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.

The article presents an analysis of the problems and prospects of relations between Russian Federation and Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). These relationships are discussed in broader political context of Russia's relations with the European Union. The author believes that in conflict situations the both parties are responsible. As an optimal strategy the author examines the possibility of linking the integration processes in the Eurasian region – the so-called "integration of integrations", that can become a framework for interfacing the national interests of Russia and the EU's interests. A special role in the normalization of relations in Eurasia the CEE countries are devoted to play – CEE may become a bridge between Russia and Western Europe.

Po wyborach prezydenckich w 2010 r. na Białorusi relacje białorusko-unijne weszły w fazę ostrego konfliktu politycznego. UE przyjęła sankcje wizowe i gospodarcze wobec Białorusi. UE zawiesiła również udział Białorusi w programie Partnerstwa Wschodniego. Do eskalacji konfliktu doszło na początku 2012 r., gdy ambasadorowie UE wyjechali z Białorusi. W kolejnych miesiącach UE przeszła do polityki krytycznego zaangażowania wobec Białorusi, która przejawiała się utrzymywaniem kontaktów z reżimem na poziomie technicznym. W drugiej połowie 2013 r. nastąpiła niewielka poprawa obustronnych relacji. Szczyt Partnerstwa Wschodniego w 2013 r. nie przyniósł wyraźnego przełomu na linii Bruksela–Mińsk.

The aim of the paper is an attempt at evaluating the Eastern Partnership from the point of view of the socio-cultural dimension in a broad sense. Do cultural and civilisational factors influence relations between the EU and Eastern European and South Caucasus countries? Is the EU capable of further enlargement? The Eastern Partnership is experiencing significant turmoil (Russia-Ukraine war, unstable South Caucasus) which begs the question of the future of the policy. Moreover, the paper tackles the issue of the EU’s internal factors and their influence upon relations with Eastern countries.

The article seeks to assess the degree to which Poland exercises power and influence in the Eastern policy of the European Union (EU) from the early 21st century until now, focusing on the attributes of Poland’s latest contribution to the EU policies – the Eastern Partnership (EaP). The article examines also challenges and discussions on Polish strategy towards Eastern Europe. The authors prove that the main points of Poland’s Eastern policy are that the improper attention to it will result in loss of status positions in the international arena; Poland should not be limited by the role of the architect artist in Franco-German project in Europe; European perspective is the only incentive that can encourage the reforms in Eastern Europe; the failure to provide such a perspective would lead to social and economic instability in the region and the drift towards the participation in reintegration projects in post-Soviet space with Moscow; the Eastern Partnership should be considered as a step towards the joining the EU; Europe will take Poland into consideration only as a regional leader; Russian neo-imperialism is a challenge for Poland’s security and needs a strict reaction.

The subject of analysis is the assumption that the concept of soft power may be used as a theoretical basis for the interpretation of the EU influence on the less stable regions facing the spread of international conflicts. On the basis of current events and the high degree of instability in the region, it should be stated that such instruments are not efficient when it comes to Russia. In order to prove the above mentioned assumption, one needs to define the nature and specificity of the EU as soft power in the post-Westphalian international order. In the context of the use of such instruments, the analysis will also cover the manifestation of their implementation and efficiency in the EU policy towards Ukrainian crisis. Thus, it is essential to answer a few research questions. Firstly, what is the specificity of the EU in post-Westphalian international order? Secondly, what means does the EU have at its disposal and is it able to achieve its objectives and meet expectations which the international environment has towards it? Lastly, how can we assess the efficiency of the soft power instruments used by the Union in specific region of Eastern Europe, particularly during Ukrainian crisis?

The authors have taken in their article topic about the Presidency of the Council of the European Union because of the impending coverage for Poland the presidency in that organ. Briefly, the three countries have been characterized that are part of the so- called Second Presidency Trio (Federation of the French Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Czech Republic). The article in authors opinion is aimed at selecting the most important and the most useful aspects and determinants of good Presidency. Each of the countries that are part of this Trio has been subjected to detailed analysis in terms of goals and their final implementation. According to the authors of the text, for the Polish Presidency of the European Union the most will be to stick to the pre- designated purposes such as European Union enlargement to Croatia, or take action for the Eastern Partnership and the Region of the Baltic Sea.

The European Union resembles only partly a community in the way it works. The internal differences between the member countries, disclosed in their full strength by the financial crisis, dilute the foundations of the European unity. Will the EU survive this bend, as it has in the past, or will it share the fate of other unsuccessful political and economical unions known from history? Considering the latter possibility remains, in any case, no longer just an exercise in political fiction. The fact that the Union is not uniform has been known since it ceased to be a safe, close union of six founding countries. Yet only the extension to the East in 2004, accepting simultaneously ten new countries, gave rise to a heated discussion, whether an Union of 27 countries can work jointly at all, taking into consideration the increasingly visible disproportions between its members. It also quickly turned out that the Lisbon Treaty is just partly an answer to this dilemma. An institutional reform did not protect the Union from new, huge shocks, which the financial crisis brought with it. These phenomena create a challenge for Poland, which will take up its half-year EU presidency in the middle of 2011. They will not always agree with the plans and means concerning the realization of the planned actions.

The peculiarities of implementing the policy of the EU’s Eastern Partnership Initiative in regards to protecting the rights of national minorities have been studied. The issue of national minorities in the EU is considered from the perspectives of security, democracy, and regional integration. Despite contemporary criticism of the EU’s Eastern Partnership Initiative, many initiatives aimed at protecting the rights of national minorities in the region have been implemented, thereby fostering intergovernmental cooperation. It is evident that Ukraine and Moldova are the most proactive in protecting the rights of national minorities amongst the Eastern Partnership countries. These countries have been granted the status of candidate for EU accession. Despite the Russian-Ukrainian war, Ukraine actively works on improving legislation in the field of ethno-policy. Particular emphasis is placed on analysis of the institutional structure of national minorities, communication pathways, and non-discriminatory policies in Eastern Partnership countries. Member states of the Eastern Partnership actively utilize “soft power” techniques through a network of minority organizations. It has been suggested that European integration of Ukraine and Moldova has generated considerable opportunities for the development of national minorities. Loosening of state borders has enabled national minorities to connect more deeply with their ethnic homelands, thereby transforming them into engaged participants of transborder cooperation and significant figures of regional policy. The Eastern Partnership furnishes a platform for minorities to assert themselves in decisions which pertain to their lives, execute grant initiatives, and take part in regional associations of minorities. Nevertheless, certain risks are highlighted, such as particular nations exploiting EU enlargement to tackle minority matters or manipulate minority rights. The EU has analyzed programs supporting national minorities, especially those implemented in the Eastern Partnership countries. While Eastern Partnership countries have developed their policies regarding national minorities, there are common problems faced by minorities in the region. Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Azerbaijan, and Armenia are involved in conflicts, being former Soviet Union countries, and face numerous challenges concerning the functioning of the Russian minority, which is numerically significant in this region. It is stated that the EU cooperates with the Eastern Partnership countries on matters regarding national minorities, and it is crucial to develop innovative models for managing ethnic diversity, promoting the involvement of national minorities in making socio-political decisions and integrating them into society.