In early 2021 a new Eastern Partnership (EaP) Summit will take place between the European Union and the six countries in its eastern neighbourhood: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. After over a decade, the ambitious objectives of the EU’s Eastern Partnership policy to deliver ‘stability, security and prosperity’ to the region remain far from reality. Democratization and good governance reforms have been stalled by vested interests in Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova, while Azerbaijan and Belarus have remained outright autocratic, and the latter faces sustained domestic protests. The EaP faces geopolitical pushback by an increasingly assertive Russian Federation and the region is further affected by multiple protracted and ongoing conflicts, including the recent bitter war over Nagorno-Karabakh. But despite its shortcomings, the EaP is not without successes, especially but not only in the economic sphere. The EU has also managed to keep the door open for conversation, spurred lower-level reform and provided civil society support. As such, the EaP has an important role to play in the policy of the Netherlands towards the region, especially in light of recent requests by the Dutch Parliament to formulate an Eastern Europe strategy. But many thorny questions remain in the run-up to the summit.

This report assesses three policy dilemmas that need to be considered by the Netherlands and the European Union in order to make the EaP more effective. First, the EU needs to reconcile its geopolitical interests with its normative aspirations. Second, the added value of the EaP’s multilateral track should be deliberated with consideration of the differentiation in bilateral relations with EaP countries. Third, the EU will need to consider how to deal with protracted conflicts, hybrid threats, and other security challenges in the EaP region.

On the first dilemma, the report finds that to foster democratisation while simultaneously being responsive to geopolitical pressures, the EU should play a ‘long game’ that does not compromise on its values but instead uses them in a more geopolitical and strategic manner. In order to do so it should swap opportunistic policies of tacitly supporting undemocratic regimes for a more normative and consistent approach that offers a longer-term perspective of good governance, transparency and the rule of law.

Regarding the second dilemma, the report argues that while further differentiation and strengthening of the bilateral tracks is key to the success of the EaP, this does not conflict with its multilateral track that also has added value. It maintains a minimum level of engagement, helps keep EaP countries on the EU agenda, and offers a platform for cooperation on common challenges.

Finally, the report finds that further EU engagement on security-related issues is crucial to fill the security deficit that undermines both stability in the region and the momentum for reforms. Within the EaP, increased cooperation could take place on countering ‘hybrid threats’ such as cyber and disinformation but should also include security sector reform. Finally, the EU should intensify its efforts to resolve the many protracted conflicts across the region, even if it does so outside the EaP framework.