Reports

REDEMOS Report D4.3

Lessons learnt - political transition in the eastern neighbourhood

Madalina Dobrescu & Tobias Schumacher

The EU’s eastern neighbourhood is characterised not by linear democratisation but by highly differentiated and dynamic regime trajectories, where democratic progress, stagnation, regression, and authoritarian consolidation coexist. Developments across the six countries have been marked by heterogeneity rather than convergence.  These divergent pathways underscore the importance of domestic political configurations and external pressures in shaping regime outcomes, a point consistent with broader scholarship emphasising the interaction between internal and external drivers of democratization.

Keywords: EU, eastern neighbourhood, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, political transition, democratisation

READ MORE
REDEMOS Report D4.3
Lessons learnt - political transition in the eastern neighbourhood
Download Working Paper

The EU’s eastern neighbourhood is characterised not by linear democratisation but by highly differentiated and dynamic regime trajectories, where democratic progress, stagnation, regression, and authoritarian consolidation coexist. Developments across the six countries have been marked by heterogeneity rather than convergence.  These divergent pathways underscore the importance of domestic political configurations and external pressures in shaping regime outcomes, a point consistent with broader scholarship emphasising the interaction between internal and external drivers of democratization.

Citation: Dobrescu, M., & Schumacher, T. (2025). Lessons learnt - political transition in the eastern neighbourhood. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19660913

REDEMOS Report D5.3

Evaluating the impact of domestic political factors on EU democracy support

Vassilis Karokis-Mavrikos, Theofanis Exadaktylos, Laura Chappell, Murad Nasibov & Marianne Kneuer

This report evaluates how domestic political factors – i.e. in support-receiving countries – shape democracy support priorities in the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood.  By focusing on the most recent regime states experienced by Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Belarus, the report identifies context-specific democratic vulnerabilities and opportunities that are directly relevant for the design of democracy support strategies.

Keywords: EU, Eastern neighbourhood, Armenia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, democracy support, regime type

READ MORE
REDEMOS Report D5.3
Evaluating the impact of domestic political factors on EU democracy support
Download Working Paper

This report evaluates how domestic political factors – i.e. in support-receiving countries – shape democracy support priorities in the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood. Building on the regime states framework developed in REDEMOS WP5, and focusing on the period 1990-2023, it adopts a dynamic understanding of political regimes that captures not only regime type but also recent trajectories of stability, deterioration, or improvement. By focusing on the most recent regime states experienced by Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Belarus, the report identifies context-specific democratic vulnerabilities and opportunities that are directly relevant for the design of democracy support strategies.

Across the Eastern Neighbourhood, five categories of domestic factors emerge as particularly important for democracy support priorities: judicial independence and accountability; electoral integrity; the media and information environment; executive power and oversight; and civil society and association rights. While the salience of these factors varies across regime states, weaknesses in judicial independence and accountability appear as a cross-cutting constraint on democratic consolidation in all six countries. Electoral integrity and media pluralism are especially decisive in contexts characterised by electoral democracy downturns or instability, while executive dominance and restrictions on civil society are most pronounced in persistently autocratic settings.

The findings underscore that democracy support cannot rely on uniform templates. In countries experiencing democratic downturns or early signs of regression, such as Armenia and Georgia, targeted support for electoral integrity, judicial independence, media freedom, and civil society protection is essential to prevent further erosion. In Moldova and Ukraine, where recent improvements coexist with structural vulnerabilities, democracy support should prioritise consolidating gains through institutional safeguards and oversight mechanisms. In entrenched autocracies such as Azerbaijan and Belarus, opportunities for engagement are more limited, requiring long-term, indirect strategies focused on civil society, accountability norms, and external pressure.

Overall, the report demonstrates that effective EU democracy support depends on aligning policy instruments with both regime type and regime dynamics. A time –and country-sensitive approach – one that anticipates emerging vulnerabilities and exploits democratic openings early – offers the best prospects for sustaining democratic resilience and preventing backsliding in the Eastern Neighbourhood.

Citation: Karokis-Mavrikos, V., Exadaktylos, T., Chappell, L., Nasibov, M., & Kneuer, M. (2026). Evaluating the impact of domestic political factors on EU democracy support. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18505569

REDEMOS Report D6.3, December 2025

Third-Country Competition and EU Democracy Support in the Eastern Neighbourhood

Kristi Raik, Igor Gretskiy, Tetiana Fedosiuk, Ekaterine Metreveli, Kakha Gogolashvili, Arusyak Aleksanyan & Alexander Maltsev

This report analyses and compares the strategies of four major geopolitical actors—Russia, China, the United States (US), and the European Union (EU)—in the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood (EN). It focuses on how their competing or overlapping approaches influence political transition and democratic development across Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. 

Keywords: EU, European Union, United States, US, Eastern neighbourhood, Russia, China, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Democracy promotion, Security, Geopolitics, Democracy

READ MORE
REDEMOS Report D6.3, December 2025
Third-Country Competition and EU Democracy Support in the Eastern Neighbourhood
Download Working Paper

This report analyses and compares the strategies of four major geopolitical actors—Russia, China, the United States (US), and the European Union (EU)—in the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood (EN). It focuses on how their competing or overlapping approaches influence political transition and democratic development across Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. The EN region represents a geopolitical crossroads, where external ambitions collide with fragile state institutions and contested democratic trajectories.

The report argues that while the EU and the US have supported democratic governance through conditionality, institutional reforms, and civil society assistance, their influence has been uneven and often limited by internal political divisions and geopolitical caution. Russia, by contrast, actively undermines democratic development as it seeks to keep the countries under its control by violating their security and sovereignty, exploiting various tools of influence, such as energy blackmail and disinformation, and using or threatening to use military force. China, though less overtly political, promotes a ‘development-first’ model that often undermines democratic conditionality, pursuing bilateral economic relations and technological influence.’

By summarising and synthesising the findings of REDEMOS WP6 and complementing them with a review of relevant documents and previous research, the report concludes that external influences in the EN region have produced fragmented and contested outcomes for democracy. The EU must adapt to the increasingly competitive geopolitical environment by complementing its democracy promotion strategies with stronger support to the security and sovereignty of EN countries and cooperation to enhance their resilience against authoritarian interference.

Citation: Raik, K., Gretskiy, I., Fedosiuk, T., Metreveli, E., Gogolashvili, K., Aleksanyan, A., & Maltsev, A. (2026). Third-Country Competition and EU Democracy Support in the Eastern Neighbourhood. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18267307

REDEMOS Report D7.3

Understanding coherence in EU democracy promotion in the Eastern Neighbourhood: discursive and relational perspectives

Ivan Gomza & Maryna Rabinovych

This report provides a synthetic overview of key insights from three REDEMOS working papers, brought together through a shared analytical focus on coherence in EU democracy promotion in the Eastern Neighbourhood. Rather than re-analysing primary data, the report adopts an approach of analytical synthesis, using coherence as a common reference point to identify patterns of alignment and tension across studies that differ in conceptual focus and methodology.

Keywords: coherence, EU, democracy promotion, Eastern neighbourhood, perceptions, policy coherence, policy preferences, China, Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Belarus, Ukraine

READ MORE
REDEMOS Report D7.3
Understanding coherence in EU democracy promotion in the Eastern Neighbourhood: discursive and relational perspectives
Download Working Paper

This report provides a synthetic overview of key insights from three REDEMOS working papers, brought together through a shared analytical focus on coherence in EU democracy promotion in the Eastern Neighbourhood. Rather than re-analysing primary data, the report adopts an approach of analytical synthesis, using coherence as a common reference point to identify patterns of alignment and tension across studies that differ in conceptual focus and methodology.

The three papers are deliberately sequenced to capture the layered nature of coherence. The analysis begins with the reflexive dimension of EU democracy promotion, examining how EU officials’ perceptions of the Union’s external image shape preferences for instruments and modes of engagement. It then turns to the discursive dimension, analysing how democracy is articulated, adapted, or contested in interactions between EU actors and counterparts in the EN region. Finally, it situates these dynamics within a broader context of external normative contestation, focusing on how Russia and China advance alternative narratives that challenge the EU’s democratic framing.

Taken together, the findings show that coherence in EU democracy promotion is neither uniform nor static. While EU democracy discourse remains relatively stable and codified at the institutional level, coherence becomes more uneven as this discourse travels across contexts and actors. Civil society organisations often act as important carriers and innovators of democratic meanings, while official discourses in partner countries display greater selectivity and instrumentalisation. External contestation further complicates coherence by exploiting existing ambiguities and by linking democracy promotion to broader geopolitical and security concerns.

Overall, the report conceptualises coherence not as a condition that can be fully achieved, but as a relational and dynamic property of EU democracy promotion, shaped by reflexivity, interaction, and contestation. Understanding coherence in this way helps explain both the resilience and the limits of EU democracy promotion in a contested neighbourhood and highlights the importance of engagement, adaptability, and credibility alongside normative consistency.

Citation: Gomza, I., & Rabinovych, M. (2026). Understanding coherence in EU democracy promotion in the Eastern Neighbourhood: discursive and relational perspectives. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18599130
  • This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation
    programme under grant agreement No 101061738. The Associated Partner University of Surrey has received
    funding from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) under the UK government’s Horizon Europe funding guarantee
    under grant number 10040721. The Associated Partner University of St. Gallen has received funding from the Swiss
    State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation(SERI). Views and opinions expressed are however those
    of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union, UKRI and SERI.

    Neither the European Union nor UKRI or SERI can be held responsible for them.