04. ledna, 2026 Michal Vašečka
The renewal of the relatively short-lived institutionalized cooperation of the three medieval kingdoms from the 14th century was fully revitalized only with the establishment of the Visegrad Group in 1991. This occurred after the Central European countries had long experienced domination by various external powers. It would seem that the good and deep cooperation of the countries of Central Europe is so self-evident in view of historical experience that questioning it is an irresponsible gamble with one’s own future. Nevertheless, we have buried the Visegrad Four (V4) several times now, and this time we can speak without unnecessary pathos about the clinical death of the grouping.
However, the history of questioning the cooperation of countries within the V4 is quite rich and is related to many political, economic and value differences between the countries. And it is undoubtedly also related to the fact that one of the main goals of the V4 – European integration and the entry of Central European countries into the EU – was achieved in 2004. But immediately after the formation of the V4, uncertainties about the meaning of the group and internal crises came, especially during the governments of Vladimír Mečiar in Slovakia, when Bratislava was temporarily isolated from the integration processes. In the 1990s, the V4 was reduced to formal meetings. After the main goal – entry into the EU and NATO in 2004 – was achieved, on the contrary, discussions began whether the V4 had „expired“, or whether it should be transformed into a lobbying platform in the EU or just disappear.
The so-called migration crisis of 2015-2016 brought about a united opposition of the V4 countries to migration and EU policies in relation to migration and migrants, but also a strong polarization of these countries. They jointly rejected mandatory quotas for the relocation of migrants, which strengthened the cohesion of the V4 for a short time, but also sparked a dispute with the European Commission, which has not been fully resolved to this day. Since 2017, the polarizing topic of questioning the rule of law in some V4 countries has been added – Poland and Hungary faced EU procedures under Article 7 for violating the principles of the rule of law, while the Czech Republic and Slovakia partially distanced themselves from them, which further weakened the unity of the V4.
The V4 brand gradually became toxic outside the Central European region, and in the logic of the coming poly-crises, the problems began to multiply. The V4 countries also began to distance themselves from each other in matters of attitudes towards nuclear energy, carbon neutrality and the EU’s green goals. And then came a topic that practically paralyzed cooperation. Since the beginning of the full-scale war in Ukraine, the countries‘ cooperation has practically ended due to different attitudes towards Putin’s Russia and the geopolitical challenges associated with Russia’s openly revanchist policy in relation to Central Europe. Today, cooperation continues timidly in the coordinating the transport and energy connections of the V4 countries, for which, however, a V4-type structure is not necessary and indispensable among the neighbours.
However, the questioning of cooperation among V4 countries is taking place at a time – and this needs to be remembered – when economic pressure on the V4 countries is increasing. And when, it seems, not all those involved are aware of it. The V4 accounts for 1.3% of the world’s GDP), and even though it lags the most advanced countries in the world in productivity, innovation and living standards, it is not a region that can be overlooked due to its dynamics. In terms of GDP/PPP, it lags the EU average (53,960 USD/PPP) only slightly (by 10-30%), but at the same time the V4 is above the world average, which is 20,886 USD/PPP. In the last decade, the V4 has grown faster than the EU, but the social progress index shows the V4 below the EU average, with the only exception being the Czech Republic.
It is therefore of course necessary to perceive the current problems of cooperation in the V4 against the background of global changes, and these are – unfortunately – epochal. As Ivan Krastev emphasizes, the year 2024 is a historical turning point (annus horibilis), similar to how 1989 was perceived (annus mirabilis). According to Krastev, today we see that the „future“ has returned – not as a project, but as a nightmare, full of uncertainty and geopolitical upheavals.
Krastev claims that 1989 brought the euphoria of freedom and the collapse of the communist bloc, 2024 will be remembered as a period of radical change, characterized by a combination of wars and elections. Liberal democracy faces anti-liberal revolutions, just as communism faced anti-Soviet revolutions 36 years ago. Simply put – after 1989, the West created a myth about the „epochal victory of liberalism“, which is no longer valid today. And similarly, the liberal consensus on the future of the Central European region ended.
In the most important – geopolitical direction – against the background of these global changes, 2 types of countries have gradually emerged in Central Europe – at least for now – against the background of these global changes. Poland and the Czech Republic, despite many disagreements with Brussels‘ policies and Euroscepticism of parts of the population, remain united by the idea of their European future.
In Slovakia, the ruling power, despite the pro-European stance of most of the population, has begun to test public opinion by variously questioning the importance of EU membership. Orbán’s Hungary has been openly defining itself in opposition to Brussels for a long time and its inclination towards alternative projects of international cooperation is loudly articulated. On the other hand, regardless of the current arrival of a new government in the Czech Republic and a potentially questionable government in Poland in the future – a departure from the EU in these countries is unlikely, for many reasons.
Despite everything that casts a shadow over V4 cooperation, as well as its current toxicity, there are still many reasons to be cautious about dissolving the V4 currently. In every country today, forces are being heard that would like to revise various decisions and steps from the past. In the case of the Czech Republic, for example, and not illogically, one can see the effort of some to move the Czech Republic closer to Germany and in some ways return to František Palacký’s decision to refuse to participate in the pan-German meeting in Frankfurt in 1848. The feeling of a minority in the Czech Republic, that the place of the Czechs should be in cooperation with Germany, has already been articulated by some Czech elites.
Similarly, in Slovakia, although in a completely different direction, there is a return to the policies of some Slovak elites from the mid-19th century, namely towards Russia, to that – in the words of Ján Kollár – „great oak that defies the pernicious times to this day“. Not to mention Poland, where part of the political elite is increasingly vocal in support of Roman Dmowski and his visions from the early 20th century, which are in complete contradiction with the ethos of Visegrad cooperation.
Before we dissolve the V4, despite its clinical death, there should be a broad discussion of this topic among social and economic elites. And even if in some of the countries there were several arguments, such as cooperation within the V4 against the national interests of the country, I think we should be careful. The reason is the historical experience of what happened when the Central European countries started to dig exclusively for themselves and when they sank into their ethnolinguistic and nationalistic smallness.
After all, many Central European authors have written about this, most notably István Bibó. He pointed out that the real tragedy of Central Europe was not its – in Kundera’s words – abduction to the East, but its essentialist nationalism based on language. In the past, this sought to create homogeneous nation-states, which caused endless conflicts over borders. And as states feared for their existence, the psychology of fear and hysteria led to the deepening of authoritarianism and the creation of fragile democracies.
According to Bibó, democracy requires freedom from fear and the ability to compromise, which, however, have been lacking in the region for a very long time and it seems that this period is returning. The feudal patterns of behaviour, described by many in the past, have clearly not completely disappeared and continue to affect the region’s ability to create a stable system of collective security.
In recent years, the Central European region has begun to be, like a kind of testing laboratory, an example of the presence of perhaps all types of alternatives to liberal democracy – illiberal democracies, procedural democracies, plutocracies, oligarchies. soft autocracies and hybrid forms of authoritarianism. The fear of many that the very existence of the V4 may help the entire region gradually, in mutual interactions, turn into a kind of Mordor, is exaggerated. The countries influence each other, of course, but it works both ways – intensive cooperation can lead not only to mutual authoritarian potentiation, but also to the mitigation of autocratic tendencies and steps.
It is therefore more than appropriate to return to the authors who were behind the return of the theme of Central Europe – Milan Kundera, Claudio Magris, István Bibó, or Václav Bělohradský. They all wrote about the European dream of Central Europeans, which could and should help overcome our smallness. It is in such a confrontation that it is possible to see the real tragedy of Central Europe – that Central Europe has lost its European dream. The greatest threat to Central Europe is simply itself.
The paradox lies in where we have begun to move. People like Milan Kundera have pointed out that Central Europe is the most real Europe – the maximum possible diversity in the minimum possible space. As Przemysław Czapliński writes about it – this very „Arch-Europe“ has, however, begun to change into „Anti-Europe“ in the last ten years. And the problem is that from the outside it looks like the virus is spreading from us, this time it is not us in Central Europe who are waiting for new stimuli and impulses – it is we who are sending them outwards.
Central Europe is simply becoming a potential threat to others. Just as Hungary was almost able to destroy the Habsburg monarchy with its steps and emotions once upon a time, so too are we in principle capable of destroying the EU and endangering Europe’s chances of responding meaningfully to current global challenges.
And so many would say – well, that’s exactly why it is appropriate and necessary not to revive the corpse of the V4! I would be careful. A lot of strange things were born in the Central European region – communism, fascism, or the 2 greatest wars that humanity has experienced. But also, the most magnificent art, philosophy and – psychoanalysis. The task of the V4 – and it is quite possibly one of the last, is to manage the region’s transition to the period of late modernity and revitalize its European dream.
Central Europeans have shown many times that they know how to move Europe. Since there are many players at the national level who are happy to erode the European project, cooperation at the V4 level can become a good reason to stop this destruction. Not only through ideologically, but also technocratically defined cooperation. Through a pragmatic policy of cooperation, to show how Central Europe is a functioning region precisely thanks to its European dimension and – perhaps still a dream. There will always be enough time to bury the V4. In times of global threats, such a platform for curbing various types of excesses, which we understand here, is still the most appropriate.
First published in November 2025. Translated from Slovak by Michal Vašečka.
The article was written in the framework of the project Reflections of the War in Ukraine in Visegrad Countries. The project is co-financed by the governments of Czechia, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia through Visegrad Grants from the International Visegrad Fund. The mission of the fund is to advance ideas for sustainable regional cooperation in Central Europe.
SPECIÁLNÍ ČÍSLO/SPECIAL EDITION