In today’s Europe hardly anyone gives a second thought to the letters they use to write, as they are almost invariably from the Latin alphabet. This is followed by the use of Cyrillic in Bulgaria and Ukraine, and the Greek alphabet in Cyprus and Greece. Yet, until the Holocaust, Hebrew was the continent’s third-largest script by number of users.

Nearly three years since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, the Kaliningrad Oblast has been fully incorporated into Russian’s belligerent and quasi-imperial rhetoric. The Kremlin has used its exclave’s past to portray Kaliningrad as a battleground of civilizations and a special place for Russian collective memory.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the hopes were high for the Kaliningrad Oblast’s future: foreign investments, the creation of a free trade zone and even a certain degree of autonomy were all on the table. Most of them, however, remained unfulfilled as Moscow was never ready to give up its dominating authority over the region even in the face of deep economic and political crisis.

Democratic politics has a key responsibility to prevent extreme societal polarization and divisive culture wars, which create fertile ground for malicious interference and deception. While Russia and China actively spread disinformation to undermine open societies, what should a European response to the deadly threat of disinformation look like?

The European Union has continued to lag behind the changing circumstances of the world order. If this is to change, the bloc will have to take a look at its ability to act in a collective manner. Such necessity asks existential questions of the EU’s position in the world today.

As long as we have different narratives concerning the real meaning of Russia’s war in Ukraine, the European Union will not be able to act as a coherent and pro-active geopolitical player. The EU should attempt to find a common language to talk about the war and its implications. Only then will we be able to uphold security across the continent, both for ourselves and our partners.

The recent meeting of the UN General Assembly proved to be a focal point for all the uncertainties the world is currently facing: the ineffectiveness of multilateralism; impunity for aggression and violations of international law; and increasing problems related to climate change and sustainable development goals. In short, the international rules-based order as perceived in the West is under threat with major uncertainties as a consequence.

A conversation with Borja Lasheras, advisor on Ukraine to Joseph Borrell, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Interviewer: Iwona Reichardt

While the Eastern Partnership marked its 15th anniversary this year, its adaptability to current geopolitical developments has raised questions. Russia’s war in Ukraine and Ukraine’s and Moldova’s progress in EU accession have challenged the relevance of this policy. Yet, despite some shortcomings, the EaP can be a viable instrument to promote the regional agenda of the EU, invest in democratisation of individual countries and foster linkages with the key region of Eastern Europe. There are concrete steps that can increase the relevance of this policy.

Launched in 2009 in Prague, the European Union’s Eastern Partnership (EaP) policy has been one of the most visible and efficient tools of EU foreign policy over the past decade and a half. On the occasion of its 15-year-anniversary, which we celebrated in May 2024, a proper stock-taking of the current state of play is in order. This is particularly important since the EaP is undergoing some fundamental changes, being challenged particularly by the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine as well as by the Kremlin’s aggression against its other neighbours, of which six are united within the regional policy framework of the EU.

Serbia has become well known for its geopolitical position between East and West. Despite this, sharp divides also exist at every level of the country’s society. While Belgrade has eagerly embraced a neoliberal model, it still promotes its role as a defender of traditional values. The effects of such contradictions can be seen throughout Serbia.

Serbia is a country of contradictions. It is very close to the European Union, in fact almost in the centre of Europe, but at the same time it is very far from it. Serbian labour migrants have always chosen Western Europe as a destination for emigration, but the heart of the nation beats in the East, with a cultural and sentimental link to Russia. In Serbia, joining the EU is more a matter of national and social prestige – joining a club of rich and well-ordered countries – than a necessity. To the contrary, many of the rules laid down by the EU are seen as an obstacle and a hindrance to EU candidates.

An interview with Kacper Rękawek, senior fellow at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism. Interviewer: Andrzej Kozłowski

ANDRZEJ KOZŁOWSKI: How is Russia exploiting far-right organizations in Europe?

KACPER RĘKAWEK: This process began over ten years ago and specifically after the 2012 protests in Moscow, when Russians gathered at Bolotnaya Square to express their disagreement with Putin’s third term as president. Having seen the protesters, who in large numbers were representatives of the urban middle class, the Russian authorities came to the conclusion that it was the liberals who were the main threat to the regime. Although these enemies were identified internally, the Kremlin decided to attack them abroad as well.

When discussing the history of NATO and the Alliance’s experiences of the last 75 years, maybe we should start with some important points that we often forget today, while they still have an influence on the current situation.

In examining Hungary's involvement within NATO over the past 25 years, one should begin with how the country views NATO. While Budapest is honoured to be a member of this esteemed organization, it is crucial to understand why.

The messaging found in Chinese foreign policy is used for specific purposes. For the most part, China is presenting itself as a positive alternative to western domination and a country interested in peace and stability. Under the surface, however, a closer examination reveals different intentions.

After decades of a focus on the West in global politics and the dominance of “Westsplaining” therein, the focus of the international community is now, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, visibly shifting towards the East. This shift is of course dictated by Russia’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine and the immediate threat that it poses to the European Union and NATO. However, the eyes of free world’s public and policymakers are not stopping only at Russia’s borders. They look further, all the way to China.