Hubbry Logo
European Council on Foreign RelationsEuropean Council on Foreign RelationsMain
Open search
European Council on Foreign Relations
Community hub
European Council on Foreign Relations
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
European Council on Foreign Relations
European Council on Foreign Relations
European Council on Foreign Relations
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) is a pan-European think tank with offices in seven European capitals.[2] Launched in October 2007, it conducts research on European foreign and security policy and provides a meeting space for decision-makers, activists and influencers to share ideas. ECFR builds coalitions for change at the European level and promotes informed debate about Europe's role in the world. ECFR has offices in Berlin, London, Madrid, Paris, Rome, Warsaw and Sofia.

Key Information

ECFR was founded in 2007 by Mark Leonard together with a council of fifty founding members, chaired by Martti Ahtisaari, Joschka Fischer, and Mabel van Oranje, with initial funding from George Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Communitas Foundation, Sigrid Rausing, Unicredit and Fundación Para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior (FRIDE).[3]

ECFR's council brings together over 300 Europeans from across Europe. Currently chaired by Carl Bildt, Lykke Friis and Norbert Röttgen, ECFR's strategic community includes serving foreign ministers, former prime ministers, members of national parliaments and European Parliament, EU Commissioners, former NATO secretaries general, thinkers, journalists and business leaders. The council gathers once a year as a full body for the annual council meeting, hosted in a different European capital each year. The council is the strongest and most visible expression of ECFR's pan-European identity.

National offices

[edit]

ECFR has offices in Berlin, London, Madrid, Paris, Rome, Warsaw and Sofia, with Berlin serving as headquarter. When ECFR was founded in 2007, the Berlin, London, Madrid, Paris and Sofia offices were opened at the same time. The Rome and Warsaw offices were opened in 2010 and September 2011, respectively.

Programmes, publications and events

[edit]

The think tank's research is broadly divided into five programmes. These are Africa, Asia, Wider Europe, European Power and Middle East & North Africa.[4] In addition, ECFR's fellows regularly publish policy papers on subjects that fall outside of these parameters. ECFR staff regularly publishes analysis and commentary in major European newspapers.[5][6][7][8] ECFR publishes individual policy reports, briefs, and memos, which are downloadable for free from ECFR's website. It has regular publications, including the European Foreign Policy Scorecard started in 2011;[9][10] the China Analysis and a review of the EU and human rights at the UN. In addition to the regular publications, ECFR often has larger projects, which will include a set of publications on a given subject. ECFR's national offices hold regular events such as seminars, ginger groups and publication launches. Guest speakers at ECFR London's invitation-only 'Black Coffee Mornings' have included Douglas Alexander, Louise Arbour, Joseph Nye, Pauline Neville-Jones, and George Robertson.[11]

Africa

[edit]

ECFR's Africa programme analyses the geopolitics of the Africa-Europe relationship. This includes relations between the African Union and the European Union; foreign policy tools and strategies; and opportunities to find creative policy solutions. The programme also focuses on two regions that are particularly relevant for Europe: the Horn of Africa and the Sahel.

European Power

[edit]

The European Power programme was created in 2015 to help Europeans develop policy responses to the issues affecting the EU's capacity to act on the global scene. The programme explores the obstacles to sustainable unity on current and future foreign policy challenges and seeks to develop solutions for overcoming them. The programme is directed by Susi Dennison.

Asia

[edit]

The Asia programme seeks to help Europe recalibrate its relationship with China and its Asian partners. The programme analyses China's domestic situation, its role in the region and its increasing influence around the world and put a renewed emphasis on fostering Europe's relationships with the Indo-Pacific, especially India and Japan.

Wider Europe

[edit]

The Wider Europe programme aims to help the EU become a stronger geopolitical actor in its eastern neighbourhood. To achieve this goal, the programme supports EU decision-makers' work on a unified and coherent policy vis-à-vis Russia, and develops consistent strategies to defend the EU's interests and values in the Wider Europe region. The programme focuses on post-Soviet states, the Western Balkans, and Turkey and was launched in 2007 with the aim of fostering this process. It was until 2021 directed by Nicu Popescu.

Middle East and North Africa

[edit]

ECFR's Middle East and North Africa programme seeks to support a coherent European agenda in pursuit of regional interests, working to advance openings for conflict de-escalation, regional stabilisation and democratic transition. The programme is directed by Julien Barnes-Dacey.

Podcast

[edit]

In a weekly series, Mark Leonard and his guests explore the big issues in foreign policy.

ECFR's Council and Board

[edit]

ECFR's council currently has over 300 members,[12] each serving a renewable three-year term. The membership includes former prime ministers, presidents, European commissioners, current and former parliamentarians and ministers, public intellectuals, business leaders, activists and cultural figures from the EU member states and candidate countries.[13]

The council is the strongest and most visible expression of ECFR's pan-European identity. Through their individual networks and collective engagement with ECFR policy and advocacy initiatives, council members help us ECFR to Europeanise the national conversations in the EU capitals on the EU's foreign policy priorities and challenges.

The council meets once a year as a full body to discuss how to advance its objectives. In addition, groups of council members form various geographical and thematic task forces, which provide ECFR staff with advice and feedback on policy ideas and assist with ECFR's activities within their own countries. The council is currently chaired by Carl Bildt (co-chair), Lykke Friis and Norbert Röttgen. The other members of the board are Ian Clarkson, Sylvie Kauffmann, Ivan Krastev, Andrzej Olechowski, Andrew Puddephatt, Javier Solana, and Helle Thorning-Schmidt.

Funding

[edit]

ECFR is a private not-for-profit organization that relies on donations.[14] It was originally established with the support of Open Society Foundations, Communitas Foundation and Fundación Para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior (FRIDE).

About half of ECFR's funding comes from foundations, one third from governments and the rest from corporations and individuals.[15] Open Society Foundations is the main donor to ECFR, funding with its grants one third (£2,345,566 in 2017) of ECFR's total income (£7,278,122 in 2017).[16] Other donors include major organizations mainly from Europe and the Western world such as the foundation Stiftung Mercator [de] (£710,753 or ~10% total funding in 2017), European and the Japanese governments, NATO, leading corporations such as Daimler AG and Microsoft as well as wealthy individuals.[17][15]

Communications

[edit]

ECFR regularly publishes comment and analysis pieces on foreign policy issues on its website. ECFR also publishes podcasts in English and German, and occasional podcasts in French, Italian and Spanish.[18] ECFR has a Twitter feed.[19]

Awards and recognition

[edit]

ECFR was named "Best New Think Tank in the World" for 2009 and 2010 by the University of Pennsylvania's annual Global "Go-To Think-Tanks" report.[20][21]

ECFR has received Prospect Magazine's "Think Tank of the Year Awards" in 2015 (EU International Affairs Think Tank of the Year),[22] 2014 (UK International Affairs Think Tank of the Year),[23] and 2010 (British-based think tank dealing with non-British affairs Think Tank of the Year).[24]

In 2011, the academic responsible for compiling the University of Pennsylvania rankings, Dr James G. McGann, wrote in a book on global think tanks: "The fact that ECFR attempts to pursue policy advice and research through a pan-European focus means that it is free from the national restrictions of operating with one particular state framework in mind. In this sense, it is able to prescribe solutions and recommendations that benefit Europe as a whole and perhaps to a much greater extent than if they had done so with only, for example, the interests of Germany or France in mind. A framework that incorporates all the various workings and desires of each of the affected actors is far more likely to be successful from a long-term standpoint than one that attempts to resolve a regional or global issue by pushing for a solution that only benefits or alleviates the concerns of an individual state".[25]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

European Council on Foreign Relations

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) is a pan-European think tank founded in 2007 as the first institution of its kind to conduct independent research on European foreign and security policy, facilitate dialogue among decision-makers, and advocate for policies strengthening the European Union's global influence.
Launched by a coalition of prominent European figures, including former leaders such as Martti Ahtisaari and Joschka Fischer, ECFR maintains offices in Berlin, London, Madrid, Paris, Rome, Sofia, Warsaw, Brussels, and Washington, D.C., enabling a multinational perspective with staff drawn from over 25 countries.
Its council includes high-profile members such as 19 former heads of state or government, 30 former foreign ministers, and 14 former European commissioners, providing establishment connections while supporting six specialized programs on regions including Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Wider Europe.
ECFR's operations are funded by a diverse array of sources, including 22 government entities (such as the European Commission and various national foreign ministries), 24 foundations (notably the Open Society Foundations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Rockefeller Brothers Fund), and 14 corporations (including Siemens and Nokia), with the organization emphasizing this mix as essential to preserving analytical independence.
The think tank produces policy briefs, reports, and events on pressing issues like Russian aggression, EU enlargement, transatlantic ties, and geopolitical challenges from China, influencing debates though its work has drawn criticism for positions urging reviews of EU agreements with Israel amid conflicts in the region.

Founding and Early Development

Establishment in 2007

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) was launched in October as the first pan-European dedicated to advancing coherent . It was established by 50 founding council members comprising prominent politicians, diplomats, and intellectuals from member states and candidate countries, with initial operations based in . The organization's creation responded to ongoing challenges in coordination, particularly the need for a unified European strategic perspective amid post-Cold War shifts toward greater global multipolarity and interstate competition. Founders sought to build an institution that merged establishment influence with independent analysis to influence national debates and "Europeanise" foreign policy discussions across the continent. This motivation stemmed from observations of fragmented European responses to international crises, including divisions exposed in earlier events like the 2003 Iraq War, which highlighted weaknesses in collective decision-making and transatlantic alignment. The ECFR's pan-European structure was designed to transcend national silos, drawing on networks of elites to promote research-driven coalitions for policy reform. Initial leadership included council co-chairs , , and Mabel van Oranje, while co-founder Mark Leonard contributed to shaping its early direction. Startup funding was provided by George Soros's , supporting the think tank's aim to conduct research and foster debate on effective EU external engagement. This backing aligned with broader efforts to bolster EU-centric and transatlantic-oriented foreign policy advocacy, though the organization's outputs have reflected the ideological leanings of such philanthropic sources.

Initial Objectives and Key Founders

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) was launched in October 2007 to conduct independent research on European foreign and , facilitate networking among policymakers and influencers across member states, and cultivate coalitions advocating for unified EU-level initiatives over disparate national approaches. Its foundational aims emphasized positioning the as a singular global player, leveraging multilateral institutions and to address challenges like transatlantic divergences and eastern neighborhood instabilities, rather than relying on fragmented state actions. This supranational orientation inherently tensioned against entrenched national priorities, as ECFR sought to catalyze "intellectual insurgency" within establishment circles to prioritize collective European agency. Mark Leonard, a British analyst previously associated with the Foreign Policy Centre, co-founded and has directed ECFR since inception, driving its pan-European model to integrate diverse viewpoints into cohesive policy advocacy. The initial council was chaired by , former Finnish president and laureate; , ex-German foreign minister known for advocacy of integration; and Mabel van Oranje, a Dutch activist with ties to humanitarian networks. These figures embodied a blend of diplomatic experience and reformist zeal, drawing from post-Cold War efforts to embed federalist elements in foreign policy. Indirect support from via the underpinned early establishment, with OSF backing ECFR's formation around 2006-2007 to bolster the EU's role as an effective international actor amid rising geopolitical fragmentation. OSF grants constituted a significant portion of initial funding, aligning with Soros's broader promotion of open societies through supranational frameworks, though ECFR maintained operational independence. This philanthropic linkage highlighted tensions in founder motivations, where elite-driven integration clashed with skeptic views of centralized power.

Organizational Structure and Governance

Leadership Council and Board

The Leadership Council of the European Council on Foreign Relations consists of over 330 members drawn from senior ranks in politics, business, diplomacy, and academia across member states and candidate countries. Established with 50 founding members in 2007, the council has expanded to include former heads of government such as () and (), ex-EU commissioners, and corporate leaders, enabling peer-to-peer influence and transnational dialogue on . This elite composition prioritizes high-level networking to foster a unified European strategic posture, as evidenced by annual council meetings that convene members for agenda-setting discussions independent of national governments. The smaller executive board and leadership team handle day-to-day strategy, operations, and policy direction, with co-founder Mark Leonard serving as director since ECFR's inception. Leonard, whose work centers on , EU institutions, and , promotes supranational frameworks for addressing challenges like great-power competition, often critiquing bilateral or sovereignty-focused approaches as insufficient for Europe's global role. Other key figures include deputy directors such as Vessela Tcherneva, who contributes to operational oversight while maintaining external affiliations like board roles at Italian think tanks. Membership selection for the operates through invitations extended by existing members or leadership, emphasizing commitment to "effective and values-based European ," which empirically favors pro-integration perspectives from centrist and figures. This process yields a body with scant representation of nationalist or EU-skeptical prevalent in segments of European electorates, as reflected in the absence of affiliates from parties like Italy's Lega or France's among listed members. Such homogeneity risks insulating deliberations from grassroots concerns over national autonomy in , prioritizing elite consensus over broader democratic accountability.

National Offices and Operational Reach

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) operates through a network of national offices designed to embed its activities within key European capitals, fostering input from diverse national perspectives while advancing coordinated initiatives. Headquartered in since its founding in October 2007, ECFR initially established offices there alongside and to anchor its presence in major EU influencers. Subsequent expansions to , , , and extended its footprint, aligning with the integration of Central and Eastern European states following the EU's 2004 and 2007 enlargements, which added and among others, thereby necessitating greater engagement with post-communist member states' viewpoints on continental security and diplomacy. These offices serve as hubs for localized , organizing seminars, workshops, and consultations that adapt broader pan-European recommendations to domestic political dynamics and stakeholder priorities in host countries. For instance, and offices facilitate dialogues on Eastern neighborhood challenges, drawing in regional policymakers to bridge national concerns with -level strategies. This decentralized structure aims to counterbalance the dominance of Brussels-based decision-making by amplifying capital-city voices, though it has drawn scrutiny for channeling federalist-oriented proposals—such as enhanced —that some national advocates view as prioritizing supranational coordination over unilateral state interests. ECFR's operational reach extends beyond offices through formal and informal partnerships with EU institutions, including hosting officials for capital-specific engagements and contributing to policy consultations that inform Commission and deliberations. This access enables direct influence on , enlargement debates, and crisis responses, amid persistent tensions over whether such collaborations erode member states' in favor of homogenized EU positions. The network's design underscores a commitment to multi-level , with offices coordinating to host cross-border events that align national elites with European goals.

Staff Composition and Expertise

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) employs approximately 100 to 200 staff members across its offices in and the , including policy fellows, researchers, and administrative personnel. These individuals are predominantly policy analysts and experts focused on European foreign and , with roles emphasizing , , and coalition-building. Staff backgrounds typically feature experience in EU institutions such as the or , NATO-affiliated organizations, and fellowships at other international think tanks like the Carnegie Endowment or . Many hold advanced degrees in , , or from European universities, often with prior roles in or governmental advisory positions. This composition underscores a cosmopolitan profile, with multilingual capabilities in languages like English, French, German, and Russian, reflecting the pan-European scope of operations in cities including , , , , , , , and . Expertise among ECFR personnel is concentrated in —particularly threats from and —geo-economics involving dependencies, sanctions, and vulnerabilities, and migration policy frameworks for border management and integration. Examples include specialists in African geopolitics, energy transitions, and , with programmatic emphasis on technological competitiveness and rights-based migration cooperation. However, representation from active military backgrounds or economic nationalist viewpoints—such as advocates for protectionist energy policies or skepticism toward multilateral interdependence—appears limited, potentially reflecting recruitment priorities that favor integrated perspectives over divergent causal analyses of policy shortcomings. Recruitment patterns prioritize candidates with insider experience in Brussels-based networks, including EU policy circles and transnational think tanks, which aligns with ECFR's objective of influencing supranational but may constrain ideological diversity. This homogeneity, common in EU-adjacent institutions amid documented left-leaning biases in academia and , could hinder robust scrutiny of causal factors in failures, such as Europe's pre-2022 energy overreliance on , where first-principles assessments of geopolitical risks were often downplayed in favor of optimistic interdependence models.

Mission, Objectives, and Policy Framework

Core Mission Statement

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) defines its core mission as conducting independent research on European foreign and security policy, fostering debate among policymakers and influencers, and building coalitions to advance coherent EU-level strategies in response to global challenges including threats from Russia and China, climate change, and geo-economic shifts. This aspirational framework seeks to empower Europe as an "open, value-based, outward-looking" global actor and norm-setter, emphasizing pan-European coordination over fragmented national approaches. However, this mission has drawn scrutiny for prioritizing supranational mechanisms—such as enhanced EU foreign policy integration—despite empirical evidence of their limitations in addressing internal divisions among member states, where national priorities often diverge on issues like energy dependence and migration. ECFR's promotion of "informed debate about ’s role in the world" through and coalition-building ostensibly aims at pragmatic , yet analyses indicate a consistent tilt toward multilateral solutions that subordinate national to EU-wide consensus, potentially overlooking causal factors like sovereign vetoes that have historically stalled unified action, as seen in uneven responses to Russian aggression pre-2022. Independent assessments attribute this pattern to a left-center ideological in ECFR's output, which favors progressive internationalism and critiques governments resisting deeper integration, such as those prioritizing domestic . While the organization claims , its emphasis on EU empowerment via unproven collective mechanisms risks underemphasizing first-order realities like disparate economic capacities and security commitments across . Since its 2007 inception amid geopolitical crises, ECFR's mission has evolved toward broader geo-economic advocacy, particularly post-Russia's 2022 invasion of , where it has pushed for enhanced EU defense coordination, sanctions resilience, and diversified partnerships to counter hybrid threats—shifting from reactive analysis to proactive supranational resilience-building. This trajectory aligns with its 2022-2025 strategy framework, which integrates geo-economics into but continues to advocate multilateral tools without robust contingency for their frequent inefficacy, as evidenced by persistent EU fragmentation on and allocation during the conflict. Critics argue this evolution reinforces an elite-driven narrative that downplays the causal primacy of national interests in sustaining European unity, favoring instead aspirational constructs that have yielded mixed results in deterrence and adaptation.

Strategic Priorities in European Foreign Policy

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) outlines its strategic priorities in through a 2022-2025 framework aimed at fostering European sovereignty amid great power competition, particularly between the and , while de-risking interdependence in areas like geo-economics, geo-technology, and the geopolitics of and migration. This approach seeks to position as a global norm-setter by pooling resources across member states to develop policy prescriptions that enhance , though empirical assessments reveal persistent challenges in achieving EU-wide cohesion due to national divergences in threat perceptions and . A core pillar involves advancing EU strategic autonomy, defined by ECFR as the capacity to act independently where necessary while partnering selectively, with emphasis on reducing vulnerabilities to weaponized from actors like and . Post-2022 , ECFR has advocated shifting from mere autonomy to "strategic interdependence," integrating capabilities such as UK defense assets into EU frameworks to bolster projection without full detachment from transatlantic ties. However, outcomes show mixed alignment: EU member states increased defense spending by 30% from 2021 to 2024, reaching €326 billion, driven by the shock, yet integration remains fragmented, with smaller states facing disproportionate fiscal strains and opt-outs in initiatives like (PESCO). ECFR prioritizes countering hybrid threats—encompassing , cyberattacks, and economic coercion—primarily from , urging to build resilience independently in a potential post-transatlantic . This reflects causal realism in recognizing empirical escalations, such as Russia's pre-2022 hybrid tactics in and the Baltics, but abstracts from domestic political realities like populist resistance to supranational responses, which has led to uneven implementation across the . For instance, while ECFR calls for joint planning and whole-of-society approaches, national divergences persist, with cohesion indices showing varied public support for unified action, higher in but lower in Central and Eastern states amid economic burdens. In projecting "European power," ECFR focuses on defense integration and neighborhood influence, including faster enlargement ties for Balkan and Mediterranean stability to deter . Following the 2022 invasion, it highlighted drivers like rising budgets and Ukraine's demonstration of hybrid vulnerabilities to push for pooled and capability-building, aiming to protect against Russian . Empirically, this has yielded progress in —60% of Europeans expressed support for aid in 2024 surveys—but cohesion falters against national interests, as seen in delayed joint projects and fiscal hesitancy in debt-constrained economies, underscoring ECFR's emphasis on coalitions over political realism.

Research Programs and Outputs

Regional and Thematic Focus Areas

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) structures its research across regional programmes covering , , Wider Europe, the (MENA), and the , complemented by a thematic programme on European Power. These domains blend geopolitical analysis with policy recommendations aimed at enhancing EU influence, often emphasizing diplomatic tools, economic interdependencies, and multilateral frameworks over unilateral or military-centric approaches. The Africa programme scrutinizes EU-African Union relations, with emphasis on resource security, trade dynamics, and foreign policy innovations to counter influences from actors like and in critical mineral supplies essential for Europe's green transition. In Asia, research targets Europe's strategic positioning vis-à-vis —including competition over technology, supply chains, and Indo-Pacific security—as well as ties with and , highlighting EU dependencies exposed by events such as the 2020-2022 chip shortages and Beijing's expansions. Wider Europe focuses on EU strategies toward eastern neighbors, including post-2022 support for amid Russian aggression, energy diversification from Russian gas (which constituted 40% of EU imports in ), and stabilization efforts in the . The MENA programme addresses regional instability, migration flows—responsible for over 1 million irregular EU arrivals between 2015 and 2023—and stability operations, prioritizing European agendas for countering extremism and managing refugee pressures from conflicts in and . Coverage of the examines transatlantic divergences, such as differing threat perceptions of and , influencing EU autonomy in defense spending, which reached 1.7% of GDP on average in 2023 per data. Thematically, the European Power programme integrates cross-regional issues like geo-economics and , including evaluations of post- sanctions, which ECFR analyses have shown to inflict short-term pain on (e.g., a 2-3% GDP contraction in ) but reveal EU vulnerabilities in prices and industrial competitiveness. These overlaps underscore ECFR's advocacy for coordinated EU responses, yet the think tank's outputs demonstrate selective breadth: while external drivers of migration and threats receive extensive treatment, internal EU ramifications—such as net fiscal costs of estimated at €20-30 billion annually in host countries like —or sovereignty trade-offs in supranational decision-making are comparatively underexplored, potentially reflecting a prioritization of integrationist lenses over domestic hard-power or cost-benefit realism.

Publications, Events, and Media Engagement

ECFR disseminates its research through policy briefs, essays, longer reports, and commentaries addressing European priorities. These outputs emphasize , transatlantic dynamics, and technological disruptions, with recent examples including the February 2025 policy brief "Transatlantic twilight: European public opinion and the long shadow of Trump," which drew on a poll of 28,549 respondents across 24 countries to assess declining European in U.S. alliances post-election. In 2025, the brief "Trump's European Revolution" analyzed how U.S. policy shifts under Trump were reshaping continental and domestic politics, urging adaptive European strategies. On technologies, the 2025 essay "Why the EU needs an AI " outlined risks from AI weaponization and vulnerabilities, recommending coordinated EU responses to maintain sovereignty amid U.S.- competition. Events serve as platforms for debate among elites, with the annual council meeting as the flagship gathering of policymakers, experts, and council members. The 2024 edition in , under the theme "Europe's Choice: Is 2024 Europe's moment of reinvention?", featured panels on deterring Russian aggression and contingency planning for Trump's return, alongside discussions of elections and global fragmentation. The 2023 meeting in highlighted U.S. scenarios and their implications for European security, including burdensharing. The 2025 event, set for 27-28 June in , continues this focus on pressing geopolitical shifts. Additional webinars and conferences cover thematic issues like geo-economics and regional crises, prioritizing closed-door exchanges over mass audiences. Podcasts extend ECFR's reach, offering audio analyses curated for foreign policy practitioners. "Mark Leonard's World in 30 Minutes" delivers weekly episodes on global events, with recent installments addressing transatlantic strains. "ECFR On Air" provides concise expert commentary on timely developments, such as and U.S. policy pivots. Specialized series like "Swamp Chronicles" dissect Trump's electoral impact on , while episodes in "Europe Listens" and G7-focused discussions incorporate AI governance in multilateral contexts. Media engagement centers on opinion pieces, interviews, and press briefings to influence decision-makers, with contributions appearing in outlets like the and international journals. A weekly compiles publications, event recaps, and coverage, alongside media tip sheets for journalists. This approach prioritizes access to elite networks and Brussels-centric discourse, yielding citations in policy circles but limited diffusion into skeptical national audiences wary of deepened EU federalism.

Funding and Financial Operations

Sources of Funding and Donors

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) draws funding from foundations, European governments and public bodies, and corporations, with the organization asserting that this diversity safeguards its independence. Foundations include the , , Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and , among 25 listed supporters. Government donors encompass 22 entities such as the , Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. Corporate contributors number 14, including , , and Siemens AG. Approximately one-quarter of funds derive from government agencies, including foreign ministries of multiple European states. Open Society Foundations, linked to George Soros, has served as a primary donor since ECFR's founding in 2007, contributing substantially to its operations alongside other private foundations. This reliance on select foundations has drawn scrutiny in analyses from 2007 onward regarding funding concentrations potentially aligned with globalist agendas, despite ECFR's emphasis on broad donor bases for impartiality. ECFR's total income reached £7,278,122 in 2017, reflecting a budget scale that has supported expansion across offices and programs, though recent figures remain in the €10-15 million range per operational reports. Much of ECFR's support consists of project-specific grants, which align resources with donor-designated priorities such as regional or response initiatives. For instance, post-2015 migration surges saw targeted from foundations and governments to bolster related research outputs, tying financial inflows to thematic focuses like border management and integration strategies. Such grant structures necessitate ongoing donor solicitation, with ECFR maintaining transparency through annual donor disclosures while navigating dependencies on recurrent major backers.

Claims of Independence and Transparency Issues

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) maintains that its and outputs remain of donor priorities, supported by a diverse base and a Code of Conduct that emphasizes , objectivity, and in fund acceptance. This framework is intended to prevent external influence on its work, with the organization stating that contributions are vetted to align with its mission without compromising autonomy. Audited , filed annually with the UK Charity Commission as required for its registered entity, provide oversight of overall revenues and expenditures, including donations and legacies, but do not extend to disclosing specific donor allocations or potential impacts on agendas. ECFR's documents highlight reliance on project-specific alongside unrestricted funds, yet public disclosures omit granular links between funders and outputs, limiting external verification of influence claims. Critics, including , have highlighted inconsistencies in donor scrutiny, arguing that ECFR's acceptance of corporate contributions from entities it elsewhere critiques for settlement activities undermines transparency and raises questions about selective application of standards. Board members' affiliations with governments, corporations, and philanthropies introduce potential indirect channels of influence not fully detailed in disclosures, particularly amid dependencies on European Union-related funding streams registered under transparency rules. Such gaps contrast with more rigorous U.S. practices in some cases, where donor-project attributions are occasionally specified to enable assessment of agenda alignment.

Policy Positions and Influence

Advocacy for EU Integration and Global Engagement

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) has consistently advocated for enhanced foreign policy integration to foster a more coherent and effective approach amid global challenges, emphasizing coalition-building among member states to overcome fragmentation. In a 2019 analysis, ECFR highlighted public support across for a stronger, independent global role, with surveys indicating over 50% of respondents in most states favoring tough stances on issues like Russia sanctions and collective action on and migration, arguing this necessitates deeper coordination mechanisms such as coalitions of willing states. ECFR promotes tools like qualified majority voting (QMV) in the (CFSP) to bypass unanimity blocks, recommending alliances—such as the "Affluent Seven" (Austria, , , , , , )—to assemble the required 15 member states representing at least 288 million citizens for decisive action. However, shifting to QMV dilutes national powers, potentially eroding for dissenting states and reducing ownership in decisions, as critics note this could prioritize majority preferences over minority interests in sensitive geopolitical matters. ECFR supports expanded EU global engagement, particularly through Indo-Pacific strategies to counter assertiveness from actors like China, urging discussions with regional partners such as Japan and South Korea while pursuing strategic autonomy alongside transatlantic ties. The think tank has scrutinized initiatives like AUKUS—the 2021 US-UK-Australia security pact—highlighting its exclusion of European allies, such as the cancellation of France's €8 billion submarine deal, as a breach of trust that underscores coordination gaps and risks prolonged transatlantic tensions. In EU-China relations, ECFR endorses "de-risking" over full decoupling in critical sectors like green technology supply chains (e.g., solar panels, batteries, electric vehicles), where China holds dominance, recommending diversification, stockpiling, and tariffs to mitigate coercion risks while preserving some interdependence for competitiveness. Yet, such de-risking entails causal trade-offs, including elevated consumer prices from reduced reliance on low-cost Chinese inputs and potential slowdowns in Europe's energy transition, with empirical estimates indicating aggregate welfare losses from supply chain reconfiguration between China and OECD members, including the EU. Following Russia's 2022 invasion of , ECFR intensified calls for robust support, advocating sustained (e.g., , air defenses for a 900,000-strong Ukrainian force), defense industry financing via joint ventures, and accelerated integration like access to bolster resilience. It proposes deploying a 15,000-20,000-strong European reassurance force and channeling €200 billion in frozen Russian assets toward reconstruction estimated at €506 billion over a . While acknowledging broader European burdens such as inflows and financial strains, ECFR's emphasis on aid has understated the war's direct inflationary toll, which drove euro area consumer price projections upward by 2.9 percentage points to over 6% in 2022, fueled by price surges and base effects exacerbating amid disrupted supplies. This highlights integration's trade-offs, where unified aid commitments amplify domestic economic pressures without fully accounting for veto-diluted national priorities on cost mitigation.

Impact on European Decision-Making

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) exerts influence on European decision-making through targeted policy recommendations, expert consultations, and engagement with officials, leveraging its network of over 200 council members including former diplomats and national leaders. This access has enabled contributions to strategic dialogues, such as analyses informing revisions to the framework; for example, ECFR reports on were cited in a 2022 briefing assessing the concept's evolution from 2013 onward. ECFR's input has shaped debates on key instruments like the EU Strategic Compass for Security and Defence, finalized in March 2022 and subject to a 2023 progress review. The organization critiqued the Compass's initial limitations in addressing problems and rapid geopolitical shifts, advocating for enhanced interoperability and rapid deployment capacities that aligned with subsequent implementation adjustments reported by the . Such engagements, often channeled through directors like Mark Leonard, have informed High Representative strategies by highlighting gaps in crisis response mechanisms. Empirical metrics, however, indicate bounded tangible effects. ECFR publications are referenced in parliamentary discussions on challenges, yet they have not measurably altered trajectories of nationalist resistance, as evidenced by the UK's completion on January 31, 2020, and Hungary's repeated vetoes of EU sanctions or enlargement initiatives post-2016. Similarly, ECFR's promotion of multilateral energy diplomacy correlated with pre-2022 policy inertia, where Russian gas accounted for approximately 40% of EU imports, delaying diversification until the 2022 crisis prompted measures reducing dependence by over 100 billion cubic meters in consumption by 2023. These outcomes underscore how intergovernmental vetoes and national priorities often constrain think tank-driven , yielding aspirational influence amid persistent gridlocks.

Criticisms, Controversies, and Ideological Leanings

Allegations of Left-Center Bias and Policy Skew

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) has been rated as having a left-center by organizations, primarily due to patterns in its publications that employ language favoring progressive and integration while critiquing or populist positions as sources of division. For instance, assigns ECFR a left-center , noting word choices that consistently promote left-leaning perspectives, such as portraying deviations from supranational consensus as risks to cohesion rather than legitimate exercises of . This assessment highlights ECFR's tendency to frame in terms like "fragmentation," as seen in pre-election analyses where voter concerns over are grouped with other challenges to unity, implying a normative for structures over sovereignty-focused alternatives. Critics allege a skew in ECFR's outputs toward emphasizing and migration cooperation, often without proportional attention to empirical drawbacks such as management failures under Schengen or the fiscal burdens of the . ECFR publications advocate for resilient EU strategies amid electoral pushback, positioning green policies as essential for global influence while downplaying domestic economic strains, as in reports urging breakthroughs in spending despite rising opposition. Similarly, surveys link and migration as intertwined "extinction rebellions" shaping voter priorities, promoting pacts for managed flows but sidelining data on integration costs or erosions from open- dynamics. This focus, detractors claim, privileges idealistic over realist evaluations of outcomes. Right-leaning observers contend that ECFR's approach suppresses arguments for national sovereignty by normalizing a left-EU consensus in elite discourse, where populist responses to integration challenges are depicted as threats to coherence rather than causal reactions to perceived overreach. Analyses of rising challenger parties underscore their potential to disrupt established EU trajectories, framing such shifts as destabilizing without equally weighing voter-driven demands for prioritization of domestic and economic realism. These critiques posit that ECFR's ideological tilt contributes to a think-tank ecosystem that marginalizes dissenting views, fostering an environment where progressive supranationalism dominates without rigorous counterbalance from data on failures.

Concerns Over External Influences and National Sovereignty

Critics have raised concerns that the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)'s emphasis on transnational foreign policy priorities may reflect donor influences prioritizing supranational integration over national democratic choices. The organization received initial financing from George Soros's , which has historically advocated for expansive migration policies framed as humanitarian imperatives, including proposals for the EU to absorb millions of refugees through shared quotas and fiscal mechanisms. This alignment is seen by detractors as promoting "open borders" lite approaches, such as maintaining external EU borders permeable for lawful migrants while pushing internal free movement, which conflicts with voter-approved national safeguards like Denmark's opt-outs from EU and affairs —established via in 1992 and reaffirmed in subsequent votes. Such donor ties, critics argue, incentivize ECFR to advance elite-driven agendas that sideline referendum outcomes expressing public resistance to ceding control over immigration and borders. ECFR's advocacy for enhanced EU-level capabilities, including greater defense autonomy and fiscal transfers to fund , has drawn scrutiny for potentially eroding member states' without addressing the backlash from electorates. Publications from the call for to build "leverage in armed conflicts" through pooled resources and overcoming "internal differences" on , implicitly supporting steps toward an integrated EU defense framework akin to an , alongside economic tools like sanctions that require shared fiscal commitments. However, this overlooks empirical causal factors in populist surges across from 2016 to 2024, including and gains by parties like Italy's and France's , which stemmed partly from perceived EU overreach on issues such as mandatory fiscal and defense integration. Detractors contend that ECFR's focus on "European " as collective EU power—rather than bolstering national capacities—insulates policymakers from to voters wary of transferring competencies to . In the realm of Russia policy, ECFR's scorecard assessments praising EU sanctions coherence have been faulted for downplaying domestic economic repercussions on European citizens, such as energy price spikes exceeding 300% in , which fueled populist critiques and electoral shifts. While ECFR defenders highlight the necessity of expert analysis to navigate external threats like Russian coercion, opponents argue this expertise often prioritizes geopolitical alignment with donors' globalist visions over addressing voter-expressed from policies that prioritize aid and sanctions enforcement, evidenced by revolts in countries like where AfD support rose amid deindustrialization fears. This dynamic, per critics, exemplifies how external funding and elite networks enable transnational advocacy detached from national parliaments' .

Responses to Specific Geopolitical Critiques

Critics of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) have contended that its pre- advocacy for robust sanctions and to underestimated the escalation risks posed by Russia's nuclear saber-rattling and the limits of intra- cohesion, as later revealed by divergent member state capacities and public fatigue. In response, ECFR adjusted its framework post-invasion to emphasize a "long war" paradigm, outlining in September a compact involving €100 billion in transitions, bilateral assurances against Russian , and economic integration via access, while explicitly warning against traps that could entangle in direct combat. Despite these shifts toward harder assessments of Russian inefficacy, ECFR maintained optimism on unity, even as 2024 polling exposed a " versus justice" divide, with Eastern states favoring victory and Western ones settlement. Regarding (MENA) dynamics, ECFR's support for preserving the 2015 (JCPOA) with has faced accusations of idealism, ignoring empirical evidence of Tehran's continued uranium enrichment beyond deal limits and proxy escalations in and post-2018 U.S. withdrawal. ECFR rebutted such critiques by stressing in 2025 analyses that abandoning snapback sanctions risks Iranian nuclear breakout without viable alternatives, advocating calibrated (France, , ) pressure to avert broader war while acknowledging diplomacy's constraints amid Israel's strikes. This stance reflects a causal prioritization of mechanisms over maximalist confrontation, though detractors argue it underweights deterrence's role in curbing regime behavior. In contexts, ECFR positions on , such as polling-driven calls to "keep far away" via selective decoupling in tech and trade, have been critiqued for lingering idealism in assuming leverage could temper Beijing's assertiveness without full-spectrum bans, given empirical data on infiltration risks and supply chain vulnerabilities. Post-2022, ECFR hardened rhetoric by integrating Russia- alignment into threat assessments, urging to bolster deterrence amid U.S. retrenchment, yet persisted in viewing as viable despite cohesion gaps exposed by varying member exposures to Chinese economic coercion.

Achievements, Recognition, and Limitations

Notable Contributions and Awards

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) was recognized as the European Think Tank of the Year in 2010 by Prospect magazine, an accolade highlighting its early efforts to promote coordinated foreign policy discussions among EU member states through pan-European networks and publications. This award underscored ECFR's role in bridging national divides in foreign affairs analysis shortly after its 2007 founding. A key contribution has been the annual European Foreign Policy Scorecard, launched in 2010, which systematically evaluates the 's influence across more than 100 global issues using expert assessments and data on diplomatic, economic, and normative power. The scorecard has informed policy debates, with editions like the 2016 version analyzing the 's performance amid crises in and the , prompting reflections on strategic shortcomings. ECFR's policy papers have advanced frameworks for sanctions, notably the 2013 report EU Sanctions Policies, which advocated for targeted, reversible measures over broad restrictions to enhance effectiveness and minimize backlash. This work contributed to evolving practices, as seen in refined approaches to Russia-related sanctions post-2014, though empirical adoption remains partial amid member state divergences. Experts from ECFR also participated in consultations for the 's 2016 Global Strategy, offering insights on resilience and hybrid threats that aligned with final emphases on integrated foreign and . Media citations of ECFR analyses and partnerships with EU institutions reflect broader recognition, yet in the competitive think tank landscape, such visibility often involves self-promotion alongside substantive input. For instance, recommendations for calibrated engagement with to stabilize migration and ties have gained traction in dialogues but faced limited uptake due to geopolitical frictions.

Measured Impact and Empirical Assessments

Empirical evaluations of the (ECFR) highlight its role in fostering analytical discourse among European policymakers and elites, primarily through tools like the annual European Foreign Policy Scorecards, which benchmark and member-state performance across 80 policy areas in themes such as and . These scorecards have been integrated into official assessments, including the Dutch government's 2023 analysis of -Russia policy unity on sanctions, where ECFR's Flash Scorecard provided data on member-state alignment. Similarly, academic frameworks for evaluating foreign policy effectiveness reference early ECFR scorecards as foundational metrics for measuring coherence and impact. However, causal attribution of ECFR's work to tangible policy shifts remains weak, as influence metrics—such as overlaps in cited analyses within foreign affairs documents—are not systematically quantified and confounded by parallel inputs from national governments, other think tanks, and geopolitical events. The organization's pan-European surveys, like the 2020 Explorer tracking member-state positions on 27 issues, have informed debates on alignment but show no direct linkage to resolved divergences, such as varying stances or prior to the 2022 invasion. Limitations are evident in hard outcomes: ECFR publications warned against Nord Stream 2's risks to energy diversification and transatlantic ties as early as 2018, yet the entered service in September 2021, deepening dependencies until wartime disruptions forced abrupt changes independent of think-tank advocacy. On migration, ECFR's calls for enhanced EU have coincided with persistent fragmentation, where national controls—exemplified by Denmark's strict policies or Italy's bilateral deals—override supranational recommendations, yielding no measurable unification in controls or returns data attributable to ECFR inputs. In verdict, ECFR excels in cultivating consensus within pro-integration circles, as seen in its scorecards' adoption for by EU actors, but data underscore shortcomings in bridging ideological divides or averting suboptimal paths, reflecting the inherent constraints of advocacy-oriented analysis amid sovereign national priorities.

References

  1. https://ecfr.eu/about/
  2. https://www.euromesco.net/institute/ecfr-european-council-on-foreign-relations/
  3. https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/european_council_on_foreign_relations_ecfr_0/
  4. https://ecfr.eu/contact/
  5. https://ecfr.eu/donors/funding/
  6. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/who-we-are/our-history
  7. https://ecfr.eu/publications/
  8. https://ecfr.eu/publication/occupational-therapy-frozen-conflicts-russian-aggression-and-eu-enlargement
  9. https://ecfr.eu/council/
  10. https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_europes_iraq_policy/
  11. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-crisis-in-the-alliance/
  12. https://www.developmentaid.org/organizations/view/69980/ecfr-the-european-council-on-foreign-relations
  13. https://www.influencewatch.org/organization/european-council-on-foreign-relations/
  14. https://ecfr.eu/archive/page/-/ECFR_SCORECARD_2010_PDF.pdf
  15. https://policycommons.net/orgs/european-council-on-foreign-relations/
  16. https://ecfr.eu/profile/mark_leonard/
  17. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/cbdbf3ce-5497-4a41-adbc-7160c825817e/a_complete_3.pdf
  18. https://ecfr.eu/councilmeeting/info/contact1
  19. https://ecfr.eu/leadership/
  20. https://ecfr.eu/archive/page/-/council_membership_brochure.pdf
  21. https://ecfr.eu/council/members/
  22. https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/european-council-on-foreign-relations?rid=339569615567-89&sid=36354
  23. https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search?p_p_id=uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet&p_p_lifecycle=2&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&p_p_resource_id=%252Faccounts-resource&p_p_cacheability=cacheLevelPage&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_objectiveId=A11296922&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_priv_r_p_mvcRenderCommandName=%252Ffull-print&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_priv_r_p_organisationNumber=4049916
  24. https://www.linkedin.com/company/european-council-on-foreign-relations
  25. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/european-council-on-foreign-relations
  26. https://ecfr.eu/publication/the-young-and-the-restless-europe-russia-and-the-next-generation-of-diplomats-in-the-eastern-partnership/
  27. https://ecfr.eu/experts/
  28. https://ecfr.eu/category/geoeconomics/
  29. https://ecfr.eu/category/migration/
  30. https://ecfr.eu/jobs/
  31. https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-eurocrats-exam-brussels-bubble-shift-to-remote-assessment-sparks-outrage/
  32. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12921
  33. https://ecfr.eu/
  34. https://ecfr.eu/about/strategy-framework/
  35. https://ecfr.eu/publication/preventing-the-next-war-a-european-plan-for-ukraine/
  36. https://ecfr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Defend.-Resist.-Repeat-Ukraines-lessons-for-European-defence.pdf
  37. https://ecfr.eu/topic/politics-cohesion/
  38. https://ecfr.eu/article/onwards-and-outwards-why-the-eu-needs-to-move-from-strategic-autonomy-to-strategic-interdependence/
  39. https://ecfr.eu/wp-content/uploads/Independence-play-Europes-pursuit-of-strategic-autonomy.pdf
  40. https://academic.oup.com/yel/advance-article/doi/10.1093/yel/yeaf003/8112000
  41. https://ecfr.eu/article/alone-we-stand-how-europe-can-counter-hybrid-threats-in-a-post-transatlantic-era/
  42. https://ecfr.eu/publication/protecting_europe_against_hybrid_threats/
  43. https://ecfr.eu/publication/occupational-therapy-frozen-conflicts-russian-aggression-and-eu-enlargement/
  44. https://ecfr.eu/publication/crisis_cohesion_ten_year_review/
  45. https://ecfr.eu/publication/strength-in-members-how-to-rally-eu-enlargement-for-defence/
  46. https://ecfr.eu/article/five-reasons-driving-european-defence-integration-after-the-ukraine-invasion/
  47. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/library/library-blog/posts/think-tank-reports-on-russia-s-war-of-aggression-against-ukraine/
  48. https://ecfr.eu/africa/
  49. https://ecfr.eu/asia/
  50. https://ecfr.eu/wider/
  51. https://ecfr.eu/mena/
  52. https://ecfr.eu/united-states/
  53. https://ecfr.eu/europeanpower/
  54. https://ecfr.eu/publication/transatlantic-twilight-european-public-opinion-and-the-long-shadow-of-trump/
  55. https://ecfr.eu/article/why-the-eu-needs-an-ai-foreign-policy/
  56. https://ecfr.eu/event/annual-council-meeting-2024/
  57. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iml9fRow8nA
  58. https://ecfr.eu/event/annual-council-meeting-2025/
  59. https://ecfr.eu/events/
  60. https://ecfr.eu/podcast-series/world-in-30-minutes/
  61. https://ecfr.eu/podcasts/
  62. https://www.carnegie.org/grants/grants-database/grantee/european-council-on-foreign-relations/
  63. https://ecfr.eu/donors/
  64. https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search?p_p_id=uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet&p_p_lifecycle=2&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&p_p_resource_id=%252Faccounts-resource&p_p_cacheability=cacheLevelPage&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_objectiveId=A10450827&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_priv_r_p_mvcRenderCommandName=%252Faccounts-and-annual-returns&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_priv_r_p_organisationNumber=4049916
  65. https://ngo-monitor.org/ecfr-indifferent-to-differentiation-when-it-comes-to-corporate-donors/
  66. https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/european-council-on-foreign-relations?rid=339569615567-89
  67. https://ecfr.eu/publication/popular_demand_for_strong_european_foreign_policy_what_people_want/
  68. https://ecfr.eu/publication/untapped_potential_how_new_alliances_can_strengthen_the_eu/
  69. https://europeanrelations.com/is-it-time-for-qualified-majority-voting-in-eu-foreign-policy/
  70. https://www.ainvest.com/news/eu-shift-qualified-majority-voting-foreign-policy-implications-geopolitical-economic-stability-2508/
  71. https://ecfr.eu/article/after-aukus-the-uncertain-future-of-american-and-european-cooperation-in-the-indo-pacific/
  72. https://ecfr.eu/publication/trust-and-trade-offs-how-to-manage-europes-green-technology-dependence-on-china/
  73. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2024/122/article-A001-en.xml
  74. https://www.eib.org/attachments/publications/how_bad_is_the_ukraine_war_for_the_european_recovery_en.pdf
  75. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/733589/EPRS_BRI%282022%29733589_EN.pdf
  76. https://ecfr.eu/article/the-eus-strategic-compass-brand-new-already-obsolete/
  77. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/2023-annual-progress-report-implementation-strategic-compass-security-and-defence_en
  78. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/grading-european-foreign-policy/
  79. https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-04/hlg-report_en.pdf
  80. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23340460.2020.1892417
  81. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/european-council-foreign-relations-ecfr/
  82. https://ecfr.eu/publication/how_to_govern_a_fragmented_eu_what_europeans_said_at_the_ballot_box/
  83. https://ecfr.eu/publication/ends-of-the-earth-how-eu-climate-action-can-weather-the-coming-election-storm/
  84. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/01/17/two-extinction-rebellions-climate-and-migration-fears-to-shape-eu-election-study-says
  85. https://ecfr.eu/publication/rise-to-the-challengers-europes-populist-parties-and-its-foreign-policy-future/
  86. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/why-europe-must-embrace-its-refugees
  87. https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_how_to_save_europe/
  88. https://www.thedanishparliament.dk/eu-information-centre/the-danish-opt-outs-from-eu-cooperation
  89. https://ecfr.eu/publication/defending-europe-with-less-america/
  90. https://ecfr.eu/article/war-and-sovereignty-how-the-eu-can-enhance-its-ability-to-act/
  91. https://ecfr.eu/special/sovereignty-index/
  92. https://www.government.nl/binaries/government/documenten/reports/2023/03/15/the-eus-russia-policy-ecfr-flash-scorecard/scorecard-of-eu-russia-policy.pdf
  93. https://ecfr.eu/publication/the_great_unravelling_four_doomsday_scenarios_7301/
  94. https://ecfr.eu/publication/the-meaning-of-sovereignty-ukrainian-and-european-views-of-russias-war-on-ukraine/
  95. https://ecfr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Survive-and-thrive-A-European-plan-to-support-Ukraine-in-the-long-war-against-Russia.pdf
  96. https://www.pubaffairsbruxelles.eu/opinion-analysis/why-a-ukraine-peacekeeping-force-could-become-a-trap-for-europe/
  97. https://ecfr.eu/publication/brass-tacks-why-russias-military-fails-to-reform/
  98. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2015-01/features/extending-iran-nuclear-talks-not-ideal-not-defeat
  99. https://ecfr.eu/article/the-risks-of-the-draw-europes-post-snapback-move-on-iran/
  100. https://ecfr.eu/article/snap-out-of-it-europe-iran-and-nuclear-negotiations/
  101. https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Safeguarding-the-Iran-Nuclear-Deal-A-Blueprint-for-Europe.pdf
  102. https://ecfr.eu/publication/keeping-america-close-russia-down-and-china-far-away-how-europeans-navigate-a-competitive-world/
  103. https://ecfr.eu/publication/great-changes-unseen-the-china-russia-nexus-and-european-security/
  104. https://ecfr.eu/publication/living-in-an-a-la-carte-world-what-european-policymakers-should-learn-from-global-public-opinion/
  105. https://ecfr.eu/scorecard/2016
  106. https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/EUGS_Expert_Opinions.pdf
  107. https://ecfr.eu/article/no-easy-choices-how-europe-can-write-a-new-chapter-with-turkey/
  108. https://ecfr.eu/scorecard
  109. https://www.government.nl/documents/reports/2023/03/15/the-eus-russia-policy-ecfr-flash-scorecard
  110. https://www.cidob.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/JOINT%2520Research%2520Paper%2520n%25C2%25BA22.pdf
  111. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-scorecard-for-european-foreign-policy/
  112. https://ecfr.eu/special/eucoalitionexplorer/
  113. https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_nord_stream_2_ecfr_opinions/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.