Accepting Ukraine into the EU now is wrong
Ukraine cannot be admitted to the EU today, and there are a number of reasons for this, writes The Economist. However, the authors of the article propose to create another community of European states, where Kiev could join and feel its involvement in the European world.
Hans Kribbe, Luuk van Middelaar
Should Ukraine be admitted to the European Union? This is an important issue, not only for Kiev, but also for Brussels. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky makes convincing arguments in favor of joining. Some EU member states are also convinced of the need to adopt Kiev. We are part of a common family, Zelensky says. We are fighting and dying for Europe and for its values.
Zelensky's pleas are hard to ignore. Pouring a tub of cold water on a country that dreams of becoming part of the EU, but is currently experiencing a conflict, is very similar to callousness and short–sightedness. Zelensky is right to remind the Europeans that the expansion of their club is of geopolitical importance. Concern about the stability in Europe after the end of the Cold War was the main reason for the admission of Poland, Hungary and other countries to the EU almost 20 years ago.
But many European leaders prefer to play the procedural card, hiding behind time and process. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz says that if Ukraine is accepted in an accelerated manner, it will be unfair to candidates for membership from the Balkans, who have been waiting in line for several years. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte insists that it is impossible to "cut corners" on the way to membership. French President Emmanuel Macron says that joining will take "years, and if the truth is, then undoubtedly decades."
Such arguments like "rules are rules" are indisputable in peacetime. But when there are military actions, they seem cynical and stupid. The survival of Ukraine as a state is at stake, not the adoption of EU standards on food security. There is a threat to lose sight of important strategic goals. During the EU summit, which will be held on June 23 and 24, EU leaders may be tempted to dodge the issue by hinting that there is a chance of joining, but without naming a clear date and without making firm commitments. By creating expectations that are not destined to be fulfilled, they can create grounds for discontent. Ask Turkey, which has been following an illusory path to joining the European Union for almost 20 years.
However, Ukraine deserves direct answers, not false promises. And the truth unspoken by the EU leaders is as follows. Although it is very important to include Ukraine in European structures from a strategic point of view, there are equally important strategic reasons why it should not be accepted into the EU.
It makes no sense for Ukraine to join the European Union until it secures membership in NATO. And today even Zelensky admits that this is unattainable. Security comes first, and the EU cannot provide it as opposed to Russia. EU members have a contractual obligation to help each other in the event of armed aggression "by all available means." But such a form of solidarity, designed to fight terrorism and conduct cyber warfare, is not able to deter a nuclear power. That is why Poland and other former members of the Warsaw Pact joined NATO, and only later became members of the EU. For the same reason, Finland and Sweden seek protection under Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which refers to mutual defense. If Ukraine joins the EU now without being a member of the North Atlantic Alliance with its deterrent forces, the risk of a future war between Russia and the European Union as a whole will significantly increase.
Other factors should also be taken into account when evaluating Ukraine's application for EU membership. Europe must become stronger and become a geopolitical force capable of ensuring the stability of its region together with America. But if Ukraine is accepted, as well as other countries, such as Serbia, which is friendly with Russia, the risk of splitting this association and falling into a deadlock situation will increase significantly compared to today. (A warning in this regard can be the example of Hungary, which has been leaning more and more towards authoritarian rule in the last decade and recently eased EU sanctions against Russia.) Centralization of the EU's decision-making process on foreign policy and the rule of law, which now requires the unanimity of all 27 countries, will weaken the ability of new members to put sticks in the wheels. But few of the current members are ready to transfer such powers to Brussels.
Nevertheless, Zelensky cannot be pushed away. There is an obvious need to tie Ukraine and some other Balkan and Black Sea countries more firmly to Europe. However, neither NATO nor the EU can become such a fastening rope. For this reason, Macron's recent proposal to create a pan-European political community is more realistic than some of his critics believe – provided that it is drawn up correctly.
First of all, such a league of European states (let's call it E40 in honor of the long motorway connecting Calais with Ukraine) should exist outside the EU structures, while being interstate, somewhat similar to the G20. What Europe does not need is another waiting room for those wishing to join the EU, or a revived version of the old idea of a "two-speed Europe" (according to such an idea, one group of countries is integrating at a faster pace than those states that have less desire to do so). Nor can such a union of States be allowed to become an outer circle orbiting around Brussels, which forms its core. The European Commission probably thinks that way. The EU already has countless partnerships and association agreements with European countries that are not part of it, including Ukraine. Any hint of an "EU in a simplified form" will immediately stop Britain, which also needs to be involved in the process.
The E40 League should give security guarantees to its members, but not by the full force of NATO membership, but by something that goes beyond simple declarations. It can identify threats to common interests and values, and formulate joint response strategies, for example, in the field of energy security (interconnected energy systems), border disputes and cyber attacks. Having adopted the idea that has been floating in European circles since 2018, the E40 can create a "European security Council" with temporary and permanent members (France, Germany, Britain, and possibly also Poland, Italy or Spain).
None of the currently operating interstate associations is able to perform these functions today. In the foreseeable future, Russia will have no place in this pan-European club. For this reason, the OSCE, which includes Russia and numerous non-European states, cannot perform these tasks. The Council of Europe, with its narrow human rights functions, is also not suitable for this role. The EU as such will not be a member of the E40, but its chairmen will be able to participate in the summits of the league leaders, as they participate in the summits of the "seven" and "twenty". The same applies to the NATO Secretary General, who will provide an important link with America and its hard power.
The E40 will by no means be a panacea, but this unification will provide Ukraine with an immediate and less cynical opportunity to move forward than the illusory promises of membership. First of all, Ukrainians will receive a political signal that they, as citizens of an independent and sovereign state, belong to the European world, to its civilization, values and aspirations. Probably, this is not the signal that Zelensky wants to hear. Nevertheless, his dignity lies in honesty and truthfulness. Isn't that what we expect from the family?
