Regrettably, the EU’s eastern borders are not characterized by peace and stability as envisaged in its strategic documents. Instead of amiable relations, peaceful conflict resolution, cooperation and mutual understanding promoted by the liberal worldview, the space in question rather reflects the revival of the past Cold War settings, characterized by the traditional great power politics and balancing merged with fierce competition. Russia’s recent rogue state behaviour in the region hamstrings any attempt to establish more constructive and cooperative relations with the Community. In addition, economic and social interactions between the EU and Russia have been severely damaged as well by the latter’s determination to restrict freedom and human rights, conduct aggressive military incursions and annex territories, to which the European Union have responded with several packages of sanctions. Russia’s feedback included the use of a mix of unconventional instruments from disinformation to cyberattacks, election interference etc., all meant to destabilize the EU. Concomitantly, the Arctic migratory route (Norway) gave testimony of third country nationals being used as a tool in Russia’s political manoeuvre against the EU and its Member States as well. In this regard, more and more scholars were talking about the weaponization of migration or the deliberate facilitation of irregular migration, even describing the deployed modus operandi as a tool in Russia’s hybrid warfare waged against the Community. Similar methods have been employed by the Belarusian government at its border with Poland, Latvia and Lithuania. As a consequence of the deliberate weaponizing of human beings by facilitating irregular immigration, Finland has also joined the group of EU Member States closing their borders with Russia and erecting fences. Accordingly, by using a cross-case over-time comparative analysis (3 case studies: Norway, Poland and Finland), the paper wishes to prove the existence of a pattern, Russia and Belarus deliberately weaponizing immigration, by pushing third country nationals at the EU borders, thus using human beings for political purposes. It is being argued that the erection of fences or augmenting the length of the fences are the results of the deliberate facilitation of irregular migration. The EU and its Members States’ collective response to the weaponization of immigration were grouped in five major categories, assessing the political/legal, institutional, inter-institutional, regulatory and societal measures.

Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Armenia and Georgia have pursued distinct paths in shaping their identity, foreign policy, and the role of Europe within them. Georgia has swiftly asserted its Europeanness and natural belonging to the European family, anchoring Euro-Atlantic integration as a foreign policy priority. Conversely, Armenia, while affirming a European identity, has prioritised relations with its Russian security ally and integrated into Moscow-led regional structures.

Starting from this initial comparison, this paper examines how, since the early 2020s, both countries have begun redefining their Selves and relations to Others, following nearly inverted trajectories. These shifts have become particularly evident since the onset of the full-scale war in Ukraine: Georgia has visibly disengaged from the EU, while Armenia has demonstrated an increasing willingness to deepen its engagement and integration with it.

Drawing on interviews with local actors in Armenia and Georgia, this paper highlights these shifting identities and foreign policy orientations, taking into account the impact of the full-scale war in Ukraine, as well as of domestic factors, and relations with other significant actors. It argues that major reconfigurations in regional dynamics and relations to Europe are currently unfolding in the EU’s Eastern neighbourhood, and particularly in the South Caucasus, at a time when the EU is finally opening its door to enlargement.

This paper critically examines the nature and dynamics of European Union (EU) development assistance to the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), formerly known as the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. The region is the only place in the Philippines where Muslims compose the majority of the population. Muslim Mindanao gained greater autonomy in 2019 after decades of violent conflict and the persistence of weak democratic institutions. Since the 1970s, Muslim secessionist movements have been fighting against government troops to gain independence from the predominantly Christian country. The instability engendered by the clashes has contributed to poor human development indicators in the region, which persist to the present day. Vis-à-vis other Philippine regions, BARMM has lower levels of life expectancy, educational attainment, while having higher levels of poverty as well as infant and maternal mortality.

The EU, previously the European Community, has involved itself with various projects in Muslim Mindanao since the 1970s. However, it may be argued that the nature of its engagement has shifted depending on the context of the regional bloc’s foreign policy priorities. For example, when the European organization was focused on reducing poverty in marginalized areas, it implemented small-scale assistance projects in Muslim Mindanao. When European states had agreed to follow the Millennium Development Goals in the early 2000s, EU engagement in the Philippine territory expanded to include health sector support, and the development of a Peace Process to reconcile Muslim secessionists and the Philippine government. At present, EU activities in the BARMM appear to be guided by the imperatives of the Indo-Pacific Strategy and Global Gateway project, with projects being focused on infrastructure development and the circular economy.

Despite the EU’s lengthy engagement in Muslim Mindanao, there is remarkably little academic literature about it, hence this paper hopes to build upon that space. Applying a Discourse-Historical Approach emphasizing the dialectical relationship of discourse and context, this paper argues that the EU's engagement in Muslim Mindanao has emphasized its foreign policy objectives, rather than the region’s immediate needs.