If South-East Europe chooses nuclear as a central pillar of its energy future, the decision will not be about engineering alone. Nuclear would fundamentally alter the region’s energy psychology, its economic credibility, and the behavior of its electricity markets. The real intersection between nuclear and the market here is not technical — it is strategic […]
In South-East Europe, energy strategy has never simply been a technical expression of infrastructure planning. It has always been deeply political, economically sensitive, geopolitically shaped and socially charged. Nuclear power sits right at the center of that tension. It promises long-term stability in a region burdened with volatility. It offers strategic independence in markets traditionally
Nuclear power and South-East Europe: Between strategic necessity and market hesitation Read More »
South-East Europe has spent most of the past three decades reacting to energy problems rather than shaping its own future. It has lived through power shortages, political dependency, pipeline crises, refinery uncertainties, hydrological shocks, volatile import bills, underinvestment, institutional hesitation and a constant feeling that stability was always one crisis away from disappearing. In 2025,
Energy sectors rarely collapse suddenly. They decay gradually. Systems do not break overnight; they weaken, absorb shocks, survive another season, and quietly accumulate structural fatigue until one day the cost of catching up is far greater than the cost of acting earlier. In 2025, this is the most important risk facing Serbia and much of
For years, energy debates in South-East Europe were dominated by national narratives. Every country spoke about its sovereignty, its own generation plans, its own infrastructure, its own ability to “secure supply independently.” Reality has quietly dismantled those claims. In 2025, the most important lesson emerging from Europe’s shifting energy landscape is that no country in
In public debate, “energy transition” is often presented as inevitability wrapped in optimism: cleaner power, modern technologies, new industry opportunities, cheaper renewables, and a supposedly straightforward path from coal and dependency toward sustainability and independence. But in Serbia — and much of South-East Europe — transition is not a slogan, not a trend, and certainly
In South-East Europe, energy policy has never truly been about kilowatt-hours, barrels or cubic meters alone. It has always been about alignment, leverage, identity, security, credibility and survival. In 2025, that truth is clearer than ever. Serbia stands at the center of a shifting regional energy order, not by choice, but by geography and necessity.
Natural gas in Serbia is not simply a fuel. It is urban stability in winter, an invisible lifeline for industry, a quiet anchor of political calm, and a permanent financial commitment wrapped in contracts, infrastructure and risk. In 2025, the conversation about gas is not about whether Serbia has supply. It does. The real question
Natural gas is the most silent yet economically decisive energy infrastructure that Serbia operates. It is not debated with the emotional noise that surrounds electricity, nor with the geopolitical drama that often accompanies oil. But if gas fails, entire systems fail with it — heating systems, industrial production lines, municipal stability, fiscal balance, and political
For nearly two decades, Serbia carried a self-image that shaped politics, strategy and public psychology: the idea that it was a structurally self-sufficient electricity country, often even a net exporter, supposedly shielded from the fragility, price shocks and insecurity faced by others. This belief was not invented; it reflected a period when lignite production was
