The start of the Special Military Operation (SMO) created a conceptual vacuum in the
European Union’s policy toward Russia. By classifying Moscow as a strategic threat, Brussels curtailed all contacts with it, instead prioritizing sanctions and support for Ukraine. The aim of this article is to examine how decolonization, understood as a socio-­political category, has become the ideational foundation of the EU’s Russia policy and to highlight the role of Baltic entrepreneurs in shaping this discourse. Theoretically, the analysis is informed by the multiple streams framework; empirically, it draws on EU policy documents and political speeches delivered between 2022 and the present.

Three distinct interpretations of decolonization are identified. The first highlights the previously limited agency of the Baltic States and Poland in shaping EU—Russia policy, which has now given way to Brussels’ acceptance of the most uncompromising ‘Baltic line’ on Russia. The second emphasizes inter-­imperiality, understood as both the liberation of post-­Soviet Eurasia from Russian influence and the emancipation of states in this region through deeper and more equitable cooperation with the EU. This interpretation underpins the EU’s revision of its enlargement policy, the additional legitimation of anti-­Russian sanctions, and the creation of a new hierarchy of actors in the post-­Soviet space. The third, currently marginal, interpretation focuses on restoring subjectivity to Russia’s peoples and regions. While EU policymakers rarely elaborate on this perspective, its very existence reinforces a negative backdrop that constrains the possibility of dialogue between Russia and the EU. The article demonstrates the central role of Baltic entrepreneurs in advancing these interpretations of decolonization and underscores the differences in their technical feasibility. In conclusion, the three interpretations are compared and briefly assessed in terms of their implications for the potential restoration of Russia—EU relations.

The article examines the activities of the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) in promoting national minority rights between 1994 and 2000. The study is based on a detailed analysis of documents from the Foreign Policy Archive of the Russian Federation, which are introduced into scholarly circulation for the first time. The chronological scope is defined by the period when Ole Espersen served as Commissioner on Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Including the Rights of Persons Belonging to Minorities.

The findings suggest that Russia, concerned about the situation of the Russian-speaking po­pulation in the Baltic States, was the main initiator of CBSS efforts to strengthen na­tional minority rights. Although the problem of discrimination against Russian speakers in the Baltic States remained unresolved, the Commissioner’s activities significantly contributed to the standardization of the legal and institutional framework for protecting vulnerable population groups, particularly national minorities. The authors argue that these activities also sup­ported the consolidation of European human rights institutions and encouraged Russia to enhance the national legislation in this field.

The development of relations between the Polish state and its compatriots abroad has a long tradition, dating back to the period of the Second Republic. Under the model of interaction established at that time, the upper house — the Senate — was responsible for relations with the Polish diaspora (Polonia). This institutional framework was restored in the post-socialist period and was regarded as a means of demonstrating continuity in relations with Poles abroad. Over time, however, practical contradictions emerged, particularly concerning the allocation of funds for diaspora policy and the struggle among political forces to position themselves as defenders of the Polish diaspora. As a result, several attempts were made to reform the institutions of diaspora policy in Poland, involving both the strengthening of the executive authorities and the Senate. Theoretically, the article draws on a neo-institutional methodology and interprets the observed transformations as forms of institutional change driven both by structural factors and by the expansion of the range of actors involved in interactions within the state apparatus. The analysis demonstrates that the main trends in the transformation of diaspora policy institutions in Poland between 1991 and 2025 were the formalization of institutional design, the gradual reduction in the scope of implemented changes, and the general incompleteness of the transformations, which stemmed from their relative frequency and inter-party competition, primarily between the Civic Platform and Law and Justice.

The introduction of nuclear power is an ambitious, strategically significant undertaking currently being implemented by Poland as it steadily strengthens its political and economic influence both within the European Union and in the broader context of global international relations. Poland intends to use nuclear power to overcome the limitations of its current energy mix, meet European Union climate policy requirements, and strengthen the competitiveness of its economy. However, the lack of domestic technological capacity necessitates the involvement of a foreign technology provider—not only for the construction of nuclear power plants but also for the development of related infrastructure. The choice of a foreign partner is shaped by the prevailing geopolitical situation and the network of political and economic relationships that arise from this decision. The progress and eventual completion of the nuclear power program will carry significant foreign policy implications for the regional system of international relations.

This article, drawing on methods of systematic and institutional analysis, represents the first attempt to examine the political and strategic factors underlying the implementation of Poland’s nuclear power program as reflected in strategic planning documents. In the framework of the empirical research, the program is understood as a complex political and strategic project. The study highlights the specificity of the domestic political processes surrounding it and, in its applied dimension, identifies foreign policy implications while assessing the risks associated with the program’s implementation.