Johnson's European Integration: what could be behind the UK's new initiative
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson proposed to create a new alliance that will stand up to Russia and become an alternative to the EU, writes Evropeyska Pravda. Ukraine has already been invited to join the project.
Anna Shelest, Yuri Panchenko
Ukraine was offered to join the European integration. However, not within the EU, but within its potential competitor.
Such a proposal is still known only from the media – the Italian edition of Corriere Della Sera, citing its own sources, reports that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson proposes to create a new international alliance that will resist Russia and become an alternative to the EU. And that Ukraine has already received an offer to join it.
But for now, Kiev's priority remains obtaining the status of a candidate for EU membership.
A proposal with many unknowns
We should immediately note that the information published in the media is clearly not enough to draw solid conclusions. In fact, we don't even know what kind of association we can talk about: a political or a security alliance. Since the term "alliance" used by journalists speaks specifically about military cooperation on security. And the "alternative to the EU" is proclaimed on the economic and political dimension.
Even more – at first glance, this plan looks like a trolling of the European Institution by Boris Johnson. The eurosceptic sentiments of the British prime minister are well known to everyone, since he was one of the main popularizers of Brexit.
However, having discarded this possibility, we will try to consider in more detail what may be hidden behind such a plan of London and how interesting it may be for potential participants of the association. First of all, for Ukraine.
This is not the first attempt by the UK to gather a group of countries around itself, making them an alternative to the European Union.
In the 1960s, the UK was a member and de facto leader of the European Free Trade Association, promoting this association as a counterweight to the EU. Then Austria, Denmark, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom joined it.
However, in 1973, the UK itself made a choice in favor of the EU, and Denmark, Portugal, Finland, Austria and Sweden followed a similar path. After that, EFTA actually became a platform for interaction with the EU for those Western European countries that do not plan to enter there (Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland – at the same time, they are all members of the Schengen area and the single market).
Therefore, it does not seem strange that, after leaving the EU, the UK decided to demonstrate its leadership in Europe again, but now we are talking about a different set of countries.
As the Italian edition notes, the new alliance "will bring together countries united by distrust of Brussels, as well as Germany's response to Russia's military special operation." At the same time, potential members, in addition to Ukraine, are Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as well as, possibly, Turkey at a later stage."
We should immediately note that of the named EU members, only Poland can be attributed to countries that have "distrust of Brussels." Now Warsaw has a loud conflict with the European Commission over judicial reform, and it has come under penalties. However, Poland is trying to settle this conflict, in particular, the Sejm has already approved amendments to the scandalous reform. And the general euroscepticism in Poland is not at a high level.
But all three Baltic countries are sincere Euro-optimists. This means that the motivation of these countries to leave the European Union in favor of a new association will clearly be absent.
It is significant that, first of all, Hungary should be attributed to the club of countries that do not trust Brussels. Budapest is currently being most sharply criticized by the EU, and the suspension of financial support from the European Union may motivate it to seek a new association for itself.
However, Hungary was clearly not mentioned in the list of potential members of the new association. Budapest's openly pro-Russian course is out of harmony even with the more restrained EU policy, not to mention the UK, which is much more critical before Putin. And as we have already noted, the "response to the Russian special operation" is one of the potential criteria for unification.
The same can be said about Turkey – it is no coincidence that it is planned to involve it in the organization only in the long term.
Therefore, it turns out that a potentially new association can be limited to only three or four countries.
This significantly reduces its capabilities, primarily as an economic education. The possible economic effect of such an association will not be comparable to integration on the basis of the EU.
And in addition, potential candidates do not have a common border with the UK, which further reduces the positive effect of such integration.
But if we are talking about military integration, then it is worth recalling another recent initiative of London – the alliance of Ukraine, Great Britain and Poland, announced in February this year, just a week before the start of the Russian special operation. The documentation of this alliance has been suspended, but it remains among the priorities of the three countries.
Even more, London is one of the main allies of NATO, has never questioned this defensive Alliance and has restructured its defense policy precisely within its framework. Even during Brexit, British politicians constantly said that the United Kingdom remains a loyal European partner precisely because of its membership in NATO.
So why duplicate?
Moreover, according to the statements of the British government, this alliance will have not only a security component, but also an economic component – and this further deprives the sense of creating new economic entities.
If we are talking about political unification – the interaction of countries with common political interests, then such an alliance does not contradict EU membership in any way, and, accordingly, cannot be an alternative for Ukraine.
Or contradicts, if we start from the thesis that this is an association of "dissatisfied with the EU". Then such an alliance may come into conflict with both the Constitution of Ukraine and the desire of the population to join the European family.
And finally, there is no evidence yet that such an initiative is not a project of Prime Minister Johnson personally and has support at least within his party. This is of great importance, because Johnson's position is now shakier than ever – because of the scandal around covid parties, he may lose his position.
Moreover, the main issue on the domestic agenda in the United Kingdom has now again become the issue of the agreement on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The problem lies precisely in the reluctance of the latter to establish a full-fledged border and customs rules, as required by London due to withdrawal from the EU, and, accordingly, a single customs zone. Therefore, it is worth remembering that the Prime Minister's anti-European statements may be stimulated by this conflict.
Three conclusions for Kiev
What does all this mean for Ukraine?
First, we should not forget what our strategic goal is (and what kind of integration is written into the Ukrainian constitution).
Even if the desired status of a candidate country for EU membership is not granted to us at the June EU summit, this is clearly not a reason to abandon the goal and agree to alternative projects that may contradict the strategic task. Even if such a proposal comes from a friendly and important country for us.
Secondly, Ukraine can consider any possible political or security alliances, free trade zones or economic associations that will strengthen its national security and ensure national interests.
The agreement on strategic partnership and FTA with the UK, signed in 2020, was exactly like that. As well as the initiative of the Lublin Triangle. But none of them questioned European and Euro-Atlantic integration.
And the last. As history shows, the union of the offended can never become an effective mechanism of cooperation.
Any alliance or association should have a goal and vision that will allow us to stay together for many years. Disagreement or resentment towards the EU is hardly a good basis for effective cooperation and development.
