{
"authors": [
"Balázs Jarábik",
"Iulian Groza",
"Jana Kobzová",
"Viktor Konstantynov",
"Tsovinar Kuiumchian",
"Leonid Litra",
"Tornike Sharashenidze",
"Isaac Webb"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe"
],
"collections": [
"Europe’s Eastern Neighborhood"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [
"Reforming Ukraine"
],
"regions": [
"Caucasus",
"Georgia",
"Eastern Europe",
"Ukraine",
"Moldova",
"Russia",
"Europe"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
EU association deals with Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova have proven to be key drivers of reform in all three countries. The emphasis should now be on implementation, not simply legislative adoption.
Source: European Parliament
Signing and ratifying Association Agreements with Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine has proven to be an impressive affirmation of Brussels’ soft power. The EU’s overtures have persuaded elites and mobilised societies despite the fact that the Agreements come neither with a membership promise nor with the kind of financial assistance that has been given to the EU’s new member states.
EU assistance has been effective in restoring macro-financial stability in all three countries. While costs of compliance with the DCFTA were calculated, level of investment associated with the necessary modernisation to make these economies competitive were neglected. The discrepancy between costs and benefits should prompt the EU to be more flexible.
Brussels’ achievements remain fragile. Informal interests continue to play important roles in these countries and have the potential to thwart reforms. In the absence of strong, de-politicised institutions, the EU should work to support political consolidation—the alternative is further polarisation and political fragility—while at the same time insisting on adherence to democratic standards and strengthened institutional checks and balances.
Political analyst, former Slovak diplomat, and consultant specializing in Eastern Europe
Iulian Groza
Jana Kobzová
Viktor Konstantynov
Tsovinar Kuiumchian
Leonid Litra
Tornike Sharashenidze
Isaac Webb
Former Junior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
After spending much of 2025 trying to placate Donald Trump, some European leaders are starting to change posture. But is even a hostile Washington still so important to Europe that the U.S. president’s outbursts are worth putting up with?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
European leaders have now not only lost faith in Donald Trump’s U.S. presidency, but also in America’s hegemony as a whole. But short-term challenges make an immediate divorce unwise.
Rym Momtaz
Countries face several hurdles in joining the EU, including the final stage of ratifying their accession treaties. Procedural reforms and substantive adjustments could help move the process forward.
Stefan Lehne
Europe has an interest in supporting Armenian leader Nikol Pashinyan as he tries to make peace with neighbors and loosen ties with Russia. But it is depersonalized support in the long term, not quickfire flash, that will win the day.
Thomas de Waal
Following Ursula von der Leyen’s gaffe equating Turkey to Russia and China, relations with Ankara risk deteriorating even further. Without better, more consistent diplomatic messaging, how can the EU pretend to be a geopolitical power?
Sinan Ülgen