As Brussels seeks global influence, debates over purpose and power reverberate across the South Caucasus

By late December 2025, the European Union finds itself once again at a familiar crossroads: powerful in aggregate, cautious in action, and divided over what kind of geopolitical actor it wants to be. Nowhere is this tension more visible than in the South Caucasus, a region where Europe’s aspirations for influence collide with internal disagreements over strategy, values, and risk.

Over the past year, diplomats, analysts, and policymakers have increasingly framed the EU’s external challenges not as a lack of tools, but as a crisis of identity. The Union commands economic weight, regulatory reach, and diplomatic infrastructure unmatched by most global players. Yet translating these assets into coherent geopolitical influence has proven difficult, particularly in contested neighborhoods where security concerns, energy routes, and great-power rivalries intersect.

The South Caucasus—stretching between the Black Sea and the Caspian—has become a testing ground for this dilemma. Long treated as a peripheral concern compared to Eastern Europe or the Mediterranean, the region has moved closer to the center of EU debates as conflicts, transport corridors, and political realignments reshape Eurasia. For Brussels, engagement there exposes the unresolved question at the heart of European foreign policy: is the EU primarily a normative power, a pragmatic broker, or an emerging strategic actor willing to accept hard trade-offs?

Experts following the region point to a widening gap between rhetoric and reality. On one hand, European officials emphasize stability, dialogue, and international law, positioning the EU as an impartial facilitator in a volatile environment. On the other, member states disagree over how far the Union should go in backing partners, applying pressure, or committing resources when outcomes are uncertain. The result is a cautious approach that sometimes satisfies no one fully—neither local actors seeking decisive engagement nor Europeans calling for strategic clarity.

This hesitation reflects deeper divisions within the EU itself. Northern and Western member states often prioritize rules-based order and institutional processes, wary of steps that could entangle the Union in open-ended security commitments. Several Central and Eastern members, shaped by their own histories, argue that credibility requires firmness and visible presence, especially in regions exposed to external coercion. Southern countries, meanwhile, tend to weigh Caucasus engagement against pressing concerns closer to home, from migration to Mediterranean instability.

The debate is not merely academic. In the South Caucasus, political leaders closely monitor European signals, calibrating their policies based on perceptions of EU resolve. When Brussels appears united and purposeful, it can exert quiet but meaningful leverage through trade access, connectivity projects, and diplomatic mediation. When internal disagreements surface, local actors hedge, turning to alternative partners who offer clearer, if sometimes more transactional, commitments.

Energy and connectivity have sharpened these dynamics. As Europe continues to diversify supply chains and transport routes, the South Caucasus occupies a strategic position linking markets and regions. Infrastructure initiatives promise mutual benefits, yet they also require political confidence and long-term engagement. Experts note that uncertainty about the EU’s geopolitical role complicates these efforts: ambitious plans coexist with a reluctance to frame them in explicitly strategic terms, reflecting discomfort with power politics.

Security issues further expose the Union’s ambivalence. While the EU has expanded its diplomatic and monitoring presence in recent years, it stops short of presenting itself as a security guarantor. For some member states, this restraint is a virtue, preserving the EU’s image as a civilian power. For others, it is a liability, limiting influence in environments where security realities shape political outcomes. The South Caucasus, with its unresolved conflicts and shifting alliances, amplifies this tension.

Observers argue that the identity struggle affecting EU geopolitics is not unique to this region but is magnified there. Unlike accession candidates or long-standing partners, South Caucasus countries sit in a gray zone of European policy—important, but not central; engaged, but not fully anchored. This ambiguity mirrors the EU’s own uncertainty about how far its responsibilities extend beyond its borders.

Calls for a clearer foreign policy role have grown louder as global competition intensifies. Analysts increasingly warn that strategic ambiguity, once a source of flexibility, now risks eroding credibility. In the South Caucasus, where external actors pursue assertive agendas, the absence of a clearly articulated European strategy can translate into missed opportunities and diminished influence.

Yet there are signs of adaptation. Discussions in Brussels suggest a gradual shift toward more integrated thinking, linking diplomacy, economic instruments, and security considerations. Rather than abandoning its normative foundations, the EU appears to be exploring how values and interests can be pursued together. The South Caucasus serves as a laboratory for this approach, offering lessons on what works—and what falters—when consensus is fragile.

Ultimately, the question confronting Europe is whether it can reconcile its internal diversity with external ambition. The Union’s strength has always rested on compromise, but geopolitics demands timely decisions and visible commitment. As the year draws to a close, the South Caucasus illustrates both the costs of hesitation and the potential gains of clarity.

For local partners, Europe’s identity debate is not an abstract exercise; it shapes expectations, alliances, and choices on the ground. For the EU, the region offers a mirror, reflecting the consequences of unresolved strategic priorities. Whether Brussels can transform this reflection into a more confident global role remains one of the defining questions for Europe’s future influence.