Authors

Olga Brusylovska¹;  ¹ Odesa I. I. Mechnikov National University, Ukraine

Discussion

This study is based on in-depth elite interviews conducted with Ukrainian representatives in early 2025. In-depth elite interviews are face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with people who either have significant influence on decision-making within and outside a public or private organisation or are highly qualified, professionally competent experts (Harvey, 2011: 432-433). The target group of our interviews were analysts, journalists, civil society representatives and decision-makers. The interviews allowed us to achieve three objectives: 1). to provide a critical account of the low effectiveness and stagnation of the EaP. 2). to examine the adequacy of current policy instruments and resources. 3). to assess relevant ideas and arguments from both the EU and the participating countries’ perspectives. A critical flaw in the current EaP structure is its lack of strategic coherence and institutional flexibility. Despite its ambitions, the EaP has largely failed to embed a security dimension into its framework – an omission that is increasingly untenable in the context of Russia’s war on Ukraine and broader regional instability. Moreover, the EU’s democratization tools have yielded mixed outcomes. While value-based conditionality has fostered tangible reforms in Ukraine, Moldova, and Armenia, it has been less effective in contexts of backsliding or authoritarian consolidation, such as in Georgia and Belarus. Without recalibrating its toolkit to better reflect these nuances, the EU risks both policy ineffectiveness and reputational damage. To remain relevant and effective, the EaP must be transformed into a differentiated, flexible, and strategically coherent platform that aligns with the EU’s security, enlargement, and foreign policy goals.
https://geo-power.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/The-relevance-of-EaP.pdf