The article analyses the activities of German political foundations in Belarus between 2014 and 2020, using the Friedrich Ebert Foundation and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation as case studies. The study is grounded in the framework of neoclassical realism, which conceptualises foundations as actors capable of autonomous action while operating within the broader contours of German foreign policy. The study examines their public events, analytical publications, and interactions with Belarusian society and state institutions in the period leading up to the political crisis of 2020. The Ebert Foundation focused primarily on socio-economic reforms, emphasising what it characterised as the “obsolescence” of the Belarusian economic model, an argument that, in its view, created a basis for seeking Western support. The Adenauer Foundation, by contrast, concentrated on security issues. The study concludes that only some activities of the foundations were directed at promoting internal change within the Belarusian political regime. In practice, the geopolitical logic came to the fore, as both foundations sought to influence the regional order, most notably by promoting the notion of Belarusian ‘neutrality’, which could contribute to weakening Russia’s military and political position in the Baltic region, including with regard to the Kaliningrad region. The research did not reveal sufficient public evidence to suggest that the foundations played a decisive role in the development of organisational structures within the Belarusian opposition during the 2020 crisis. Instead, their priorities often lay in building transnational expert networks aimed at advancing pro-Western geopolitical narratives in Belarus. These findings call into question the widespread assumption that German political foundations function primarily as ‘democratisation’ actors constrained by ideological templates, suggesting instead that they operate as flexible and pragmatic actors pursuing geopolitical objectives.

The article analyses the Baltic region as an arena of intensified Russia—West confrontation, applying the ‘grey zone’ concept understood as a domain where traditional military threats intersect with hybrid forms of influence. The authors examine the factors contributing to the escalation of tension in the region, including militarisation, economic sanctions, information pressure, and the use of proxy instruments. Particular attention is given to the geographical and legal conditions shaping strategic instability, as well as to historical precedents, most notably World War II, which, in the authors’ view, helps contextualise contemporary risks. The article outlines the methods used by NATO and the Baltic States in constructing the ‘grey zone’, including the expansion of military presence, the manipulation of legal frameworks, and the deployment of non-military instruments of pressure. The authors conclude that the Baltic region is approaching the threshold of open conflict, and Western policies are interpreted as efforts to constrain Russian influence without resorting to direct military engagement. The study employs comparative analysis, qualitative content analysis of key sources, and event analysis of the actions of EU and NATO member states to assess perceived threats and the dynamics of regional instability.

The article explores the political context, principal reasons, and objectives behind the signing of the Nancy Treaty on Friendship and Cooperation by France and Poland in 2025, as well as its substantive provisions. The analysis is situated within two comparative frameworks: a historical one, tracing the fluctuations in Polish–French relations after 1991, and a spatial one, reflecting France’s policy under Emmanuel Macron aimed at renewing partnerships through treaties with Germany, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. The study shows that the Nancy Treaty is intended to consolidate the latest improvement in Polish–French relations, shaped by the conflict in Ukraine and by uncertainty regarding the future direction of U.S. foreign policy. The analysis of the treaty indicates that, compared with the 1991 agreement, the Franco-Polish partnership has been significantly strengthened, and both parties view each other as partners in the broader confrontation with Russia, while nonetheless refraining from offering any new security guarantees. A comparison of the Nancy Treaty with four similar agreements suggests that Poland has been brought into the group of France’s close EU partners, although it remains less aligned than Germany and, to some extent, Italy and Spain. The authors conclude that the treaty opens new opportunities for Franco-Polish cooperation, although further rapprochement will depend largely on the political will of the two countries’ leaders. The treaty may signal France’s intention to position Poland as a leading power in Eastern Europe, although a definitive assessment will only be possible once the conflict in Ukraine has been resolved.

The study focuses on the image of Russia in Finland’s historical politics in the context of the country’s accession to NATO. Its aim is to identify changes in the place attributed to Russia in the Finnish political elite’s references to Finland’s own past, shared Russian–Finnish history, and world history. To achieve this objective, the author analyses speeches by the President of Finland, Sauli Niinistö, on foreign policy issues delivered between 2021 and 2024: prior to the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine, during Helsinki’s accession process to NATO, and after Finland obtained full membership in the Alliance. The theoretical framework of the study draws on the concept of historical politics as interpreted by Alexei Miller, as well as on the theory of historical narrative developed by Eviatar Zerubavel. The primary research method employed is discourse analysis in accordance with the approach of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. The analysis reveals that Sauli Niinistö referred most actively to the past during the first year of the conflict in Ukraine and following Finland’s application for NATO membership. Since 2022, the Winter War and other episodes of Russian–Finnish confrontation have assumed a far more prominent role in historical politics than the 1975 Helsinki Accords. These references contribute to the construction of Russia’s image as an enemy and a threat in both the present and the past, and serve to mobilise public support within Finland for Ukraine. As a result, the historical narrative increasingly takes the form of a prolonged and continuous struggle between the two nations, devoid of any experience of mutually beneficial cooperation or sustained dialogue between the two countries.