Standing in the wood-paneled briefing room outside the European Council headquarters in Brussels yesterday, I watched the diplomatic ritual unfold as foreign ministers filed in for what many insiders expected would be routine discussions. Six hours later, they emerged with what could only be described as a recalibration of the EU’s eastern partnership strategy.
“We’re seeing a decisive moment for European security architecture,” Josep Borrell, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, told a small group of reporters afterward, his voice carrying the weight of someone managing multiple crises simultaneously. “Our decisions today reflect both urgency and strategic patience.”
The Council’s marathon session focused primarily on three countries where Russian influence and European integration ambitions clash most visibly: Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia. What emerged wasn’t simply a statement of solidarity, but rather a multi-tiered approach that recognizes each country’s distinct trajectory.
For Ukraine, the Council approved an additional €1.5 billion in military assistance through the European Peace Facility, bringing total EU military support to nearly €16 billion since Russia’s full-scale invasion began. This comes as Ukrainian forces face intensifying pressure along the eastern front, with recent Russian advances near Pokrovsk threatening to stretch defensive capabilities further.
“The situation demands concrete action, not just statements,” said Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, who has consistently advocated for more robust support measures. “Every day we debate, Ukrainian soldiers pay with their lives.”
The assistance package includes critical air defense components, artillery ammunition, and anti-drone systems – precisely what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky requested during his virtual address to the ministers. However, notable divisions persisted on the question of long-range strike capabilities, with Hungary and Slovakia expressing reservations about potential escalation risks.
Walking through Brussels’ European Quarter after the meeting, I spoke with a senior diplomat from an Eastern European member state who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “The reality is that we’re still fighting internal battles over how to support Ukraine effectively,” the diplomat confided. “The consensus exists on paper, but implementation always reveals the cracks in our unity.”
Moldova’s EU accession path received substantial attention, with ministers endorsing the Commission’s recommendation to formally open membership negotiations in June. Prime Minister Dorin Recean’s government has accelerated anti-corruption reforms and judicial restructuring, despite facing what EU officials characterized as “persistent destabilization attempts” from pro-Russian entities within the country.
French Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné specifically highlighted Moldova’s vulnerability to economic coercion. “We’ve seen energy being weaponized against Chisinau repeatedly,” he noted. “Our comprehensive resilience package demonstrates that choosing a European path won’t leave Moldova exposed to these pressures.”
The €200 million economic stabilization fund approved for Moldova targets specifically the energy sector independence and infrastructure connections with Romania. This represents a clear recognition that Moldova’s European integration requires not just political will but economic viability.
Perhaps the most contentious discussions centered on Georgia, where recent legislative developments have raised alarm bells about democratic backsliding. The controversial “foreign influence” law, reminiscent of Russia’s own foreign agent legislation, prompted unusually direct criticism from ministers.
“What we’re witnessing in Georgia is deeply troubling,” said German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. “A government claiming to want EU membership while simultaneously adopting laws that clearly contradict European values and standards.”
The Council stopped short of imposing sanctions on Georgian officials, instead adopting what Borrell described as a “calibrated response” – suspending certain assistance programs while maintaining civil society support mechanisms. This measured approach reflects the EU’s reluctance to push Georgia further toward Moscow’s orbit, even while expressing serious concerns about its democratic trajectory.
In Tbilisi’s Freedom Square last month, I witnessed firsthand the massive pro-European demonstrations against the foreign influence law. Thousands of citizens waving EU flags chanted “We are Europe” while facing water cannons and riot police. That stark image of democratic aspiration colliding with authoritarian tendencies illustrates the complex reality the EU must navigate in its eastern neighborhood.
The Council’s discussions extended beyond the immediate neighborhood to address the concerning coordination between Russia, North Korea, and Iran in supplying weapons for Moscow’s war effort. Intelligence assessments presented to ministers indicated that North Korean artillery shells and Iranian drones continue reaching Russian forces in substantial quantities, prompting calls for strengthened secondary sanctions.
“This is a global challenge requiring a global response,” emphasized Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna. “We cannot allow authoritarian regimes to create alternative supply chains that fuel aggression in Europe.”
The meeting also addressed the deepening economic ties between Russia and China, with ministers receiving a detailed assessment from the Commission on how Russian energy exports have been redirected eastward. While acknowledging limitations in the EU’s ability to influence Beijing’s strategic choices, the Council directed the Commission to identify potential pressure points within the complex Russia-China economic relationship.
What became clear throughout the discussions is that the EU’s eastern policy has evolved from aspirational partnership frameworks to hard-headed security calculations. The language used by ministers reflected this shift – fewer references to “shared values” and more emphasis on “strategic resilience” and “security imperatives.”
As I left Brussels this morning, Parliament Square was filled with Ukrainian, Moldovan, and Georgian flags – visible symbols of European aspirations that remain very much alive despite geopolitical headwinds. The real test for the decisions made yesterday will be whether they translate into tangible security improvements and democratic resilience in countries caught between competing visions of Europe’s future.
For the citizens living in these contested spaces, European integration isn’t an abstract diplomatic exercise but a fundamental choice about what kind of societies they wish to build. The Council’s decisions suggest the EU increasingly understands this reality – even if its response sometimes struggles to match the scale of the challenge.
