Studies of EU-Russian relations faced substantial problems in 2022. Deep crisis of the world order caused a collision of Russia and the West, and weakened EU-Russian relations. In this context, the goal of the article is to open a discussion on why and how to research and teach EU-Russian relations and European studies at present. Firstly, the article describes four models of how science interacts with policy, stressing the priority of the fourth model, that is co-production of science and policy. On the one hand, this model is based on social developments and responds to the needs of the state and society. On the other hand, it identifies social problems and their plausible solutions, defines new paradigms that shape the “feasible” and “appropriate” in the policy. Next the article formulates six thematic blocs, which will allow today’s studies of EU-Russian relations to meet the demands of the co-production model. These are analysis of EU-Russian relations in 1992–2022; accepting that politics and security dominate over economic logics at present; modelling a new security system that will inevitably incorporate the EU and Russia at the global, regional and national levels, and will thus demand their dialogue; studying the potential and parameters of mutual sanctions (restrictive measures), as well as the influence of these measures on both actors and their relations; modelling the future of EU-Russian relations (in particular, economic ones); as well as identifying the EU’s evolution, which might also be useful for the Eurasian integration. At the same time, the co-production model faces serious practical challenges for scholars and lecturers. Among them are identity conflict, terminological discrepancies, access to primary sources and literature, and limited internationalization of scientific debates (at least when it comes to the interaction between Russian and Western participants). Overcoming these procedural difficulties will create preconditions for the co-production model in the studies of EU-Russian relations. The author sees the article as an invitation to further discussion among scholars and lecturers