Dr. Rabinovych, from 28 April to 1 May 2025, you had the opportunity to visit the EUI through the CIVICA Call for Ukrainian Scholar Short Visits. Could you tell us about what motivated you to visit our institution and the specific project you are following?

I have been working with European integration for almost a decade. My first steps in this field were connected to the time when the Ukraine–EU Association Agreement was about to be signed. But then the whole process stopped because of former President Yanukovych and his refusal to sign the agreement. He tried to use all possible means to pull Ukraine out of the negotiations, which marked a period of significant turmoil for the country. At the same time, we were deciding, as students, which direction our studies would take – and European integration was something I felt could be truly important.

After that, I wanted to pursue a PhD at the EUI. Although I wasn’t successful in gaining admission, I later followed a different path and met many colleagues with whom I shared the EU Enlargement Hub project – including Veronica Anghel, Assistant Professor at the Robert Schuman Centre. This project involved the Kyiv School of Economics and several other initiatives with EUI colleagues. I met many of them at international conferences on the EU and therefore, I found the opportunity to visit the EUI via the CIVICA call very relevant for exploring further collaboration opportunities with Kyiv School of Economics.

At the moment, you’re working on the research project ‘REDEMOS’. Could you please explain what the project is about? In which ways does it aim to contribute to EU policy innovation through its proposed inclusive strategies for fostering democratic resilience in Eastern Europe?

REDEMOS is a Horizon Europe project with partners across various countries, including the main partner, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), along with institutions in St. Gallen, Dresden, in the UK, and in Eastern Partnership countries like Moldova and Georgia. The project aims to assess EU democracy support in the Eastern Neighbourhood from 2005 – the year following the launch of the European Neighbourhood Policy – until around 2022.

We aim to help the EU learn from this experience and analyse why Eastern Partnership countries have ended up on such different trajectories. While Ukraine and Moldova are now closest to the EU, Armenia and Georgia remain somewhat in limbo, fluctuating between the EU and Russia depending on the political situation and leadership. Belarus also officially ‘walked out’ from the Eastern Partnership in 2021. If we compare this to 2004–2005 or even 2009, when the Eastern Partnership was launched, most countries were more or less on the same page. Now they’ve diverged significantly, and we want to understand why: What has the EU done to shape this, which opportunities were used effectively, what challenges emerged, and what lessons can the EU draw for future engagement with its Eastern neighbours?

At the Kyiv School of Economics, we are responsible for two work packages. The one I am most involved in deals with EU democracy funding. We’ve compiled data from 2005 to 2022 – including EU funds, Member State contributions, USAID (which was the largest bilateral donor before Trump), and support from international organisations. This resulted in a database of around 1,500 entries.

This quantitative data helps us analyse the types of projects funded, where the EU placed its priorities, and which areas were neglected. For example, in a recent policy brief, we pointed out that the EU has mainly supported the electoral component of democracy during election periods, but not in the intervals between them. There have been long gaps without engagement with electoral institutions or with checks and balances – especially those related to informal influence on politics and elections.

This is understandable to some extent, as elections are closely tied to national sovereignty. But at the same time, if no one supports the core of democracy – elections themselves –then external actors are only working around the issue.

The second work package we’re involved in takes a different angle, which reflects REDEMOS’s broader ambition to approach democracy promotion from multiple perspectives. This package looks at the discourses around EU democracy support in the Eastern Neighbourhood. At the Kyiv School of Economics, we’re working on a comparative paper on Ukraine, Armenia, and Belarus, focusing on how much local stakeholders – including NGOs, civic movements, and volunteers – align in their understanding of democracy with that of the EU.

Ukraine represents a country moving closer to the EU, Armenia is in a limbo, and Belarus is an authoritarian case. However, even in Belarus, many NGOs in exile continue to receive EU support, and there is hope that this work will become useful in the political transition in Belarus after Lukashenko.

How did the EUI’s research environment complement your work? Were there any particular perspectives that stood out during your visit?

In terms of my visit, I was looking forward to presenting a draft of a paper on the EU’s approach to the challenges in the High North and in the East. I approached the topic by examining how the EU has changed its TEN-T (Trans-European Transport Network) planning and implementation, focusing on these two strategic frontiers. My aim was to gather feedback from colleagues on both the use of the ‘frontier’ concept and the comparative design of the paper.

One of my colleagues at the EUI, Max Weber Fellow Alexander Mesarovich, raised a thought-provoking question: Should the EU treat its entire border with Russia as one long, unified frontier, or should it instead view these as distinct frontiers that require separate strategies?

This question made me reconsider my approach. While I still want to focus on the regional differences and specific frontiers, I now realise the importance of also highlighting the common logic in the EU’s thinking, particularly the shared perception of threat. This is something I plan to emphasise more in the revised version of the paper.

What role do initiatives like CIVICA for Ukraine and the CIVICA Ukrainian Scholar Short Visits play in fostering cross-institutional collaboration?

This initiative is very valuable, especially for Ukrainian state universities, which have limited travel support, and academics often struggle to find opportunities like this.

With CIVICA, it would be beneficial to have more pathways for institutionalised cooperation, including with Ukraine. Currently, many opportunities are limited to CIVICA universities, which is great, but once visits are made, there should be opportunities for continued collaboration. Institutions also need to build their own capacity – EU funding alone isn’t enough.

Administrative personnel are also often overlooked, but without them, research is much harder to carry out. In Ukraine, administrative challenges are even more pressing due to staff shortages or low salaries. For these institutions, finding inspiration and support is crucial, and mixed positions combining research and administration could offer a good solution for those looking to balance both aspects effectively.

Article credits: EUI

Photo credits: EUI