The role of the United States in the political transition of the EU's eastern neighbourhood

U.S. democracy assistance in the Eastern Neighbourhood (EN) region has varied in scope, consistency, and effectiveness across countries, shaped by both geopolitical priorities and domestic political conditions. Ukraine has been the primary recipient, receiving substantial and steady funding even before the outbreak of war in 2014. This reflects a long-standing U.S. interest in strengthening Ukraine’s democratic resilience, particularly through participatory and peacebuilding models of democracy assistance. The 2020 peak in funding underscores the heightened U.S. support in the context of active conflict and reform momentum.  Georgia has received diversified support across democratic models, though its funding has been less consistent over time. Periods of reform were met with robust assistance, but political instability and backsliding in recent years have disrupted this trajectory. Armenia has similarly seen modest but focused support, especially in decentralization efforts, though recent declines may indicate waning confidence in reform progress. Moldova has benefited from targeted support in participatory governance, especially in recent years, with a focus on administrative capacity-building rather than broad political reforms. The total volume of aid remains moderate compared to the region’s frontrunners. Azerbaijan’s aid profile is defined by a singular spike in 2006, with subsequent funding modest and irregular, limited by its entrenched authoritarianism. In Belarus, U.S. efforts have centred on civil society resilience within an increasingly closed political environment, with little room for broader democratic programming. Overall, while U.S. assistance has supported some meaningful democratic development, its impact is constrained in autocratic contexts. Effective aid requires flexibility, long-term commitment, and alignment with local political will and reform windows.     U.S. assistance has played a vital but uneven role in supporting democratization in the EN. In Ukraine, it strengthened civil society after Euromaidan, though war and corruption limit consolidation. Georgia remains a notable success, with post-Rose Revolution support bolstering media, judiciary, and civic activism, even if later backsliding has weakened progress. In Armenia, aid contributed to the 2018 Velvet Revolution, advancing electoral integrity and peaceful transition. Moldova shows mixed outcomes: reforms have been encouraged, but state capture and interference remain major barriers. In contrast, Belarus and Azerbaijan highlight the limits of external support, where entrenched authoritarian regimes have largely neutralized U.S. efforts, leaving only modest space for civil society. Overall, the impact of assistance is context-dependent, most effective in semi-open systems with strong domestic demand for reform. By adjusting strategies to reward democratic gains and respond to backsliding, U.S. aid has proven instrumental in building civil society resilience and institutional safeguards, even if its influence remains constrained in closed regimes.