U nder conditions of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the escalation between the West and Russia, and the global confrontation, the European Union, as a constituent part of the West, is undergoing internal changes, which also have an impact on the foreign policy of the community. Amid the current international events, the EU tries more to maintain the “status quo” and has significantly passive foreign policy in recent years. In EU countries, the national interest more and more often prevails over the collective interest. Even Donald Tusk, who assumed the post of Prime Minister of Poland again in 2023, who held the position of the President of the European Council and the pro-European civil coalition in 2014-2019, is in no hurry to be more proactive in the field of foreign policy towards deeper integration of the European Union.

Earlier, Europe’s unity in foreign policy issues was mainly ensured by Germany, but after the end of Angela Merkel’s term, when she was replaced by Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Berlin seems to have given up that role to a certain extent. Currently, France is trying to act as a pioneer in the European consolidation policy. Recently, during the summit convened by President Emmanuel Macron in Paris, the possibility of sending Western troops to Ukraine was on the agenda, which although was not approved by other leaders of NATO and EU countries, nevertheless initiated such discussions. 

The current state of EU foreign policy

A gainst the background of current global and regional events, Eurosceptics claim that the European Union is not ready to face the growing tensions in the world, is strategically dependent on the US, is not economically self-sufficient, moreover, the spread of Western democratic values has lost importance, since more and more regions now face more viral challenges, including security and socio-economic, as well as more and more problems are solved by military means. Europe is anxiously waiting for the US presidential elections in November, worrying that if Donald Trump is re-elected, the Euro-Atlantic alliance could weaken, causing the European Union to suffer and lose its influence.

Many European intellectuals see the future role of Europe as a regional actor and not a global, as for the latter a clearer and stronger position is needed regarding the changes taking place in the neighboring regions, which based on Western political philosophy, should have been unacceptable for Europe. However, contrary to it, the EU is often indifferent to developments in neighboring regions.

At the same time, the struggle for “sovereignty” in EU member states hinders a unified foreign policy, which reduces the role of the EU in international relations. Many suggest that the European Union should focus on its own defense and security policy, strengthen its military wing, and support Ukraine, but, in their opinion, this will only suffice to be a regional actor, which should be the least of Europe’s problems.

The change of the status quo in Europe can be influenced, of course, by the events in Ukraine and the Middle East, possible unpredictable developments after the elections in the US, as well as the weakening of the latter’s absolute influence, and the growing power of China.

There is no unity among EU countries regarding Ukraine. The public unequivocally clearly supports neighboring Ukraine, but in the case of some countries, it is not considered a priority. Many assure that no matter how expensive it is for the Union to support Ukraine, Europe “will pay a higher price” for not supporting it, since the outcome of the situation in Ukraine will determine the fate of Europe as well. The other wing believes that the US bears more responsibility for Ukraine, as Europe is too dependent on the US for its security. Many suggest using frozen Russian assets to provide proper support to Ukraine and ease its financial burden. Recently, the Council of the European Union approved a decision, according to which profits from blocked Russian assets must be recorded and kept separately. It aims to invest the assets with a possible net profit into the EU budget to support Ukraine and the country’s reconstruction. At the same time, it is proposed to boost the defense industry. Some political powers opposed to supporting Ukraine attribute this to public “fatigue” and the burden of the war. Many are disappointed that the military operations have not ended for two years, the sanctions against Russia do not give the desired result, and the Russian military industry continues to develop.

The expansion of the European Union is also on the agenda, but everything is not smoother here either. The EU institutions have been criticized for the persistent lack of progress in the Balkans, for example, while progress was made last year in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. Within the EU, there are also countries, that oppose enlargement. In particular, Hungary, whose leader Viktor Orban has recently repeatedly obstructed decision-making in both the EU and NATO. Some countries, for instance, the Netherlands, associate the expansion of the European Union with the influx of refugees and labor migrants. To introduce certain solidarity and unity, it is proposed to make decisions in foreign political and security matters by a qualitative majority of votes, not by unanimity, but this is still only at the stage of discussions.

Main intrigue of the European Parliament elections

B efore the transition to global changes, an important test awaits the European Union this year. The European Parliament elections will take place from 6 to 9 June, which will determine the political direction of the EU for the next five years, and as a result, 720 MEPs will be elected. Although the average European places more importance on socio-economic and refugee issues, foreign political issues will play an important role in the pre-election campaign of political forces, in particular, the EU’s dependence on the US, the building of future relations with Russia and China, the problem of energy carriers and financial issues.

Based on a study by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), Eurosceptics are favored in nine countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia. They can occupy the second or third position in nine countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden. According to the ECFR forecast, almost half of the mandates in the European Parliament will go to MEPs who are not part of the coalition of the three centrist factions made up of the European People’s Party, the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, and the Renew Europe group. Conservatives and reformists, radical rights and populists will get a large number of seats. Despite this, the analysis shows that the European People’s Party will continue to be the largest party, with the liberals and greens in decline.

According to the forecasts, the rights will take third place in the elections, thus strengthening its position, which will lead to more heated debates in the European Parliament, including on foreign policy issues, in particular support for Ukraine. It is possible, that the conservatives, Eurosceptics, and radical rights will form a coalition and independent MEPs will join them.

Thus, the centrist forces must cooperate with the radical left, otherwise, they will not have much influence in the European Parliament. But now many conservatives, including in Germany, cooperate with the radical right due to existing trends or similarity of ideas, which further strengthens the positions of the latter.

On the eve of elections, populism and the use of modern communication technologies by parties are becoming more common in demand. They are best used by radical rights. Others avoid direct contact with voters, relying on intermediaries such as PR agencies and political technologists. Meantime, the representatives of the right often meet and have discussions with the voters, which creates the impression among the latter that these politicians understand them better and are more reliable. 

It is predicted that 20-25 percent of voters in many European countries will vote for the far-right. In Europe, they are worried that the victory of the right in various countries will become a serious challenge to the fundamental principles of the EU. Moreover, many claim, that Russia and China support the far-right.

The activation of the radical right is due to numerous factors, including increasing migration flows, inflation, negative perceptions of support for Ukraine, and negative reaction to the politics of the “greens”. However, in some countries, the right has gone backward, as in Poland, Spain, and Estonia. To win elections, centrist forces must be able to propose a change to the status quo. But so far, they have ignored far-right parties, trying to divert public attention from difficult issues like immigration, and then adopting some far-right views, to win back voters, thus further legitimizing their theses.

It is noteworthy, that from June 1, Hungary takes over the presidency of the EU, which has created the most problems for the unity of the European Union in recent years. Prime Minister Orban is known as a leader who abuses his right of veto and expects large financial support from the EU in exchange for not using the veto. Following the elections, during the formation of the European Parliament and the EU Council, it is Orban who will be responsible for the formation of the Union’s agenda. 

Many state that Orban poses a great threat to European democracy, as his presidency coincides with the formation of the EU agenda for the next five years. It is noteworthy that at the same time, the US presidential elections will take place, and Orban is supporting Donald Trump, who is not a preferred candidate for the European Union.

Now the European institutions are taking steps to avoid leaving the European Union “hostage” in the hands of the Hungarian leader. Orban’s government is currently under two sanctions procedures for systemic violations of the rule of law. According to European experts, the governments of the EU countries can decide that the country against which sanctions have been imposed cannot preside over the Union.  

EU and the South Caucasus

R eferring to the role of the South Caucasus in the foreign policy of the European Union, it should be noted that the region is not on the list of EU priorities. At the same time, the Union cannot consider the South Caucasus as a single region. One of the reasons is the unsettled relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, in the ongoing negotiations, the parties are still far from a mutually acceptable solution, and the possibility of new tensions and military operations has not been neutralized. Another reason is that the European Union’s relations with the countries of the region are at a different level.  Armenia-EU relations are currently governed by the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement. There are separate formats of cooperation in certain fields. The European Union’s civilian observation mission is located in Armenia, which monitors the border with Azerbaijan. Furthermore, Armenia is intensifying defense cooperation with both the European Union and separate EU member states, such as France and Greece. As for Georgia, Tbilisi received the EU membership candidate status several months ago. However, in this regard, there are problems from both sides. The issues of enlargement in the European Union came to the agenda only against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine, and the Balkan countries are dissatisfied with the lack of change in their status. For instance, North Macedonia gained candidate status nearly 20 years ago, in 2005, Montenegro in 2010, Serbia in 2012, and Turkey in 1999. As for Georgia, the latter still has to ensure the implementation of all necessary reforms to comply with the EU standards. At the same time, some changes in Georgia’s approach to the conflict in Ukraine and the restart of relations with Moscow were perceived negatively by the European Union. Relations between the European Union and Azerbaijan are regulated by the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which entered into force in 1999. Negotiations on a new framework agreement, which began in 2017, have not yet been completed. Although Azerbaijan is an important energy partner of the EU, the latter cannot turn a blind eye to recent human rights violations by Baku and also focuses on the closer cooperation between Azerbaijan and Russia.

Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan are also part of the EU’s Eastern Partnership, which many consider exhausted in the context of the overall enlargement policy. They think that the program needs new approaches and reforms, as well as a clear agenda. Many blame the European Union also for the lack of a consistent policy in the region, as well as for considering the relations with these countries through the prism of the relations with Russia. The biggest question mark in the possible changes in the EU’s foreign policy in the South Caucasus after the European Parliament elections. Charles Michel, President of the European Council, who played an important role in the mediation efforts of the Armenia-Azerbaijan negotiations, has already announced that he will not participate in the elections.       

Nevertheless, following the elections, the European Union should take steps to review its foreign policy, including relations with the South Caucasus. The lack of a stable agenda and a clear position in the next five years may create new, more serious problems for the European Union since there are tendencies to deepen the polarization between political forces.