At a time when it is openly being said that Ukraine will not emerge victorious from Russia’s war of aggression, people are beginning to think about what Ukraine will become in the near future. The European Commission (EC) is proposing to open accession negotiations between Ukraine and the EU despite the former president of the Commission declaring that Ukraine is a corrupt country. The EC seems to be ignoring the negative geopolitical consequences that would result from Ukraine becoming an EU member state. This act of political generosity could lead to suboptimal solutions.
The stalemate in the fighting, on over a thousand kilometers of frontline in the Donbas, is not helping Ukraine. Allegedly, the aid promised by the West (if that term still has any meaning) is not arriving, or is arriving too little and too late. In a way, the West promised to help Ukraine not so that it would win, but only so that it would not collapse. A loss of confidence in a Ukrainian victory is spreading.
At a time when concern over this impasse is growing, the EC—unsurprisingly, in view of Ursula von der Leyen’s oft-repeated promises—is proposing that the European Council open negotiations on Ukraine’s accession to the EU. The European Council is due to vote on the Commission’s recommendation at its summit meeting on December 14-15, 2023. This is good news for Volodymyr Zelensky.
A corrupt country
On 5 October, 2023, former EC President Jean-Claude Juncker rejected the possibility of Ukraine joining the European Union, describing the country as massively corrupt. In an interview with the German daily Augsburger Allgemeine, Mr. Juncker said,
“Anyone who has dealt with Ukraine knows that the country is corrupt at every level of society. Despite its efforts, it is not ready for membership; it needs a massive internal reform process. Making false promises of EU membership to Ukrainians will not be good for either the EU or Ukraine.”
This statement is not surprising. What is surprising is the amount of time it took for Brussels to hear it. Juncker’s comments did not surface until a Euronews debate on November 10. His warning was probably ignored because on November 8th, Junker’s successor, Ursula von der Leyen, presented the EC’s report on the future enlargement of the EU.
When politicians are no longer in office, they can afford to ditch political correctness and say what they think. Junker has said out loud what many know, but cannot say. I can testify that, when I was an EC official, people knew and said that Ukraine was a corrupt country.
It should, therefore, be surprising that the EU is considering opening accession negotiations. Admittedly, negotiations will take years, and much can happen in the meantime. But ill-considered promises emotionally made in the face of the horrors of war, however understandable, should not obscure the need for a dispassionate analysis of the situation.There are several aspects of this issue to consider.
Greece and Cyprus
Two precedents shed light on the consequences of accepting a new member state before it is fully ready to join the EU. Greece’s accession to the European Union in 1981 was a hasty affair, the aim being to stabilize democracy and prevent the military’s return to power. Although the dictatorship that began in 1967 had been over since 1974, seven years later the country was still not ready to join the EU.
Having discussed this at the time with my Greek colleagues at the EC, I remember the trip made by the president of the EC, Jacques Delors, to Athens in May 1992, a trip he intentionally undertook to criticize Greece for its misuse of the community manna. The money was being spent without any positive impact on the economy or the population’s quality of life.
This corruption prevailed until the financial crisis of 2008, when the solutions imposed by the EU brought the country to its knees, and an emigration of the elite emptied it. Greece had joined the EU without respecting its rules. It is only with the current government that the country is finally back in order, but it has taken over forty years.
Another example the EC can learn from is Cyprus, which was also caught in a stalemate during accession. The war in Ukraine is moving ever closer to a frozen conflict. The U.S. and EU member states are no longer in a position to provide endless military assistance to Ukraine in its bid to reclaim the 17% of its territory that it has lost. The Russians can afford to wait, and the conflict is likely to go on for years. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Secretary General of NATO (another man who can speak freely), has just advised Ukraine to agree to join the EU without the territories conquered by the Russians. This reveals a belief that the war will continue until Ukraine officially renounces the lost territories of Donbass and Crimea, as it is unlikely that Vladimir Putin or his successors will voluntarily renounce territories conquered at the cost of many human lives. After all, the conflict in Cyprus triggered by the Turkish army’s invasion of the north of the island dates back to 1974. Almost half a century later, that issue still poisons relations between Turkey and the EU (of which Cyprus is a member state).
When Cyprus joined the EU, the island had been divided by a frozen conflict since Turkey invaded in 1974. In 2004, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, recognized only by Turkey, had accepted the UN’s Annan Plan for the reunification of the island. However, three quarters of Greek Cypriot voters rejected that plan. The EU thought that after Cyprus was in the Union, things would get better. Nineteen years have passed and nothing has changed; the conflict has remained frozen for half a century. This has had geopolitical consequences.
For example, around 2018, the U.S. Geological Survey discovered natural gas deposits off the coast of Cyprus. Until then, Egypt has been exploiting the Zohr gas field to the south of the island, while Israel has explored the Tamar, Leviathan and Karish fields to the southeast. This enables Israel to export gas, including to neighboring Jordan. Cyprus does not benefit from this. The Aphrodite field has been discussed for years, but the problem is Turkey’s intransigence in defining the island’s exclusive economic zone on the basis of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOSS), a convention to which Recep Tayyip Erdoğan refuses to adhere. The EU has gas it can’t even explore because of a frozen conflict in one of its member states. It would have been better to wait—and to exert pressure if need be—until the island was reunited.
Moreover, corruption in Cyprus has not been eradicated. In October 2013, the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) published a worrying report, arguing that “The issue of conflicts of interest, including with regard to pantouflage, is particularly problematic in Cyprus, and the manner in which it is addressed is rather limited in scope.”
It would be prudent to wait for corruption in Ukraine to be eradicated before starting negotiations, rather than succumbing to sentimentalism. The examples of Greece and Cyprus should inspire European leaders not to put the cart before the horse.
Historical requirements
Even if the Council agrees to start accession negotiations, the EU will be unable to accept Ukraine as a member until the war has ended. The impasse could go on and on. And it is not in Russia’s interest—with or without Vladimir Putin—to break the deadlock and see Ukraine fly towards the EU, and probably NATO as well. As in Cyprus, the conflict could become frozen for half a century. There is every reason not to be optimistic about Ukraine’s forthcoming accession to the EU.
Admission to the EU requires the unanimous agreement of all member states. Poland and Hungary have no intention of approving entry if Ukraine does not meet their historical requirements. During the Second World War, when Ukrainians collaborated with the Nazis, the massacres of Poles living in Volhynia (in north-western Ukraine) left an indelible mark on Polish memory; the number of Polish civilians killed estimated at between 35,000 and 100,000 for Volhynia alone and, depending on the source, between 100,000 and 500,000 for the whole of Ukraine. Moreover, the recent dispute over grain prices led the Polish prime minister to declare that he would no longer supply arms to his neighbor. The return of the bodies of those massacred in Volhynia remains an open conflict between the two countries.
As for its southern neighbor, Ukraine cannot ignore Hungary’s demands for the protection of Transcarpathia’s large Hungarian minority, which, according to Budapest, is being mistreated by Kyiv. The Hungarians are asking Ukraine to restore to this population the rights it enjoyed until 2015. Ukraine obliges minorities to receive at least 70% of their education in the Ukrainian language. Hence Budapest argues that children in Ukraine’s Hungarian-speaking families will lag far behind in terms of education.
The shadow of Washington
The war in Gaza has shifted the Biden administration’s attitude towards Ukraine; it knows that it is not possible to supply arms to both Israel and Ukraine while also maintaining the stockpile needed for a possible conflict with China. This reversal of support for Ukraine may be complete if a Republican wins the presidential elections in 2024. For example, at the November 8 Republican primary candidates’ debate—in the absence of Donald Trump, who doesn’t participate in such exercises—the candidates were broadly in agreement on support for Israel in its war against Hamas. But there were differences of opinion on continued funding for Ukraine. Biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy was even heard to utter the name Zelensky and the word Nazi in the same conversation, vehemently explaining that “Ukraine is not a paragon of democracy.”
Volodymyr Zelensky’s special relationship with Joe Biden is not insignificant. There is not only a strong identity of views between them, but also a loyalty to Washington on the part of Kyiv, a loyalty that will not disappear even after the war.
The U.S. Secretary of Transportation was in Kyiv on November 8 to announce that Robert Mariner, who has worked on engineering projects for the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy, was to become an infrastructure advisor for Ukraine. The advisor will be based in Kyiv to provide technical support for the implementation of projects as part of the country’s reconstruction efforts. Kyiv will be an ally of Washington before becoming an ally of Brussels-Strasbourg, even if it joins the EU. In an increasingly fragmented world, it is concerning that a member state which has benefitted so much from European aid would become a Trojan horse within the EU.
Ukraine weariness
The EU has decided to abandon fossil fuels. Yet Ukraine relies almost exclusively on fossil fuels, much of it imported from Russia. Part of its electricity comes from nuclear power, an energy resource which, until recently, was taboo in Brussels-Strasbourg.
When Annalena Baerbock, the German foreign minister, visited Kyiv at the start of the war, she suggested to a stunned Volodymyr Zelensky that he produce hydrogen for the wealthy Germans. In its REPower EU plan of May 2022, the EC also proposed that hydrogen produced in Ukraine be used in the EU and that Ukrainian electricity be exported to the EU. Hydrogen energy doesn’t exist anywhere in the world (as I argue in my book, The Hydrogen Illusion), and certainly not in a country in the throes of collapse. It is futile to talk about importing electricity into a country where the Russians are bombing power plants. Likewise, the EU cannot ask a bankrupt country to produce renewable energies when the EU itself has failed to exceed 3% of the primary energy balance despite spending over a trillion euros on various subsidies.
It’s certain that Ukraine—a bankrupt country in terms of energy efficiency—won’t be ready to meet the EU’s energy demands. As for agriculture, Ukraine’s accession would undermine the EU’s entire cereals sector. Nevertheless, during her trip to Kiev on November 6, EC President Ursula von der Leyen announced to Volodymyr Zelensky that she would propose a substantial EU financial package of up to €1.5 billion per month, for a total of €18 billion, which would make a significant contribution to covering Ukraine’s financing needs for 2023.
The 27 EU member states are due to vote on the proposal at a summit in Brussels on December 14 and 15. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has declared his opposition to the increase. But Reuters reports that EU officials believe they will be able to circumvent a possible Hungarian veto. Also on the Council table is the discussion of a €50 billion aid package for the next four years. All this is starting to cost a lot of money well before accession. We can only imagine what it will be like afterwards.
It’s not just in the U.S. that war weariness prevails. Even in the European Union, the EU’s self-congratulation and the population’s capacity for wonder are at saturation point. The war in Gaza has undermined interest in a European ‘just war’ that is undeniably getting bogged down.
Meanwhile, the European Commission is working at a technical level to find funding for the reconstruction of Ukraine once the war is over. One of the avenues being explored is to use the €300 billion of Russian assets blocked in the EU, a large part of which is in Belgium. These include deposits held by the Russian National Bank and others belonging to Russian oligarchs. Is it conceivable that a state governed by the rule of law would appropriate funds deposited in its own country on the pretext that the depositors’ country has invaded another? It’s unlikely, and yet the EC is seriously working on this hypothesis.
Ursula von der Leyen can smile as she proudly announces that Ukraine is set to join the Union. This hypothetical accession seems as ill-timed as that of Turkey. Although Turkey’s supporter—the United Kingdom—will no longer be present in the accession talks when they eventually resume, and although everyone knows that Ukraine’s accession makes neither economic nor socio-cultural sense, the issue nevertheless remains on the EU Council’s agenda.
The EU should not be so eager to bring in a corrupt country that will poison relations with our great eastern neighbour for decades to come. In the spirit of peace, we must eventually establish normal relations with Vladimir Putin’s successors, as we did with Adolf Hitler’s successor. The EU has no interest in allying itself with a country at war, a country which is corrupt, a country which will absorb a large part of the financial resources of the Union’s member states, a country which will jeopardize the difficult balance of agricultural policy, and a country which will be a Trojan horse for the United States.
The world is no longer bipolar, nor is it multipolar. It is apolar, where each side thinks of its own interests. This is all the more reason to think twice before agreeing to open negotiations on Ukraine’s accession to the increasingly divided EU. The choice before us is obvious.
