stakeholders and climate experts will meet to discuss policy relat- ing to climate change.” Energy policy is therefore related to key policy decisions that determine the com- petitiveness of the economy and guarantee the material welfare of society as a whole (Grossmann, K. and Kahlheber, A. 2017). It is also linked to global and regional ini- tiatives to halt climate change and achieve EU climate neutrality by 2050, which re- quires each EU country to reduce its green- house gas emissions by at least 55 percent by 2030. These initiatives include the EGD and the RePowerEU plan to reduce reli- ance on Russian fossil fuels. Specifically, RePowerEU was initiated in the wake of the war in Ukraine, with the aim of accelerating the energy transition in Europe (De Jong, M. 2023; Vezzoni, R. 2023). 93Baranowski, M. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 89–101. Energy issues must be taken very seriously because they affect society’s social welfare and subjective well-being. The problems of energy poverty and energy inequality, often referred to in terms of ‘fuel poverty’ or ‘do- mestic energy deprivation’ (cf. Bouzarovski, S. and Petrova, S. 2015, 31–40), are, in fact, about “a household’s inability to secure a so- cially- and materially-necessitated level of energy services in the home” (Bouzarovski, S. et al. 2017, 1). These are fundamental issues for the public because they directly affect the cost of housing and the price of food and industrial goods (including fuel). In other words, they determine the cost of living. V4 countries’ energy mixes and dependence on Russian hydrocarbons Even in the wealthiest European countries, citizens are “impacted by the functioning of the energy market, the welfare system, hous- ing policy, health policy and practice, and by the distribution of wealth, as well as by the membership of particular social groups that experience intersecting inequalities” (Middlemiss, L. 2020, 110). While examin- ing energy welfare, especially in the context of climate challenges and the Russian war in Ukraine, it is worth taking a closer look at the energy mixes of the V4 countries. The structure of the energy mixes and strategies for the transition towards climate neutrality affect foreign policies and public opinion. Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic have nuclear power plants, and Poland has made the decision to build nuclear power plants (Figure 3). Nuclear energy repre- sents the largest share of the energy mixes in Slovakia and Hungary (58.3% and 37.9%, respectively), and it is the second largest share in the Czech Republic (31.3%) after fossil fuels. The largest share of fossil fuels (71.5%) was found in electricity production in Poland. In addition, Hungary produces energy from natural gas (11.1%) and crude oil (10.2%), accounting for more than 20 per- cent of its energy mix. In terms of the share of renewable energy, Slovakia (33.8%) and Hungary (32.2%) are the leaders and are significantly ahead of the Czech Republic (23.0%) and Poland (21.3%). The share of renewable energy is significant in the geo- political context because it indicates politi- cal energy independence with a few caveats, such as the critical raw materials necessary for clean energy technologies (cf. Klitkou, A. et al. 2023). Regarding fossil fuels, natural gas and nu- clear energy, the V4 countries are depend- ent on Russian hydrocarbons and associated technologies. For example, the nuclear power plants in the V4 countries run on Russian- made fuel rods made by the TVEL Fuel Company (owned by Rosatom). Thus, the V4 countries’ energy mixes and dependence on Russian fossil fuels and energy technolo- gies since the collapse of the communist bloc demonstrate the vulnerability of these econo- mies and the welfare of their populations to relations with the Kremlin. In addition, it is important to examine en- ergy carrier imports from Russia in order to understand the dependency structure shaping energy welfare/scarcity in the V4 countries. This is mainly because the European embar- go on Russian hydrocarbons affects countries that, until recently, had close ties with the Russian Federation. Slovakia and Hungary are still the V4 countries with the highest lev- els of dependence on Russian hydrocarbons (Figure 4). Although Poland and the Czech Republic import far less non-renewable fuel from the country, Russia was an important trading partner for all four countries in terms of energy carriers before the attack on Ukraine. Given the fragmentary nature of assess- ing the attitudes of the public and the gov- ernments of the V4 countries towards the war and the parties involved based on the energy sector alone, it is worth remember- ing that “the EU imported around 40% of its natural gas, more than one-quarter of its oil and about half its coal from Russia in 2019” (Tollefson, J. 2022, 233). In other words, the EU’s dependence on Russian hydrocarbons was an important component of the competi- Baranowski, M. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 89–101.94 Fig. 4. National reliance on Russian fossil fuel imports (total fossil fuels). Source: International Energy Agency, 2023. Fig. 3. Share of primary production by energy source, 2021. Source: Eurostat, 2023. 95Baranowski, M. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 89–101. tiveness of European economies and politi- cal relations before the war (Baranowski, M. 2022c, 2023a). Germany before Zeitenwende is the most telling example of this practice. Germany pursued energy policy that focused solely on its own interests, e.g., individually negotiated low prices for Russian gas, and seemed to conflict with other EU countries’ objectives, e.g., the Nord Stream 2 project (De Jong, M. 2024). V4 countries’ attitudes towards the Russian Federation after the invasion of Ukraine In terms of the political response to the Russian war in Ukraine, which Acemoglu, D. (2023, np) described as “the biggest war in Europe since the end of World War II”, the V4 countries formally adopted a critical assessment of the aggressor. Czech research- ers Handl, V. et al. (2023, 508) shared the following description of the V4 countries’ responses: “[T]hey called the Russian action ‘a brutal, unpro- voked and premeditated attack against a sovereign, peaceful democratic state’, which represented ‘an egregious violation of international law and the UN Charter, which undermines European security and stability’ […] However, the positions of the individual countries and their leaders differed in their details.” Some political commentators believe that, until the populist right-wing takeovers in Poland and Hungary, the V4 countries “al- ways came together in fundamental issues. Moreover, their stance was rarely fundamen- tally different from that pursued by the EU as a whole” (Mesežnikov, G. 2022, np). The establishment of far-right governments in Warsaw and Budapest led to a political split in the V4 countries’ vision of the EU (the so- called 2 + 2 format). However, the refugee cri- sis of 2015 led to a renewed consolidation of the V4 countries, as “all four countries took a strong anti-immigration stance and refused to take their fair share [of immigrants] as pro- posed by the EU” (Mesežnikov, G. 2022, np). Russia’s attack on Ukraine divided the V4 countries in a 3 + 1 direction, with Hungary as the outsider (Mesežnikov, G. 2022). However, since Slovakia and Hungary were, until recently, highly dependent on hydro- carbon imports from Russia (see Figure 4), both countries should be characterised as still having pro-Russian positions because energy prosperity is a critical determinant of political relations. Note that we are refer- ring to official government positions and public opinion because, although important, the personal connections of leaders such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and former Czech President Miloš Zeman do not represent the official positions of the govern- ment and the public. Data from a Eurobarometer survey were analysed to understand public opinion in the V4 countries about the Russian war in Ukraine. To approximate the public’s posi- tion on solidarity with Ukraine or the Russian Federation, the survey included the follow- ing question: “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the European Union’s support for Ukraine following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?” (Eurobarometer, 2022) (Figure 5). The survey results revealed that 85 percent of Poles, and 68 percent of Czechs approved of the EU’s support for Ukraine, while only 47 percent of Slovaks, and 56 percent of Fig. 5. Public approval of the EU’s support for Ukraine (% – Total Approve). Source: Eurobarometer, 2022 (98.1 | EB042) Baranowski, M. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 89–101.96 Hungarians shared this sentiment. These re- sults correspond with the aforementioned 2 + 2 format of the V4 countries. A survey ques- tion about support for sanctions imposed by the EU on the Russian Federation had a similar distribution of responses; compared to people in Poland and the Czech Republic, those in Slovakia and Hungary were much less sup- portive of sanctions against Russia (Figure 6). For the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that the distribution of responses to the survey questions concerning support for Ukraine and the imposition of sanctions on Russia do not directly align with the V4 countries’ dependence on energy carri- ers and technology, especially technology and components related to nuclear power plants. However, considering other survey studies and the interpretation of their re- sults (Baranowski, M. 2022a, c), one may be tempted to make such an interpretation. For example, Handl, V. et al. (2023, 509) shared the following conclusion: “[A] significant part of Slovak society belongs among the most pro-Russian people in the European Union. According to a poll conducted in July 2022, 52% of Slovaks want Russia to win the war. Thirty percent want Ukraine to win, and 18% don’t know (Dennik, 2022). A significant reason for those Slovaks’ stance is their country’s dependence on Russian oil and gas, which before the war was 100%.” More than just fossil fuels The V4 countries present a spectrum of at- titudes towards the Russian aggression against Ukraine, primarily through the prism of energy welfare, which, as described above, determines the foundations of individual and household functioning in the economic sphere. Politico-geographical factors, such as proximity to a war zone (Handl, V. et al. 2023, 505), are not without influence on in- tercountry relations. Similarly, transnation- al alliances, such as the EU, should not be underestimated, as they utilise “a sufficient degree of unity, central authority, and effec- tive decision-making to defend the shared interests and values of Europeans” (Ash, T.G. 2023, 64). However, the devil is in the details, and energy dependencies often determine these details. As previously mentioned, the V4 countries have different energy mixes (see Figure 2). However, like the rest of the EU, they are committed to the energy transition to a low-carbon economy described in the EGD plan, which includes various pathways away from fossil fuels and towards renew- able energy production. Russia’s case (as a hydrocarbon exporter) is proving to be crucial in many ways. Before its aggression against Ukraine, Russia’s fossil fuels were a guarantor of the energy transi- tion of the EU countries. Germany, in particu- lar, was counting on the opening of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline until recently. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, the V4 countries imported vast amounts of hydrocarbons from Russia, and Russian companies supplied raw materials for nuclear power plants. Russia’s importance in the energy sector is also evident in a less articulated topic: the rare earth elements and critical min- erals essential for the energy transition (Bazilian, M.D. 2018; Eyl-Mazzega, M.-A. and Mathieu, C. 2020; Gielen, D. and Lyons, M. 2022). Russia and its involvement with countries in Africa, South America and Asia that have reserves of these valuable elements are essential parts of the global balance of power related to access to rare earth miner- Fig. 6. Public approval of the actions taken by the EU to support Ukraine since the start of the war (% – Total Approve). Source: Eurobarometer, 2022 (98.1 | EB042) 97Baranowski, M. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 89–101. als. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), “the value of global trade in critical minerals will need to triple to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050” (Bordoff, J. and O’Sulivan, M.L. 2023, 118). In addition, Russia’s enriched uranium re- serves, which are essential for the operation of nuclear power plants and a critical link in achieving countries’ decarbonisation goals, show that Russia remains an important player in energy security. Suppose that the nuclear power plants in three of the four V4 countries are important sources of global en- ergy production. In that case, the role of the Russian Federation as an intermediary for this resource may raise legitimate concerns. Even the United States depends on Russian nuclear fuel services, which, as American researchers have noted, “is a source of great discomfort and vulnerability, given the cur- rent geopolitical realities” (Bordoff, J. and O’Sulivan, M.L. 2023, 114). Given the aforementioned entanglement of the energy welfare of the V4 countries with the import of energy sources and technolo- gies from Russia, analyses of the attitudes of Central European societies towards the Russian war in Ukraine cannot downplay the energy security dimension. Discussion and conclusions According to a survey conducted by Ash, T.G. et al. (2023, 1–19), the Russian aggres- sion against Ukraine “has consolidated »the West«”. However, this consolidation has come at a massive cost in terms of human lives, refugee and humanitarian crises, and food and energy emergencies. It is important to remember that the European perspective is just one point of view and is a very diverse one in which different economic, political and military security visions clash. The V4 countries are an excellent example of this diversity, and their differing positions on the war itself and the parties involved can be seen through a particular lens, e.g., 3 + 1 or 2 + 2 formats. Examining the energy welfare in the V4 countries in light of Russian aggression against Ukraine should make one realise that energy policy is an essential component of the economy and politics. A well-functioning economy shapes energy welfare, while a poor one produces energy scarcity. Energy policy is also directly linked to climate change and the shape of the energy transition towards zero-carbon economies. Thus, energy tran- sition concerns nature-based social welfare, which is particularly important in light of “the dominant influence of economists and their reliance on cost-benefit approaches in energy decision[s]” (Laes, E. et al. 2023, 4). Also, the level of public support for reforms to enable the implementation of decarbon- ised electricity generation technologies af- fects all spheres of modern society. The case study of the V4 countries in this article has shown that many factors related to energy security are rooted in country-level relations with Russia, resulting in different attitudes towards supporting Ukraine and EU sanctions against the Kremlin. First and foremost, trade in Russian energy carriers was (and to some extent still is) an essential part of individual European countries’ rela- tions with Russia. In addition, let us remem- ber that “the V4 countries (except for Poland) have been even more dependent on Russian energy resources than Germany” (Handl, V. et al. 2023, 504). Moreover, when considering the factors that affect energy welfare in the V4 countries, especially Poland and Hungary, it is worth bearing in mind that research has shown that dissatisfaction with life is mainly linked to populist sentiment (in the case of Finland, cf. Lindholm, A. and Rapeli, L. 2023). However, the consequences of political sympathies seem more understandable if the level of life satisfaction is moderated by economic com- petitiveness, the state of the environment and energy policy – which ultimately affects the price level of goods consumed. For energy- consuming countries, such as the V4, in par- ticular, “rising energy prices mean higher production and transportation costs while Baranowski, M. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 89–101.98 affecting capital market liquidity through inflation and interest rates, reducing social welfare levels” (Chen, Y. et al. 2023, 3083), and see also Antonakakis, N. et al. (2017). These phenomena can result in populist sen- timents and smouldering radical political views, which can indirectly influence specific visions of the energy transition, in essence, the economic (and redistributive) model. Since the energy security and welfare per- spective is a single but important compo- nent of the broader picture of complex and dynamic (geo)political relations (Bompard, E. et al. 2017; Baranowski, M. 2023b; Cui, L. et al. 2023; Streeck, W. 2023), it is worth em- phasising that other forces also shape the level of social welfare in a country. This ar- ticle’s focus on energy welfare and the V4 countries was intended to draw attention to the multidimensionality of energy issues in light of Russia’s attack on Ukraine and their potential far-reaching consequences on the relations between EU countries as well as the pace and shape of the energy transition towards a low-carbon economy (EGD). As we have tried to show, understanding the in- dividual interests and political ties of the V4 countries with energy welfare at the forefront is the foundation of veritable forces of poten- tial change towards either a European Green Deal and energy independence from foreign powers or the opposite. The opposite option in the form of a 2 + 2 or 3 + 1 formula among the V4 countries may set a critical hurdle on the road to achieving climate neutrality com- bined with energy security and welfare. The dependence of V4 countries on Russian fossil fuels significantly influences their politi- cal attitudes and societal perceptions towards the Russian war in Ukraine, with profound implications for their energy security and wel- fare in the face of efforts towards the EGD. The Visegrad countries, particularly Slovakia and Hungary, exhibit varying degrees of reliance on Russian energy resources, including hy- drocarbons and associated technologies. This dependence shapes their political responses to the conflict, as evidenced by differing lev- els of support for Ukraine and EU sanctions against Russia. While Slovakia and Hungary have historically maintained closer energy ties with Russia, Poland and the Czech Republic have pursued diversification strategies, albeit with varying success (2 + 2 formula). Public opinion within the V4 countries also reflects this divergence, with surveys indicat- ing higher levels of support for Ukraine and EU sanctions among Poles and Czechs com- pared to Slovaks and Hungarians. This align- ment with EU policies on Ukraine and Russia underscores the complex interplay between energy security, geopolitical factors, and societal perceptions. Furthermore, the en- ergy transition outlined in the EGD presents both opportunities and challenges for the V4 countries. While reducing dependence on Russian fossil fuels is a crucial objective, it requires significant investment in renewable energy infrastructure and technology. This transition is essential for enhancing energy security and mitigating the risks associated with geopolitical tensions. Overall, understanding the intersection of energy dependence, political attitudes, and societal perceptions is crucial for navigat- ing the complexities of the Russian war in Ukraine and advancing towards a sustain- able energy future. By addressing these chal- lenges through collaborative efforts within the EU framework, the V4 countries can strengthen their resilience to external pres- sures and contribute to the realisation of the EGD’s objectives. REFERENCES Acemoglu, D. 2023. The end of democratic capitalism? How inequality and insecurity fueled a crisis in the West. Foreign Affairs July/August 2023. Almeida, D.V., Kolinjivadi, V., Ferrando, T., Roy, B., Herrera, H., Gonçalves, M.V. and Van Hecken, G. 2023. The “greening” of empire: The European Green Deal as the EU first agenda. Political Geography 105. 102925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. polgeo.2023.102925 Ang, B.W., Choong, W.L. and Ng, T.S. 2015. Energy security: Definitions, dimensions and indexes. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42. 1077–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.064 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2023.102925 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2023.102925 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.064 99Baranowski, M. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 89–101. Angenendt, M. and Kinski, L. 2023. Germany: Political developments and data in 2022. European Journal of Political Research Political Data Yearbook 62. (1): 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/2047- 8852.12406 Antonakakis, N., Gupta, R., Kollias, C. and Papadamou, S. 2017. Geopolitical risks and the oil- stock nexus over 1899–2016. Finance Research Letters 23. 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2017.07.017 Ash, T.G. 2023. Postimperial Empire: How the war in Ukraine is transforming Europe. Foreign Affairs 102. (3): 64–75. Ash, T.G., Krastev, I. and Leonard, M. 2023. United West, divided from the rest: Global public opinion one year into Russia’s war on Ukraine. European Council on Foreign Relations. Policy Brief, 22 February 2023. 1–19. Bäcker, R. and Rak, J. 2022. Why did Putin go too far? The rationality of Vladimir Putin’s decision to begin a war with Ukraine. Society Register 6. (3): 57–71. https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.2022.6.3.04 Baranowski, M. 2019. The struggle for social welfare: Towards an emerging welfare sociology. Society Register 3. (2): 7–19. https://doi.org/10.14746/ sr.2019.3.2.01 Baranowski, M. 2022a. Nature-based social welfare and socially responsible consumption: Is circular economy a viable solution? In Dealing with Socially Responsible Consumers: Studies in Marketing. Ed.: Bhattacharyya, J., Singapore, Springer Nature Singapore, 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981- 19-4457-4_3 Baranowski, M. 2022b. Dialectic of Russia’s war in Ukraine: Between geopolitics and energy welfare. Society Register 6. (3): 7–18. https://doi.org/10.14746/ sr.2022.6.3.01 Baranowski, M. 2022c. Welfare over warfare? Russia’s war on Ukraine through the prism of Europe’s energy security. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy 12. (5): 226–231. https://doi. org/10.32479/ijeep.13415 Baranowski, M. 2023a. The paradox of two wars in Ukraine: Between independence and the social welfare of others. World Affairs 186. (1): 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/00438200221135190 Baranowski, M. 2023b. Critical theory of the en- ergy transformation: Sociology’s approach. Society Register 7. (4): 7–20. https://doi.org/10.14746/ sr.2023.7.4.01 Bauerová, H. and Vošta, M. 2020. Multi-level gov- ernance and energy specifics of the V4 countries within the context of European integration. Politics in Central Europe 16. (2): 525–546. https://doi. org/10.2478/pce-2020-0022 Bayer, L. and Cienski, J. 2022. The not-so-fantastic 4: Central Europe’s divided Visegrad alliance. Politico 7 January 2022. https://www.politico.eu/article/ central-europe-divided-visegrad-v4-alliance/ Bazilian, M.D. 2018. The mineral foundation of the energy transition. The Extractive Industries and Society 5. (1): 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. exis.2017.12.002 Behnassi, M. and El Haiba, M. 2022. Implications of the Russia-Ukraine war for global food security. Nature Human Behaviour 6. 754–755. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41562-022-01391-x Beare, M. 2018. The importance of energy security. In Oxford Policy Management. Oxford UK, OPM. https://www.opml.co.uk/blog/importance-energy- security Bilan, Y., Mishchuk, H., Samoliuk, N. and Yurchyk, H. 2020. Impact of income distribution on social and economic well-being of the state. Sustainability 12. (1): 429. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010429 Blumenau, B. 2022. Breaking with convention? Zeitenwende and the traditional pillars of German foreign policy. International Affairs 98. (6): 1895– 1913. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiac166 Bompard, E., Carpignano, A., Erriquez, M., Grosso, D., Pession, M. and Profumo, F. 2017. National en- ergy security assessment in a geopolitical perspec- tive. Energy 130. 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. energy.2017.04.108 Bordoff, J. and O’Sulivan, M.L. 2023. The age of energy insecurity: How the fight for resources is up- ending geopolitics. Foreign Affairs 102. (3): 104–119. Bouzarovski, S. and Petrova, S. 2015. A global perspective on domestic energy deprivation: Overcoming the energy poverty-fuel poverty binary. Energy Research & Social Science 10. 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.06.007 Bouzarovski, S. and Simcock, N. 2017. Spatializing energy justice. Energy Policy 107. 640–648. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.064 Bouzarovski, S., Simcock, N., Thomson, H. and Petrova, S. 2017. Introduction. In Energy Poverty and Vulnerability: A Global Perspective. Eds.: Simcock, N., Thomson, H., Petrova, S. and Bouzarovski, S., London, Routledge, 1–11. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9781315231518-1 Bunde, T. 2022. Lessons (to be) learned? Germany’s Zeitenwende and European security after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Contemporary Security Policy 43. (3): 516–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/1352 3260.2022.2092820 Chen, Y., Jiang, J., Wang, L. and Wang, R. 2023. Impact assessment of energy sanctions in geo-con- flict: Russian-Ukrainian war. Energy Reports 9. 3082– 3095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.01.124 Cienski, J. 2012. What’s the point of the Visegrad 4? Poland’s Sikorski speaks. Financial Times, July 5. 2012. Cui, L., Yue, S., Nghiem, X.-H. and Duan, M. 2023. Exploring the risk and economic vulnerabil- ity of global energy supply chain interruption in the context of Russo-Ukrainian war. Resources https://doi.org/10.1111/2047-8852.12406 https://doi.org/10.1111/2047-8852.12406 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2017.07.017 https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.2022.6.3.04 https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.2019.3.2.01 https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.2019.3.2.01 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4457-4_3 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4457-4_3 https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.2022.6.3.01 https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.2022.6.3.01 https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.13415 https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.13415 https://doi.org/10.1177/00438200221135190 https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.2023.7.4.01 https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.2023.7.4.01 https://doi.org/10.2478/pce-2020-0022 https://doi.org/10.2478/pce-2020-0022 https://www.politico.eu/article/central-europe-divided-visegrad-v4-alliance/ https://www.politico.eu/article/central-europe-divided-visegrad-v4-alliance/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2017.12.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2017.12.002 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01391-x https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01391-x https://www.opml.co.uk/blog/importance-energy-security https://www.opml.co.uk/blog/importance-energy-security https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010429 https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiac166 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.06.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.064 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.064 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315231518-1 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315231518-1 https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2022.2092820 https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2022.2092820 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.01.124 Baranowski, M. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 89–101.100 Policy 81. 103373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resour- pol.2023.103373 De Jong, M. 2023. Wind of change: The impact of REPowerEU policy reforms on gas security. Policy Studies. Taylor and Francis online. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01442872.2024.2302442 De Jong, M. 2024. Tracing the downfall of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. WIREs Energy and Environment 13. (1): e502. https://doi.org/10.1002/ wene.502 Dickinson, P. 2023. New Polish PM Donald Tusk vows “full mobilization” of West to help Ukraine. Atlantic Council online. 12 December 2023. https://www. atlanticcouncil.org/region/poland/page/25/ Dobbins, A. 2022. System Analysis of the Significance of Energy Poverty on Household Energy Use and Emissions in Germany. Stuttgart, Universität Stuttgart, Institut für Energiewirtschaft und Rationelle Energieanwendung. ECOSOC 2016. Progress towards the sustainable devel- opment goals: Report of the Secretary-General. New York, United Nations Economic and Social Council. Eurobarometer 2022. (98.1 | EB042) European Commission 2022. In focus: Reducing the EU’s dependence on imported fossil fuels. Brussels, European Commission. https://commission. europa.eu/news/focus-reducing-eus-dependence- imported-fossil-fuels-2022-04-20_en Eurostat 2023. Share of primary production by energy source, 2021. Luxembourg, Eurostat. Eyl-Mazzega, M.-A. and Mathieu, C. 2020. The European Union and the energy transition. In The Geopolitics of the Global Energy Transition. Eds.: Hafner, M. and Tagliapietra, S., Cham, Springer International Publishing, 27–46. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-39066-2_2 Gielen, D. and Lyons, M. 2022. Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Rare Earth Elements. Abu Dhabi, International Renewable Energy Agency. Goryashko, S. 2024. Ukraine to Slovakia’s Fico: No, we won’t give up land to Russia. Politico, 22 January 2024. https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-to- fico-piss-off/ Graff, M., Carley, S. and Pirog, M. 2019. A review of the environmental policy literature from 2014 to 2017 with a closer look at the energy justice field. Policy Studies Journal 47. (1): 17–44. https://doi. org/10.1111/psj.12316 Grossmann, K. and Kahlheber, A. 2017. Energy pov- erty in an intersectional perspective: On multiple deprivation, discriminatory systems, and the effects of policies. In Energy Poverty and Vulnerability: A Global Perspective. Eds.: Simcock, N., Thomson, H., Petrova, S. and Bouzarovski, S., London, Routledge, 12–32. Handl, V., Nigrin, T. and Mejstřík, M. 2023. Turnabout or continuity? The German Zeitenwende and the reaction of the V4 countries to it. Journal of European Integration 45. (3): 503–519. https://doi.or g/10.1080/07036337.2023.2190110 Helferich, J. 2023. The (false) promise of Germany’s Zeitenwende. European View 22. (1): 85–95. https:// doi.org/10.1177/17816858231157556 Iacobuta, G.I. and Onbargi, A.F. 2022. The European Green Deal and the war in Ukraine: Addressing crises in the short and long term. European Think Tanks Group, 22 July 2022. https://ettg.eu/wp-content/ uploads/2022/07/The-European-Green-Deal-and- the-war-in-Ukraine.pdf Kammen, D.M. 2020. Defeating energy poverty: Invest in scalable solutions for the poor. In Health of People, Health of Planet and Our Responsibility: Climate Change, Air Pollution and Health. Eds.: Al-Delaimy, W.K., Ramanathan, V. and Sánchez Sorondo, M., Cham, Springer International Publishing, 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31125-4_26 Kasperowicz, R., Bilan, Y. and Štreimikienė, D. 2020. The renewable energy and economic growth nexus in European countries. Sustainable Development 28. (5): 1086–1093. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2060 Klitkou, A., Pluciński, P., Baranowski, M. and Otto, I.M. 2023. Calling energy inequalities into the tran- sition agenda. Energy Research & Social Science 101. 103144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103144 Kucharczyk, J. and Mesežnikov, G. 2015. The Visegrad countries have a stake in the success of a pro-Europe- an Ukraine. In Diverging Voices, Converging Policies: The Visegrad States’ Reactions to the Russia-Ukraine Conflict. Eds.: Kucharczyk, J. and Mesežnikov, G., Warsaw, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, 9–12. Laes, E., Bombaerts, G. and Spahn, A. 2023. Towards a pragmatic and pluralist framework for energy justice. Philosophy & Technology 36. (3): 1–25. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00654-3 Lindholm, A. and Rapeli, L. 2023. Is the unhappy citizen a populist citizen? Linking subjective well- being to populist and nativist attitudes. European Political Science Review 15. (3): 465–481. https://doi. org/10.1017/S1755773922000583 Mader, M. and Schoen, H. 2023. No Zeitenwende (yet): Early assessment of German public opinion toward foreign and defense policy after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 64. 525–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-023-00463-5 Mesežnikov, G. 2022. Stance of the V4 countries towards Russian military agression against Ukraine. Warsaw, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, 20 December 2022. https:// cz.boell.org/en/2022/12/13/postoje-krajin-v4-voci- ruskej-agresii-proti-ukrajine Middlemiss, L. 2020. Energy poverty: Understanding and addressing systemic inequalities. In Inequality and Energy: How Extremes of Wealth and Poverty in High Income Countries Affect CO2 Emissions and Access to Energy. Ed.: Galvin, R., London, Academic Press, 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12- 817674-0.00005-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103373 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103373 https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2024.2302442 https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2024.2302442 https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.502 https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.502 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/region/poland/page/25/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/region/poland/page/25/ https://commission.europa.eu/news/focus-reducing-eus-dependence-imported-fossil-fuels-2022-04-20_en https://commission.europa.eu/news/focus-reducing-eus-dependence-imported-fossil-fuels-2022-04-20_en https://commission.europa.eu/news/focus-reducing-eus-dependence-imported-fossil-fuels-2022-04-20_en https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39066-2_2 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39066-2_2 https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-to-fico-piss-off/ https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-to-fico-piss-off/ https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12316 https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12316 https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2023.2190110 https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2023.2190110 https://doi.org/10.1177/17816858231157556 https://doi.org/10.1177/17816858231157556 https://ettg.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/The-European-Green-Deal-and-the-war-in-Ukraine.pdf https://ettg.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/The-European-Green-Deal-and-the-war-in-Ukraine.pdf https://ettg.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/The-European-Green-Deal-and-the-war-in-Ukraine.pdf https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31125-4_26 https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2060 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103144 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00654-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00654-3 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773922000583 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773922000583 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-023-00463-5 https://cz.boell.org/en/2022/12/13/postoje-krajin-v4-voci-ruskej-agresii-proti-ukrajine https://cz.boell.org/en/2022/12/13/postoje-krajin-v4-voci-ruskej-agresii-proti-ukrajine https://cz.boell.org/en/2022/12/13/postoje-krajin-v4-voci-ruskej-agresii-proti-ukrajine https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817674-0.00005-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817674-0.00005-9 101Baranowski, M. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 89–101. Nathwani, J. and Kammen, D.M. 2019. Affordable energy for humanity: A global movement to sup- port universal clean energy access. Proceedings of the IEEE 107. (9): 1780–1789. https://doi.org/10.1109/ JPROC.2019.2918758 Piasecki, A. 2023. European Green Deal + Poland + hy- droelectric plants = Future? Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 72. (4): 399–414. https://doi.org/10.15201/ hungeobull.72.4.5 Sági, M. 2022. The geographical scales of fear: spatial- ity of emotions, emotional spatialities. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71. (1): 55–65. https://doi. org/10.15201/hungeobull.71.1.4 Schunz, S. 2022. The ‘European Green Deal’ – a paradigm shift? Transformations in the European Union’s sustainability meta-discourse. Political Research Exchange 4 (1): 2085121. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/2474736X.2022.2085121 Siddi, M. 2022. The partnership that failed: EU-Russia relations and the war in Ukraine. Journal of European Integration 44. (6): 893–898. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07036337.2022.2109651 Sovacool, B.K. and Dworkin, M. 2012. Overcoming the global injustices of energy poverty. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 54. (5): 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2012 .711669 Streeck, W. 2023. Reflections on the particular and the universal: unity and diversity in social life and social theory. Society Register 7. (2): 7–20. https:// doi.org/10.14746/sr.2023.7.2.01 Tollefson, J. 2022. What the war in Ukraine means for energy, climate and food. Nature 604. 232–233. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00969-9 Utama, M.A. and Ramadhani, A. 2022. Rethinking the role of Visegrad Group in the EU enlargement pro- cess. Intermestic: Journal of International Studies 7. (1): 78–103. https://doi.org/10.24198/intermestic.v7n1.5 Uwishema, O., Sujanamulk, B., Abbass, M., Fawaz, R., Javed, A., Aboudib, K., Mahmoud, A., Oluyemisi, A. and Onyeaka, H. 2022. Russia-Ukraine conflict and COVID-19: A double burden for Ukraine’s healthcare system and a concern for global citizens. Postgraduate Medical Journal 98. (1162): 569–571. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2022-141895 Vezzoni, R. 2023. The REPowerEU Plan and the incon- sistencies of European Union energy policy. Energy Research & Social Science 101. 103–134. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103134 Wang, Y., Bouri, E., Fareeed, Z. and Dai, Y. 2022. Geopolitical risk and the systemic risk in the com- modity markets under the war in Ukraine. Finance Research Letters 49. 103066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. frl.2022.103066 https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2019.2918758 https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2019.2918758 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.72.4.5 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.72.4.5 https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2022.2085121 https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2022.2085121 https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2022.2109651 https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2022.2109651 https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2012.711669 https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2012.711669 https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.2023.7.2.01 https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.2023.7.2.01 https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00969-9 https://doi.org/10.24198/intermestic.v7n1.5 https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2022-141895 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103134 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103134 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103066 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103066 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin Vol 73 Issue 1 (2024) Mariusz BARANOWSKI: Forces of energy welfare in Central Europe: The Russian war in Ukraine as a game changer