Email · kontakt@ine.org.pl
Institute of New Europe Institute of New Europe Institute of New Europe Institute of New Europe
  • Home
  • Ukraine
  • Reports
  • Publications
  • Programmes
    • Europe
    • Security
    • Indo-Pacific
    • Three Seas Think Tanks Hub
  • People
  • Contact
  • Newsletter
  • Polski
Institute of New Europe Institute of New Europe
  • Home
  • Ukraine
  • Reports
  • Publications
  • Programmes
    • Europe
    • Security
    • Indo-Pacific
    • Three Seas Think Tanks Hub
  • People
  • Contact
  • Newsletter
  • Polski
Jul 18
3SI, Military and army, Poland, Publications, Security

Time for the Three Seas Army? About the Necessity of Close Military Cooperation Among the Three Seas Countries

July 18, 2022

Authors: dr Aleksander Olech, dr Jacek Raubo

The analysis in a nutshell:

– At the level of the European Union, the concept of creating an army of the European Union has been considered for years.

– European countries will soon have to take greater responsibility for the security of the continent and reduce dependence on the United States resulting from the functioning of NATO today.

– Russia’s invasion of Ukraine gave a new impulse to work on the concept of cooperation within the Three Seas.

– The Three Seas Initiative has less military potential but is more threatened by Russian aggression.

The Three Seas Initiative (or simply the Three Seas) was established in 2015 as a format for cooperation of countries lying between three seas: Adriatic, Baltic and Black. There are 12 member states: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Most of them in recent years were the fastest-growing members of the European Union. Today, the Three Seas Initiative is primarily economic and political. However, due to growing international tensions, including Russia’s invasion in Ukraine, it is necessary to extend the format to include a defense dimension.

It is worth noting that today nine out of twelve countries in the region cooperate militarily within the framework of the so-called Bucharest Nine (B9), consisting of the countries of NATO’s eastern flank. By extending cooperation to the entire region, within the framework of the Three Seas, the cooperation would be joined by Austria (it would have to break with its “neutrality” and abandon its very often pro-Russian policy ⸺ for example in terms of energy cooperation), which is not a member of NATO, Croatia and Slovenia, which constitute the southern flank of the Alliance, and Ukraine which remains outside NATO and which has been a partner country of the Three Seas Initiative since the Riga summit. Wider military cooperation as part of the Three Seas Initiative does not have to replace the B9, but will rather be an extension of political, economic and social relations that serve to strengthen ties for security.

The power of the Three Seas “only” in the numbers concerning the armies

Among the countries participating in the Three Seas Initiative, Poland has the largest army and Estonia has the smallest. The following data account for active soldiers only, without reservists.

If the troops of individual countries in the region were to be combined into a single Tri-Sea army, it would consist of almost 350,000 soldiers: 22,500 from Austria, 25,600 from Bulgaria, 15,200 from Croatia, 26,800 from the Czech Republic, 6,600 from Estonia, 16,300 from Lithuania, 7,000 from Latvia, 120,000 from Poland, 65,000 from Romania, 12,900 from Slovakia, 7,000 from Slovenia and 22,700 from Hungary.

It would not be an overstatement to say that in this hypothetical army the foundation would be Polish Armed Forces. In addition to having the largest number of soldiers, they have made significant investments in armaments in recent years, i.e. purchase of Abrams and F-35s, as well as implementing the Miecznik program, under which three frigates worth PLN 8 billion are to be built. Also noteworthy are the fairly large orders made after the Russian invasion in Ukraine.

Apart from Poland, Romania has also started investing heavily in the military, an example of which is the order for the Gowind corvettes or the purchase of HIMARS launchers. In addition, Estonia decided to arm the coast by creating a land-based missile unit using the Blue Spear 5g SSM missiles. Lithuania chose the Caesar howitzers. Croatian purchases from the French and the order of twelve Rafale fighters and the Patria AMV military vehicles already owned by the Croatian army are also noteworthy.

Still, the greatest advantage in the context of military cooperation remains the ability to react collectively within NATO. It is also the foundation of the security of the countries in the region, which transfers to political support for the Alliance and further strengthening of NATO’s eastern flank.

The Three Seas Army ⸺ within or outside NATO?

The concept of an “integrated armed forces” of the Three Seas countries can be considered in two categories ⸺ conventionally counter-NATO and NATO. The first one emerges from the thesis that the existing pillars of the security architecture in the region (NATO and the EU) are insufficient. Its greatest advantage is the potential orientation of defense investments and integrated military potentials in a homogeneous vision of threats, primarily from Russia. This kind of thinking, however, has a fundamental disadvantage, consisting in a significant simplification of the policies of individual Three Seas countries. Even the current Russian aggression against Ukraine (since February 24th, 2022) has not been able to create the foundations of a common strategy towards Russia in the region, an example of which is Hungary’s opposition to the sanctions, among others. Hence, it is difficult to assume that there will suddenly appear the ability to build an armed force or an allied system in the fullest sense. And all the ideas of loose, task-oriented coalitions or coalitions of the willing, with Russian aggression and strategic uncertainty, should be considered too weak and not providing adequate guarantees of security. In addition, trust and support for NATO is exceptionally strong in the Three Seas countries, so it is difficult to imagine agreement to act in opposition to the Alliance.

Apart from strategic issues, differences of opinion in the Three Seas Initiative may arise on such trivial issues as the location of the headquarters, the staffing of the command and control systems, etc. In all such issues, within the already existing NATO, practices established since 1949 are used, and the U.S. plays a stabilizing role in this respect. Creating other formats, including a “European army”, could lead to interstate competition for leadership. Such animosities are even more likely in the Three Seas Initiative, where economic, political and military resources are significantly dispersed and opportunities for closer cooperation are hampered by pending territorial and historical disputes. Poland would not be able to become an integrator state like the U.S. in the case of NATO. Especially that it has not managed to do so in the current dimensions of cooperation within the framework of the Three Seas Initiative. The states of the region, on the other hand, balance between actual involvement and focusing on regional issues.

Moreover, if we realistically consider the idea of building an alternative to NATO in the form of the Three Seas army, problems will also arise in purely military aspects. First of all, the total number of active soldiers is only 350,000 people, including neutral Austria. Furthermore, despite recent investments, the countries in the region suffer from a number of equipment shortages and do not have an element of nuclear deterrence, which automatically puts them in a worse position against the Kremlin. There are other challenges as well. They would have to create their own resource of non-NATO C4 concepts (command, control, communications and computers). Another challenge would be to create their own fleet of tanker aircraft, allowing in-flight refueling.

The Achilles’ heel would also be ISTAR (intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance) and SIGINT (electromagnetic reconnaissance) capabilities, the importance of which cannot be questioned today, especially when observing at the course of the war in Ukraine. The challenges would include, for example, the purchase of a diversified fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles and access to satellite reconnaissance. One of the hallmarks of NATO is the ability to share intelligence and reconnaissance. Also, the early warning aircrafts (AWACS) belonging to the Alliance repeatedly demonstrated their great operational capabilities, both in peacetime (e.g. over Poland in the face of major events) and in crises (e.g. after the 9/11 attacks).

Without a proper ISTAR, the Three Seas would be exposed to numerous dangers. It is hard to suppose that the economic potentials of the countries would allow this gap to be quickly filled with the purchase of machines, even smaller ones, such as in the case of the Israeli Air Force. A similar weakness of this concept can be observed when it comes to strategic air transport.

Another aspect would be the issue of finding adequate financial resources for defense. Note that even in NATO, there was a long debate over the allocation of 2% of GDP for this purpose. Today, in the time of the war in Ukraine, it can be assumed that the supporters of the concept of the Three Seas as a hypothetical defense alliance would be able to mobilize their societies. However, even such mobilization could bring insufficient financial outlays to achieve the postulated defense goals, and it would also be difficult to maintain in a situation of de-escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, when military force would be less needed. NATO’s advantage, however, is its transatlantic economic and financial strength. Even the enormous dynamics of the development of the Three Seas region would not allow of the collective distribution of arms loads that would guarantee efficiency and security of the eastern borders.

The second of the aforementioned concepts is much more interesting and real ⸺ tightening the intra-NATO cooperation of the Three Seas countries, with the potential inclusion of partner countries of the Alliance and the Initiative. This way, the Three Seas countries can strengthen their voice within NATO. This cooperation should go beyond the existing dimensions outlined by the Bucharest Nine. It could, for example, lead to the synergy of defense industries and accelerate the creation of new and breakthrough technologies (EDTs) through joint programs to support innovation and increase the competitiveness of research and development, etc. Especially that since the next summit, it is innovation that is to become the flagship area of ​​cooperation within NATO. In addition, the strength of such cooperation should be taken into account when it comes to the need to participate in the projects of the European Defense Fund, PESCO, i.e. the issue of financing multinational military projects. In this respect, the Three Seas Initiative may become a key tool for long-term security development.

The experience of military cooperation in the region and beyond can be used to build the Tri-Sea security cooperation. Regionally, a very good point of reference is, for example, the Grand Hetman Kostiantyn Ostrogski Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian Brigade. It is also worth taking a look at the actions taken by the rulers in the Nordic countries.

This cooperation would allow individual countries to increase the interoperability of non-NATO/EU countries in the regional dimension. It is worth paying attention to the fact that, for example, Romania or Estonia could act for wider cooperation with France, and Poland would be given an opportunity for strong activity from the U.S.

To sum up, as part of the Tri-Sea cooperation for security, it is necessary to focus primarily on activities improving logistics, increasing interoperability and influencing the synergy of the development of military technologies. Therefore, it is not about creating a physical army from the combined forces of the Three Seas countries, but rather about intra-regional coordination that would allow us to gain a better position in the already proven system of NATO-EU relations. Contrary to the previously described attitude, where the Three Seas Initiative is supposed to be something of an alternative to the existing security architecture, it would not weaken the already existing rules of defense and deterrence. On the contrary, the region could definitely develop its competences, which would allow it to become more involved in crisis response missions, e.g. for the needs of NATO’s southern and northern flanks.

Is it real?

Military cooperation in the Three Seas region is definitely needed, because in this way the countries of the region are able to ensure the implementation of their strategic interests. NATO relies mainly on the potential of the U.S. and Great Britain, which have their own goals in other regions of the world as well (including the Indo-Pacific). The French Republic would most willingly let go of the eastern flank and regain its lost primacy in Africa, and in Europe, look at Russia with a less critical eye. There is still Germany, but one should be careful here, as although Chancellor Scholz raised defense spending to 2% of GDP (currently 1.1%), he did not define where Berlin would become military involved in the future.

The Three Seas countries have little military strength. Even combined armies would find it difficult to protect themselves from threats from Russia and Belarus. Nevertheless, several years of cooperation within NATO, a largely common vision of foreign policy, as well as constant investments in armaments, constitute a solid basis for building military cooperation in the region. By including Ukraine, the region will also gain a huge amount of practical military experience, which will be invaluable in the event of possible future conflicts.

The concept developed within the region is not to create a separate, integrated army of the Three Seas. Rather, it is about joint exercises and an agreement on military and armaments cooperation, which perfectly complement the existing cooperation within the Initiative, NATO and the EU. In this respect, the implementation of this concept is not only very real, but also much needed.

The Tri-Sea cooperation, although focused on economic cooperation, has the potential to expand to other dimensions, including the military one. The above area must be the subject of further analyzes and deliberations, because nowadays ⸺ with such an aggressive policy of the Russian Federation ⸺ it is necessary to develop military capabilities of Central and Eastern European countries.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Tumblr
  • Pinterest
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • E-Mail

Related Posts

See All Publications
  • China, Indo-Pacific, Publications

Watching the 20th CCP National Party Congress from Taipei

From the perspective of Taiwan, a de facto independent sovereign state which continues to exist in the shadows of an…
  • Kuan-Ting Chen
  • January 26, 2023
  • Geopolitics, International Politics, Publications, UN

Lost and damaged: the geopolitics of belatedly tackled climate and biodiversity adaptation

The 2022 COP conferences in Sharm el-Sheikh and Montreal were, depending on who you ask, either regrettable or no short…
  • Maciej Bukowski
  • January 24, 2023
  • 3SI, Economy, Reports

“Financing the Future. How to attract more foreign investors to the Three Seas Region” [Report]

Authors: George Byczynski, Marta Kakol, Sandra Krawczyszyn, Wojciech Lieder PhD, Mateusz Ptaszek, Radosław Pyffel, Piotr Sosnowski PhD, Patryk Szczotka, Julita…
  • Julita Wilczek
  • January 16, 2023
See All Publications

Comments are closed.

Aleksander Olech, PhD. Visiting lecturer at the Baltic Defence College. Graduate of the European Academy of Diplomacy and War Studies University. He has undertaken research at several international institutions, among others, the Université Jean Moulin III in Lyon, the Institute of International Relations in Prague, the Institute for Peace Support and Conflict Management in Vienna, the NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence in Vilnius, and the NATO Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism in Ankara. Scholarship holder of the OSCE & UNODA Peace and Security Programme, the NATO 2030 Global Fellowship, and the Casimir Pulaski Foundation. His main research interests include terrorism, international cooperation for security in Eastern Europe and the role of NATO and the EU with regard to hybrid threats.
Program Europa tworzą:

Marcin Chruściel

Dyrektor programu. Absolwent studiów doktoranckich z zakresu nauk o polityce na Uniwersytecie Wrocławskim, magister stosunków międzynarodowych i europeistyki Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prezes Zarządu Instytutu Nowej Europy.

dr Artur Bartoszewicz

Przewodniczący Rady Programowej Instytutu Nowej Europy. Doktor nauk ekonomicznych Szkoły Głównej Handlowej. Ekspert w dziedzinie polityki publicznej, w tym m. in. strategii państwa i gospodarki.

Michał Banasiak

Specjalizuje się w relacjach sportu i polityki. Autor analiz, komentarzy i wywiadów z zakresu dyplomacji sportowej i polityki międzynarodowej. Były dziennikarz Polsat News i wysłannik redakcji zagranicznej Telewizji Polskiej.

Maciej Pawłowski

Ekspert ds. migracji, gospodarki i polityki państw basenu Morza Śródziemnego. W latach 2018-2020 Analityk PISM ds. Południowej Europy. Autor publikacji w polskiej i zagranicznej prasie na temat Hiszpanii, Włoch, Grecji, Egiptu i państw Magrebu. Od września 2020 r. mieszka w północnej Afryce (Egipt, Algieria).

Jędrzej Błaszczak

Absolwent studiów prawniczych Uniwersytetu Śląskiego w Katowicach. Jego zainteresowania badawcze koncentrują się na Inicjatywie Trójmorza i polityce w Bułgarii. Doświadczenie zdobywał w European Foundation of Human Rights w Wilnie, Center for the Study of Democracy w Sofii i polskich placówkach dyplomatycznych w Teheranie i Tbilisi.

Program Bezpieczeństwo tworzą:

dr Aleksander Olech

Dyrektor programu. Wykładowca na Baltic Defence College, absolwent Europejskiej Akademii Dyplomacji oraz Akademii Sztuki Wojennej. Jego główne zainteresowania badawcze to terroryzm, bezpieczeństwo w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej oraz rola NATO i UE w środowisku zagrożeń hybrydowych.

dr Agnieszka Rogozińska

Członek Rady Programowej Instytutu Nowej Europy. Doktor nauk społecznych w dyscyplinie nauki o polityce. Zainteresowania badawcze koncentruje na problematyce bezpieczeństwa euroatlantyckiego, instytucjonalnym wymiarze bezpieczeństwa i współczesnych zagrożeniach.

Aleksy Borówka

Doktorant na Wydziale Nauk Społecznych Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, Przewodniczący Krajowej Reprezentacji Doktorantów w kadencji 2020. Autor kilkunastu prac naukowych, poświęconych naukom o bezpieczeństwie, naukom o polityce i administracji oraz stosunkom międzynarodowym. Laureat I, II oraz III Międzynarodowej Olimpiady Geopolitycznej.

Karolina Siekierka

Absolwentka Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego na kierunku stosunki międzynarodowe, specjalizacji Bezpieczeństwo i Studia Strategiczne. Jej zainteresowania badawcze obejmują politykę zagraniczną i wewnętrzną Francji, prawa człowieka oraz konflikty zbrojne.

Stanisław Waszczykowski

Podoficer rezerwy, student studiów magisterskich na kierunku Bezpieczeństwo Międzynarodowe i Dyplomacja na Akademii Sztuki Wojennej, były praktykant w BBN. Jego zainteresowania badawcze obejmują m.in. operacje pokojowe ONZ oraz bezpieczeństwo Ukrainy.

Leon Pińczak

Student studiów drugiego stopnia na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim na kierunku stosunki międzynarodowe. Dziennikarz polskojęzycznej redakcji Biełsatu. Zawodowo zajmuje się obszarem postsowieckim, rosyjską polityką wewnętrzną i doktrynami FR. Biegle włada językiem rosyjskim.

Program Indo-Pacyfik tworzą:

Łukasz Kobierski

Dyrektor programu. Współzałożyciel INE oraz prezes zarządu w latach 2019-2021. Stypendysta szkoleń z zakresu bezpieczeństwa na Daniel Morgan Graduate School of National Security w Waszyngtonie, ekspert od stosunków międzynarodowych. Absolwent Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego oraz Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika. Wiceprezes Zarządu INE.

dr Joanna Siekiera

Prawnik międzynarodowy, doktor nauk społecznych, adiunkt na Wydziale Prawa Uniwersytetu w Bergen w Norwegii. Była stypendystką rządu Nowej Zelandii na Uniwersytecie Victorii w Wellington, niemieckiego Institute of Cultural Diplomacy, a także francuskiego Institut de relations internationales et stratégiques.

Paweł Paszak

Absolwent stosunków międzynarodowych (spec. Wschodnioazjatycka) na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim oraz stypendysta University of Kent (W. Brytania) i Hainan University (ChRL). Doktorant UW i Akademii Sztuki Wojennej. Jego zainteresowania badawcze obejmują politykę zagraniczną ChRL oraz strategiczną rywalizację Chiny-USA.

Jakub Graca

Magister stosunków międzynarodowych na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim; studiował także filologię orientalną (specjalność: arabistyka). Analityk Centrum Inicjatyw Międzynarodowych (Warszawa) oraz Instytutu Nowej Europy. Zainteresowania badawcze: Stany Zjednoczone (z naciskiem na politykę zagraniczną), relacje transatlantyckie.

Patryk Szczotka

Absolwent filologii dalekowschodniej ze specjalnością chińską na Uniwersytecie Wrocławskim oraz student kierunku double degree China and International Relations na Aalborg University oraz University of International Relations (国际关系学院) w Pekinie. Jego zainteresowania naukowe to relacje polityczne i gospodarcze UE-ChRL oraz dyplomacja.

The programme's team:

Marcin Chruściel

Programme director. Graduate of PhD studies in Political Science at the University of Wroclaw and Master studies in International Relations at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow. President of the Management Board at the Institute of New Europe.

PhD Artur Bartoszewicz

Chairman of the Institute's Programme Board. Doctor of Economic Sciences at the SGH Warsaw School of Economics. Expert in the field of public policy, including state and economic strategies. Expert at the National Centre for Research and Development and the Digital Poland Projects Centre.

Michał Banasiak

He specializes in relationship of sports and politics. Author of analysis, comments and interviews in the field of sports diplomacy and international politics. Former Polsat News and Polish Television’s foreign desk journalist.

Maciej Pawłowski

Expert on migration, economics and politics of Mediterranean countries. In the period of 2018-2020 PISM Analyst on Southern Europe. Author of various articles in Polish and foreign press about Spain, Italy, Greece, Egypt and Maghreb countries. Since September 2020 lives in North Africa (Egypt, Algeria).

Jędrzej Błaszczak

Graduate of Law at the University of Silesia. His research interests focus on the Three Seas Initiative and politics in Bulgaria. He acquired experience at the European Foundation of Human Rights in Vilnius, the Center for the Study of Democracy in Sofia, and in Polish embassies in Tehran and Tbilisi.

PhD Aleksander Olech

Programme director. Visiting lecturer at the Baltic Defence College, graduate of the European Academy of Diplomacy and War Studies University. His main research interests include terrorism, international cooperation for security in Eastern Europe and the role of NATO and the EU with regard to hybrid threats.

PhD Agnieszka Rogozińska

Member of the Institute's Programme Board. Doctor of Social Sciences in the discipline of Political Science. Editorial secretary of the academic journals "Politics & Security" and "Independence: journal devoted to Poland's recent history". Her research interests focus on security issues.

Aleksy Borówka

PhD candidate at the Faculty of Social Sciences in the University of Wroclaw, the President of the Polish National Associations of PhD Candidates in 2020. The author of dozen of scientific papers, concerning security studies, political science, administration, international relations. Laureate of the I, II and III International Geopolitical Olympiad.

Karolina Siekierka

Graduate of International Relations specializing in Security and Strategic Studies at University of Warsaw. Erasmus student at the Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1) and the Institut d’Etudes Politique de Paris (Sciences Po Paris). Her research areas include human rights, climate change and armed conflicts.

Stanisław Waszczykowski

Reserve non-commissioned officer. Master's degree student in International Security and Diplomacy at the War Studies University in Warsaw, former trainee at the National Security Bureau. His research interests include issues related to UN peacekeeping operations and the security of Ukraine.

Leon Pińczak

A second-degree student at the University of Warsaw, majoring in international relations. A journalist of the Polish language edition of Belsat. Interested in the post-Soviet area, with a particular focus on Russian internal politics and Russian doctrines - foreign, defense and information-cybernetic.

Łukasz Kobierski

Programme director. Deputy President of the Management Board. Scholarship holder at the Daniel Morgan Graduate School of National Security in Washington and an expert in the field of international relations. Graduate of the University of Warsaw and the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń

PhD Joanna Siekiera

International lawyer, Doctor of social sciences, postdoctor at the Faculty of Law, University of Bergen, Norway. She was a scholarship holder of the New Zealand government at the Victoria University of Wellington, Institute of Cultural Diplomacy in Germany, Institut de relations internationales et stratégiques in France.

Paweł Paszak

Graduate of International Relations (specialisation in East Asian Studies) from the University of Warsaw and scholarship holder at the University of Kent (UK) and Hainan University (China). PhD candidate at the University of Warsaw and the War Studies University. His research areas include the foreign policy of China and the strategic rivalry between China and the US in the Indo-Pacific.

Jakub Graca

Master of International Relations at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow. He also studied Arabic therein. An analyst at the Center for International Initiatives (Warsaw) and the Institute of New Europe. Research interests: United States (mainly foreign policy), transatlantic relations.

Patryk Szczotka

A graduate of Far Eastern Philology with a specialization in China Studies at the University of Wroclaw and a student of a double degree “China and International Relations” at Aalborg University and University of International Relations (国际关系学院) in Beijing. His research interests include EU-China political and economic relations, as well as diplomacy.

Three Seas Think Tanks Hub is a platform of cooperation among different think tanks based in 3SI member countries. Their common goal is to strengthen public debate and understanding of the Three Seas region seen from the political, economic and security perspective. The project aims at exchanging ideas, research and publications on the region’s potential and challenges.

Members

The Baltic Security Foundation (Latvia)

The BSF promotes the security and defense of the Baltic Sea region. It gathers security experts from the region and beyond, provides a platform for discussion and research, promotes solutions that lead to stronger regional security in the military and other areas.

The Institute for Politics and Society (Czech Republic)

The Institute analyses important economic, political, and social areas that affect today’s society. The mission of the Institute is to cultivate the Czech political and public sphere through professional and open discussion.

Nézöpont Institute (Hungary)

The Institute aims at improving Hungarian public life and public discourse by providing real data, facts and opinions based on those. Its primary focus points are Hungarian youth, media policy and Central European cooperation.

The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (Austria)

The wiiw is one of the principal centres for research on Central, East and Southeast Europe with 50 years of experience. Over the years, the Institute has broadened its expertise, increasing its regional coverage – to European integration, the countries of Wider Europe and selected issues of the global economy.

The International Institute for Peace (Austria)

The Institute strives to address the most topical issues of the day and promote dialogue, public engagement, and a common understanding to ensure a holistic approach to conflict resolution and a durable peace. The IIP functions as a platform to promote peace and non-violent conflict resolution across the world.

The Institute for Regional and International Studies (Bulgaria)

The IRIS initiates, develops and implements civic strategies for democratic politics at the national, regional and international level. The Institute promotes the values of democracy, civil society, freedom and respect for law and assists the process of deepening Bulgarian integration in NATO and the EU.

The European Institute of Romania

EIR is a public institution whose mission is to provide expertise in the field of European Affairs to the public administration, the business community, the social partners and the civil society. EIR’s activity is focused on four key domains: research, training, communication, translation of the EHRC case-law.

The Institute of New Europe (Poland)

The Institute is an advisory and analytical non-governmental organisation active in the fields of international politics, international security and economics. The Institute supports policy-makers by providing them with expert opinions, as well as creating a platform for academics, publicists, and commentators to exchange ideas.

YouTube

Najnowsze publikacje

  • Watching the 20th CCP National Party Congress from Taipei
    by Kuan-Ting Chen
    January 26, 2023
  • Lost and damaged: the geopolitics of belatedly tackled climate and biodiversity adaptation
    by Maciej Bukowski
    January 24, 2023
  • “Financing the Future. How to attract more foreign investors to the Three Seas Region” [Report]
    by Julita Wilczek
    January 16, 2023
  • The CPC 20th National Congress: Taiwan has Become a Key Front Line in the U.S.-China Tech Rivalry
    by Claire Lin
    December 22, 2022
  • The institution of marriage and divorce in Judaism vs. in Islam
    by Aleksandra Siwek
    December 20, 2022

Categories

THE MOST POPULAR TAGS:

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

China economy European Union International politics International security Poland Russia Security terrorism Ukraine USA

  • Home
  • Ukraine
  • Publications
  • Reports
  • Programmes
  • People
  • Contact

Funded by the National Liberty Institute – Center for Civil Society
Development under the Governmental Civil Society Organisations Development Programme for 2018-2030

© 2019-2020 The Institute of New Europe Foundation · All rights reserved · Support us