While the scope of the paper is to assess the actions undertaken by the European Union towards the FSU-CIS (the former Soviet Union, Commonwealth of Independent States) which was manifested through the Eastern Partnership Initiative in the years 2008–2014, the focus will be centred on theoretical concepts and their ‘explanatory power’ rather than actions undertaken by European or Russian decision makers. Taking that into the account, this essay will critically assess the explanatory power of the neorealist school of thought which although overtly criticized, still remains a viable tool in explaining the processes occurring in international relations.

With the end of the Cold War research on hegemony has attracted the interest of scholars in IR. Representatives of different schools of thought, such as Neoliberalism or the English school, successfully adopted the term to the new international context. Concepts such as “legitimate” or “soft” hegemony have enriched the discourse in IR. At the same time, realists and neorealists seemed to be on the defensive, as classical and material perceptions of hegemony became outdated. Regardless, with the intensifying US-Chinese rivalry as well as the revisionist policies of the Russian Federation, the IR community seems to look at realist writings more favorably. This research focuses on one of the most prominent research programs in IR, neorealism, and its compatibility with the concept of hegemony. By adopting Imre Lakatos’ concept of Research Programmes, we prove the core ideas of neorealism do not contradict hegemony. This opens perspectives for further work on the concept we refer to as hegemonic neorealism.