Accessibility links

Breaking News

Wider Europe

Two GRU officers (not pictured) were named as responsible for the Vrbetice ammunition depot explosions in 2014.
Two GRU officers (not pictured) were named as responsible for the Vrbetice ammunition depot explosions in 2014.

Welcome to Wider Europe, RFE/RL's newsletter focusing on the key issues concerning the European Union, NATO, and other institutions and their relationships with the Western Balkans and Europe's Eastern neighborhoods.

I'm RFE/RL's Europe Editor Rikard Jozwiak, and this week I'm drilling down on two issues: Can the EU add Russia's GRU to its terror list? Plus, more rolling EU sanctions on Moscow.

please wait

No media source currently available

0:00 0:10:55 0:00

Briefing #1: Can The EU Add The GRU To Its Terror List?

What You Need To Know: The European Union is at an early stage of exploring whether it is possible to put the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency, on the bloc’s terrorist list. The recent spate of hybrid attacks on various EU member states, many of them either directly or indirectly linked to GRU, has prompted diplomats and lawyers in the club to look into first if it is legally possible, and then to explore if there is enough political will around the table in Brussels to do so. The legality of such a move is being carefully studied, as the move by Brussels to terror list Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) in early January was a watershed moment for the EU. Previously, terrorist designations were reserved for clear non-state actors such as Hamas or Al-Qaeda. Listing the IRGC not only opened the possibility of targeting a formal branch of a sovereign state’s military and intelligence apparatus, but also codified the concept of “state-sponsored terrorism” in the EU’s legal framework. The EU designation of an entity or outfit as a terrorist organization must be based on a previous court decision in an EU member state or a trusted third country. In the case of the IRGC, the legal “smoking gun” was the 2023 ruling by the Dusseldorf higher regional court that an attempted arson attack against a synagogue in the nearby German city of Bochum a year earlier had been explicitly planned and carried out by the Iranian organization.

Deep Background: The challenge -- and something that is being looked into right now -- is if there is a similar ruling concerning the GRU. And that can prove tricky. So far, individual member states have officially charged GRU officers, often in absentia, under charges such as espionage or attempted murder -- but not terrorism. According to European diplomats that are familiar with the issue, national prosecutors are restricted to the technical definitions of their respective national penal codes. This means traditional criminal or intelligence-related charges but not terrorism. Look, for example, at the 2014 Vrbetice ammunition depot explosions in the Czech Republic. The country’s prosecutors did name two GRU officers as responsible but Czech law does not allow for a full criminal trial or conviction since the suspects remain in Russia. Or the Salisbury, England, Novichok poisoning targeting the former Russian agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in 2018. Here, GRU agents (incidentally the same as in Vrbetice) were charged in absentia but for attempted murder and the use of chemical weapons -- not terrorism.

Drilling Down

  • Perhaps the two most promising openings for pursuing the GRU as a terrorist organization come from Lithuania. In the first case, it involves an incident in 2024 when incendiary devices were supposed to be planted onto cargo planes bound for the United States and Canada but caught fire in warehouses in Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom. Lithuanian prosecutors charged 15 individuals in 2025 with terrorism, but these people were GRU-recruited operational proxies rather than direct GRU officers. The question for the legal minds in Brussels to ponder is if this link is strong enough.
  • Then there is the ongoing trial in the Baltic state in which six foreign nationals are accused of planning an arson attack in September 2024 targeting a private military supplier in the Lithuanian city of Siauliai that provides support to Ukraine. As in the first case, these people might be just proxies, but the link to GRU is allegedly a strong one, potentially paving the way for a terror designation.
  • Even if there is a clear legal pathway to designate GRU as a terrorist organization on the EU level, the question is if there is political appetite to go that far. Unanimity among the 27 EU member states is needed and some might argue that keeping diplomatic channels of communication open is essential as Moscow might retaliate to such a move by targeting European embassies, missions, or even culture houses still in the country.
  • The fact that the GRU is already sanctioned by the EU and hence has its assets in the bloc frozen and its leadership under visa ban should be sufficient, according to some Brussels officials. But more hawkish member states believe it is not enough. They note that a formal terror listing covers the entire institution, meaning that every single officer is targeted and therefore closes a loophole in which individuals not yet sanctioned could travel into the EU and operate more easily.
  • Another argument put forward as to why the terror listing is necessary is that it opens up the door for European prosecutors and police forces to arrest and convict the local proxy networks, including EU citizens, that tend to carry out hybrid attacks on behalf of the GRU.
  • It would also make it easier to issue EU-wide counterterrorism arrest warrants, as GRU operations would be fully integrated into Europol’s European Counter Terrorism Center (ECTC), and would strengthen cross-border intelligence tracking of the organization’s communications and safe houses within the bloc.


Briefing #2: The EU’s Rolling Russia Sanctions Continue

What You Need To Know: The European Union appears poised to continue adding to its Russia sanctions. Having seemingly moved away from big sectoral packages, the current method is to add more visa bans and asset freezes on people and companies on a monthly basis. When EU foreign ministers met on October 12, they formally approved the blacklisting of 1,600 new names, largely from the Russian military industry sector, taking the total number of people and entities sanctioned to over 4,600 since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. When the bloc’s foreign ministers meet again on November 16, they hope to add more. A new proposal, seen by RFE/RL, was presented to the 27 member states’ ambassadors in Brussels on October 21.While smaller in scale than the previous blacklisting -- with only 12 individuals and 105 companies proposed so far -- some of the names in the new proposal are of a much higher level. In the previous round, most EU diplomats, when pressed, could not even name a handful of those sanctioned, reflecting their low significance.

Deep Background: Perhaps the most significant person to be newly blacklisted is Tatyana Kim, the founder and CEO of Wildberries, Russian largest online retailer whose warehouses have been a frequent target of Ukrainian strikes in recent months. The sanctions proposal notes that “Wildberries functions as a supply network for the Russian military by facilitating the sale of military and dual-use goods” and adds that “the company has formed a strategic partnership with majority state owned VTB Bank, an entity listed by the European Union.” Businesspeople such as Aleksandr Chachava, who is described as an “entrepreneur,” and Ruslan Baysarov, referred to as “a billionaire,” are also on the list. Chachava is the owner of Russian investment holding company JSC "O23," which holds the biggest stake in Russia’s second-largest e-commerce company Ozon. The document notes that “Ozon serves as a supply network for the Russian military by facilitating the sale of military equipment and dual-use goods.” On top of that he also holds a stake in the country’s biggest IT company Yandex, which “generates substantial revenue for the government of the Russian Federation.” Baysarov is the chairman of JSC Bamtonnelstroy-Most (BTS-Most), a major infrastructure and transport construction enterprise in Russia and has also acquired a controlling stake in BTS-Gold, a significant gold mining company that is already sanctioned by Brussels.

Another interesting name is Sergei Matvienko, a Russian businessman whose mother Valentina Matvienko is the chairwoman of the Federation Council, Russia's upper house of parliament, and already on the bloc’s sanctions list since 2014 for supporting the Russian annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula at the time. Sergei Matvienko is proposed for blacklisting for being a shareholder of LLC Megalit-Okhta Group, one of Russia’s largest real-estate developers, which according to the text “acts as a major fiscal contributor to the budget of the Russian Federation.” He is also listed for his ownership of the Russian construction company LLC Parameter that “specializes in the collection, treatment, and repair of wastewater and sewage systems, working primarily with major clients on governmental contracts.” Other people on the list include managers of vessels transporting Russian oil as well as businesspeople involved in the Russian energy sector.

Drilling Down

  • Among the entities, there are several smaller and medium-sized Russian banks, including several regional ones -- a clear strategy as the major Russian financial institutions have already been targeted. Many of them are being sanctioned for offering loan-repayment grace periods to members of the Russian armed forces, especially those involved in the war against Ukraine.
  • There are also numerous companies on the suggested blacklist that control or own Russian oil refineries with the proposal stating that “the energy sector, in particular the oil sector, is a sector providing a substantial source of revenue to the Russian government.”
  • Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the entities listed is how many of them are non-Russian. The EU has gradually started to target firms in other countries that it believes are aiding the Kremlin, and this is one of the most ambitious attempts yet.
  • Several companies from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are proposed for sanctioning. The EU sets out that these companies, often through shell companies, manage “vessels that transport crude oil or petroleum products originating in Russia or exported from Russia and practice irregular and high-risk shipping practices.”
  • Two companies registered in the Seychelles are also proposed for targeting on the same grounds. In addition, several Chinese companies based in Hong Kong are included; they are either purchasing Russian oil or own multiple vessels already sanctioned by the EU for transporting Russian oil and petroleum products.


Looking Ahead

Look out for the EU-Canada summit in Montreal on October 29-30. The meeting comes as the pair seeks closer ties, with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen having earlier in the year floated the still-undefined idea of offering Canada “associate membership” of the EU. That idea might not have much political mileage as such a thing doesn’t yet exist and Ottawa might also not have much interest, but Canada could instead join the EU’s Erasmus student mobility program and its Galileo satellite navigation system.

That's all for this week!

Feel free to reach out to me on any of these issues on X @RikardJozwiak, or on e-mail at jozwiakr@rferl.org.

Until next time,

Rikard Jozwiak

If you enjoyed this briefing and don't want to miss the next edition subscribe here.

Montenegrin Foreign Minister Ervin Ibrahimovic (left) and his Croatian counterpart, Gordan Grlic Radman, meet aboard the Jadran sailing ship in Bar, Montenegro's main sea port, in January 2025.
Montenegrin Foreign Minister Ervin Ibrahimovic (left) and his Croatian counterpart, Gordan Grlic Radman, meet aboard the Jadran sailing ship in Bar, Montenegro's main sea port, in January 2025.

Welcome to Wider Europe, RFE/RL's newsletter focusing on the key issues concerning the European Union, NATO, and other institutions and their relationships with the Western Balkans and Europe's Eastern neighborhoods.

I'm RFE/RL Europe Editor Rikard Jozwiak, and this week I am drilling down on two issues: Croatia’s demands before giving the green light to Montenegro’s EU accession and Georgia’s growing irrelevance in Brussels.

please wait

No media source currently available

0:00 0:12:45 0:00

Briefing #1: Croatia’s Many Demands On Montenegro Ahead Of Potential EU Membership

What You Need To Know: Montenegro’s hopes of finishing its European Union accession talks by the end of the year and joining the club by 2028 have taken a hit after its neighbor and the most recent country to join the bloc, Croatia, presented its final eight demands to Podgorica and fellow EU member states.

Croatian officials said that they had communicated them to Montenegro during the summer, and in early October they circulated a paper in Brussels, seen by RFE/RL, titled “Outstanding Issues Between Croatia And Montenegro.”

The document states that “certain unexpected unilateral actions by the Montenegrin authorities have rekindled historical tensions and unnecessarily strained bilateral relations, risking the erosion of broad political support for Montenegro’s accession in Croatia.”

Not surprisingly, many of the issues hark back to the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s and matters that remain unresolved, with the text stating that “Croatia sincerely wishes to turn the page on this painful chapter of shared history and build a forward-looking relationship with Montenegro. Yet mutual trust and genuine, lasting reconciliation cannot be built without resolving these issues.”

Deep Background: During the EU summit in Brussels on October 15-16, Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic also fleshed out what Croatia is still demanding from Montenegro before giving its green light to the country’s EU accession.

While diplomats from many member states told RFE/RL that they have privately expressed annoyance with Zagreb’s position, which they describe as “unhelpful” and coming at the “eleventh hour” when many are keen to get Montenegro onboard, EU leaders were more understanding of Plenkovic’s position -- perhaps suggesting that enlargement isn’t really the top priority of the union after all.

They said that the Croatian leader was “excellent” in communicating what his country wants to see from Montenegro and that he received very little pushback.

This was also reflected in the final EU summit conclusions adopted by the European Council, which brings together the bloc’s leaders. The text states that the council “notes the intention of the Irish Council Presidency to work towards the provisional closure of the remaining negotiating chapters, subject to the implementation of the corresponding reforms by Montenegro.” There was no enthusiastic endorsement or warm welcome, with the emphasis instead firmly on Podgorica delivering on its commitments.

So far, Montenegro hasn’t reacted publicly to the Croatian demands, making it even harder to gauge how serious the situation is and how long it may take to resolve the outstanding issues.

Ireland, which holds the rotating council presidency until the end of the year, is still hoping to close the remaining 12 accession chapters out of the 33 Montenegro needs to become a member, but hardly anyone thinks Dublin will succeed.

A Lithuanian diplomat with knowledge of the file thinks that even Vilnius, which takes over the presidency for the first half of 2027, will struggle to get the talks over the line now.

Drilling Down

  • So, what exactly is Croatia asking for? Two of the eight demands concern the Morinj camp, where over 300 Croatian nationals were detained between October 1991 and August 1992, following the occupation of part of the Dubrovnik region by Serbian and Montenegrin forces.
  • The first is compensation. The paper states that Zagreb “expects a comprehensive settlement of the issue of compensation for Croatian nationals who were detained and subjected to ill-treatment.” No figure has been mentioned, however.
  • The second demand concerns a memorial plaque at the site. The plaque was jointly unveiled by Croatian and Montenegrin ministers in 2022, but the paper notes that Montenegrin nationalist groups have called for its removal and that “a larger metal frame has since been installed around it, apparently to accommodate a removable panel that could conceal the plaque except during official commemorations.”
  • The third demand also has indirect links to Morinj. It concerns the name of a swimming pool in the Montenegrin city of Kotor that Zagreb wants to change. It is named after Zoran Gopcevic, a former internationally renowned water polo player, who also served as a guard at Morinj. The paper adds that it is “unacceptable for a sports facility to bear the name of an individual associated with the ill-treatment and torture of Croatian detainees.”
  • Another demand involves securing the full “cooperation of the Montenegrin authorities in efforts to establish the fate of 14 Croatian nationals who went missing during the war of aggression against Croatia in the early 1990s”
  • Perhaps the trickiest demand is the fifth, which is closely related to the previous one and concerns the prosecution of war crimes. The document notes that “to date, no convictions have been secured on the basis of command responsibility. In the Morinj case, four members of the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) were convicted of war crimes by final judgments and received sentences totaling twelve years’ imprisonment. However, these convictions did not encompass crimes committed against civilians detained at the camp.”
  • Zagreb is also calling on Podgorica to settle property disputes dating back to the early 1990s involving 51 Croatian families that lived in Montenegro at that time.
  • Then there is perhaps the most publicly prominent dispute -- the potential restitution of the ”Jadran” sailing ship. The three-masted vessel, built in 1933, was historically based in the Croatian coastal city of Split, but when the war broke out, it was in Montenegro, where it has remained ever since. Podgorica maintains that the ship's presence on its territory at the time of Yugoslavia's dissolution gives it legal ownership.
  • Finally, Croatia is also calling for “continued and intensified dialogue on the delimitation of the border between the two countries.” According to the document, this should result in a treaty that “formally confirms that Montenegro has no territorial claims against Croatia.”
  • Interestingly, the maritime border between the two countries also remains unresolved, but the document does not make clear whether settling that dispute is also a condition for Montenegro's EU accession. Instead, it notes that “once the land border issue has been resolved, Croatia would be prepared to convene regular meetings of the expert and intergovernmental commissions responsible for maritime delimitation, without setting specific deadlines.”


Briefing #2: Georgia Fading Further From Brussels’ Radar

What You Need To Know: If there is one piece of evidence to show how little Georgia matters in Brussels these days, it is surely the debate on the South Caucasus republic held by foreign ministers at their monthly council gathering in Luxembourg on October 12.

Initially slated to be a full discussion point, it was relegated to a short “any other business” (AOB) item on the agenda at the very start of the gathering, with not even all foreign ministers taking the floor.

And the main conclusion of that short discussion was even more telling -- ministers agreed to return to Georgia as a full discussion point, but not until January.

In the meantime, the European Commission will publish its annual enlargement report on November 4, in which it is expected to reiterate last year's assessment that Georgia is an EU candidate country “in name only,” without stripping it of its candidate status.

Deep Background: However, a diplomatic note from the foreign affairs meeting, seen by RFE/RL, shows that many of the member states that took the floor, including Estonia, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands, and Poland highlighted the deterioration of the political situation in Georgia, including what they described as “democratic backsliding” and growing pressure on civil society. They also noted that the Georgian authorities had not shown any willingness to engage with the EU.

The debate came as the ruling Georgian Dream party was pushing to outlaw five opposition parties, although that specific move was not touched upon in the note.

Another issue absent from the discussion was Georgia’s visa liberalization status, with a decision to be made on the issue in the first months of next year at the latest.

As a direct result of the controversial parliamentary elections in Georgia in the autumn of 2024 and the subsequent deterioration of the political climate, Brussels suspended visa liberalization for holders of Georgian diplomatic passports earlier this year.

The most likely scenario is that the suspension will be extended by another 12 months, or potentially even 24. Extending the suspension to ordinary Georgian citizens, however, is still not being seriously entertained, with many EU member states reluctant to punish the population for the actions of its government, even if the political situation deteriorates further

Still, several EU officials with knowledge of the file, speaking on condition of anonymity, maintain that the EU can’t kick the can down the road forever and that, should Brussels eventually suspend visa-free travel more broadly for any country, Georgia would be the most likely candidate.

Drilling Down

  • Another measure that was introduced regarding Tbilisi was the scaling down of political contacts at the EU level (even though member states are still free to bilaterally receive Georgian ministers or make official visits to the country).
  • In keeping with that policy, the foreign ministers agreed that Georgia would be invited to a ministerial meeting organized by the bloc on cross-regional security and connectivity in November but not at the highest political level, meaning that a civil servant most likely will represent Georgia.
  • What the EU has failed to agree on so far is sanctions, which require unanimity. And judging from the discussions among foreign ministers, as well as an earlier preparatory meeting of EU diplomats, divisions appear too deep for the bloc to agree anytime soon on restrictive measures targeting Georgia's political leadership.
  • According to the diplomatic note, Croatia, Greece, Portugal, and Slovakia stressed the importance of keeping “channels of communication open” with Tbilisi to ensure Georgia remains “anchored to the EU.” Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, and Slovakia also emphasized the same message in the preparatory meeting.
  • During the ministerial meeting, Sweden asked the EU’s diplomatic corps, the European External Action Service (EEAS), to revisit an earlier sanctions proposal targeting the Georgian judiciary, which had handed down what Brussels viewed as “disproportionate” sentences against anti-government protesters.
  • Stockholm also urged the EEAS to propose new restrictive measures. Whether this will happen remains unclear, however, given the apparent lack of unanimity among member states.
  • Sweden is not alone in calling for more sanctions. During the preparatory phase, Germany, Ireland, and Poland also suggested sanctions as part of “a dual track” approach, under which human rights abuses should be punished with sanctions but that the EU should also be pragmatic and seek cooperation on “issues of mutual interest,” such as regional security, connectivity, and the fight against organized crime.


Looking Ahead

The European Commission will publish its new “Arctic Strategy” on October 20. Among other things, the document is calling for greater European icebreaker capacity, increased investment in Greenland -- including a submarine cable connecting the giant island with mainland Europe -- and the establishment of an EU polar research hub.

That's all for this week!

Feel free to reach out to me on any of these issues on X @RikardJozwiak, or via e-mail at jozwiakr@rferl.org.

Until next time,

Rikard Jozwiak

If you enjoyed this briefing and don't want to miss the next edition subscribe here.

Load more

​
XS
SM
MD
LG