The Special Issue consolidates new approaches to the study of the EU’s role in the eastern neighbourhood and beyond, informed by post-structuralist traditions in international relations. More specifically, by revisiting the European Neighbourhood Policy’s agenda from the conceptual perspective of ‘the political’ and redefining the notions of ‘othering’, ‘differentiation’ and ‘normalisation’, this volume renders a new and much-needed theoretical and empirical outlook onto the policy developments and their practices. By unpacking and connecting security, regional, institutional, normative and sector-thematic policy dimensions, the book seeks to re-politicise the agenda and re-focus policy revision on understanding the fundamentals of power relations when applied to the EU external relations. In light of the compounding crises, external and internal, one can no longer afford to simply tinker around the edges of the policy content and instruments. A more radical theoretical undertaking is overdue, to re-shape, re-define and re-centre the EU relations with the eastern region especially, put in the context of the new EU’s Global Security Strategy, and the new aspirations for the 2017 European Neighbourhood summit. The chapters originally published as a special issue in East European Politics.

This volume offers a collective assessment of the development and impact of the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership Initiative on its eastern neighbours - Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova in particular, with Russia’s added perspective. Founded on extensive empirical and conceptual research, the volume uniquely bridges the perspectives of all parties across the EU’s eastern border, in an attempt to understand advantages and problems related to the effective implementation of the EU policies in the eastern region. The undertaken research points to the prevalence of the top-down and conditional governance approach in EU treatment of the outsiders, which is not only Eurocentric and prescriptive in nature, but also falls short of the declared partnership principles. Without the understanding of partners’ internal dilemmas and needs, which could only be achieved through the equivalence and reciprocity of partnership, the EU would struggle to make the policy effective and legitimate in the region, and to buttress its reputation as a ‘credible force for good’ on the international arena. This book was published as a special issue of the Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics.

This book examines EU Eastern Partnership taking into account geopolitical challenges of EU integration. It highlights reasons for limited success, such as systematic conflict of EU External Action. In addition, the book analyses country-specific issues and discusses EaP influence on them, investigating political, economic and social factors, while seeking for potential solutions to existing problems. The reluctance of the Eastern countries to the European reforms should not reduce political pro-activeness of the EU. The authors suggest that EaP strategies should be reviewed to be more reciprocal and not based solely on the EU-laden agenda. This book is one of the good examples of cooperation between scholars not only from EaP and EU countries, but also from different disciplines, bringing diversity to the discussion process.

This book arrives at a very significant time throughout Europe. Not only is the European Union currently facing a prolonged economic and social crisis, with nascent political consequences, such as the ascension of populist parties in the 2014 European elections, but also its Eastern neighbourhood is confronted with the growing hostility of an assertive Russia, opposing any new advance of the West towards its frontiers. Bringing together experts in fields such as international relations, political science, political sociology, diplomacy, security studies, and European studies, with robust academic and professional backgrounds and expertise with regard to the region, this volume explores this significant “window of opportunity”, and will undoubtedly appeal to a global audience. The considerable diversity of approaches and styles here allows a multidimensional diagnosis and analysis of present-day Eastern Europe. This volume defines a series of major regional opportunities, vulnerabilities and dilemmas, and explores the complex perspectives of the “new Eastern Europe”, located between the European Union and Russia, under its current name of the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood, along with the tensions and challenges of a possible second Cold War.

Even before the Ukrainian crisis, neither Russia nor the EU were content with their relationship. Despite economic interdependence, strategic partnership, official declarations of belonging culturally and historically to the same ‘European family’ and in spite of Russia’s stated interest in establishing an economic community stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok, the two actors found it difficult to agree on important issues. The conflictual atmosphere between the EU and Russia has three main dimensions: the normative issue, energy relations, and the shared neighbourhood with the latter being particularly salient after the launch of the Eastern Partnership (EaP) in 2009. The former Soviet space is at the core of Russian foreign policy. Moscow’s special interest in this area results from economic factors, diaspora issues, and, most importantly, from its perceived security need. Obsessed by a fear of being encircled by enemies, Russia sees its hegemony over the former Soviet republics as paramount to the protection of its own borders. Therefore, the rapprochement of any other actor towards this region is regarded with high suspicion. Against this background, Vasile Rotaru analyzes EU-Russia relations with a particular emphasis on the impact of the EaP on Moscow’s relations with Brussels. He argues that the EaP represented a turning point in EU-Russia relations, determining Moscow to revise its attitude towards the Union. Rotaru explains that, even if the EaP was Brussels’ initiative, the Partnership met the aspirations of the six former Soviet republics. Moreover, despite its opposition towards the EU’s initiative, Russia itself acted involuntarily as a propeller of the EaP. By aiming to keep the former Soviet republics close, Moscow often conducts an assertive, aggressive policy in the ‘near abroad.’ This strategy, however, had mostly opposite effects, causing Russia’s neighbors to look elsewhere for support of their sovereignty. From this perspective, the rapprochement of Moldova, Belarus, Ukraine, and the three Caucasus republics with the EU has not been determined only by Brussels’ prosperity and soft-power attractiveness but also by existential fears in the former Soviet republics. The book appeals to a wide range of students, researchers, and professors specializing on Russia, the EU, and the former Soviet space in the fields of International Relations, Foreign Policy Analysis, and Security Studies as well as to think-tank analysts and policy makers.

PDF of this book can be downloaded from: http://martenscentre.eu/publications/building-lifeline-freedom-eastern-partnership-20 The Eastern Partnership (EaP) Initiative is the bridge which connects Europe to the countries in its eastern neighbourhood. Those countries were left out of the cycle of peaceful development, which the European project brought to the continent following the Second World War. It aspires to transform these countries into more democratic and prosperous societies. Over the last five years, the EaP has achieved more in some partner countries than in others. Structural policy weaknesses and different socio-economic realities of the partner states notwithstanding, the main challenge to the success of the EaP has come from Russia, which chose to view this policy as a zero-sum game for geopolitical dominance in its shared neighbourhoodÊwith Europe. This paper argues that in order to achieve the desired transformations, the EaP needs a fresh start, focusing on different players, methods and political technologies. Failure of the EaP to achieve its goal could deprive another generation of Georgians, Moldovans, Ukrainians and others in the EaP countries of an opportunity for a better life.