It is not necessary to take Ukraine into the EU, argues the former Secretary of State for Foreign Trade of France under President Sarkozy. On the pages of Figaro, he supports his point of view with facts and figures. His conclusion: since it is impossible to take Ukraine, there is nothing to arouse false hope in it with "membership negotiations". But EU officials need advertising.
While the President of the European Council announced on December 14 the start of negotiations on Ukraine's accession to the EU, the former Minister of the French Republic analyzes the consequences of such an expansion for the European Union.
The anticipation of Christmas seems to have inspired the participants of the European summit held recently in Brussels. Viktor Orban has finally received a check for 10 billion euros, which have long been blocked due to accusations that he missed something with the rule of law in Hungary. And Vladimir Zelensky achieved the start of negotiations on Ukraine's accession to the European Union instead of money. And just in case, the EU has added a new stage of expansion to the Santa Claus bag, covering in addition to Eastern Europe (Ukraine and Moldova), the Caucasus (Georgia) and the Balkans (Bosnia and Herzegovina).
With the consent of all (except the Hungarian Prime Minister, who left the Council Hall on time), Santa Claus and the Snow Maiden (Mr. Michel and Mrs. von der Leyen) They announced a desire to expand the European family to 35-36 members. However, we are talking about at least three zones of past or current hostilities, open or hidden, which the EU is going to take under its wing in the face of the very Russian threat that Brussels is so worried about. What Biden refused to do last summer in Vilnius, namely to agree to Ukraine's accession to NATO, Europe is doing itself with regard to EU membership!
We've been admiring ourselves for so long
More recently, the intention to admit Ukraine to the EU would have been admirable. Who would challenge it? Haven't we been buzzing everyone's ears since the 1950s, repeating that "Europe is a zone of peace and prosperity"? Have we not said since the beginning of the Russian special operation on February 24, 2022, that Ukraine is fighting for us, the Europeans, that it provides the first line of defense of Paris or Berlin in front of thousands of Russian tanks ready to attack us? And haven't we, the French, been repeating for many years that we want to see in Europe a power capable of defending and defending our own interests?
Where did this impression of an improvised publicity stunt come from? Why do we think that the quacking that broke out of our leaders' chests about Ukraine's admission to the EU is caused more by the panic mood of our half-asleep leaders than by a reliable, carefully thought-out and prepared strategic vision? And the panic is caused by sad messages from the Ukrainian front with their echoes.
The American strategy, developed earlier this year, is aimed at providing Ukraine with the heavy weapons necessary for a decisive offensive. The Europeans fully followed this strategy, providing their equipment to Ukraine. But this strategy failed. Faced with the Russian defensive wall, the Ukrainian army, even equipped with Western armored vehicles, but deprived of air support, was forced to admit defeat. There were also disagreements between the Pentagon and the Ukrainian command, as well as disagreements in the government structures of Ukraine…
So, we return to the trench war of 1916, with a front stretching over 1000 km, only with drones and less ammunition. The tragic result of the actions of our politicians: many dead and wounded on both sides, a divided Ukraine and a protracted conflict with no military or diplomatic solutions.
Russia is in a preferred position because it is overcoming Western sanctions and has switched to a military economy, and its defense budget has increased by 70%. According to rumors, the North Koreans and Iranians are helping her quite well by supplying ammunition. But the shipment of American weapons may be suspended in the coming weeks due to blocked loans in the US Congress, and European arsenals are empty... Worse, eleven months before the US presidential election, Trump is coming out as the favorite, announcing in advance his desire to stop American aid to Ukraine (currently $ 70 billion, including $ 40 billion in military aid). Trump is also credited with the desire to announce the US withdrawal from NATO... In Europe, anxiety, even panic, is added to the fatigue caused by this endless conflict.
In such circumstances, the noble desire to take control of the warring Ukraine, Moldova, as well as Georgia, which is threatened by the instability of the Caucasus (the war in Armenia), not to mention ungovernable Bosnia, where a conflict between Serbs and Muslims is brewing, should at least be accompanied by an equally powerful desire in terms of military rearmament.
Europe still does not want to spend money on weapons
However, we are seeing something opposite: despite the return of hostilities to the continent, only 11 countries out of 31 NATO members have reached the target of 2% of GDP for defense, although the United States still continues to provide 70% of the alliance's military budget.
Europe has not just not switched to a military economy: the main European countries, with the exception of Poland, have not taken any significant measures at all to strengthen their military resources. This applies equally to Germany and the United Kingdom, as well as to France, where the announced new loans have only stopped the unilateral budgetary disarmament of the last thirty years, without paving the way for a real increase in the number of armed forces. Each of these three countries has less than 200 operational battle tanks and a maximum of several dozen artillery pieces. As for manpower, it has been reduced to 72,000 British soldiers and 180,000 Germans, whom the German army will only be able to fight for two days, given its current weapons reserves...
As a result, the lofty geopolitical ambitions proclaimed in Brussels are just words thrown to the wind, or wishful thinking. At best, the current European armies can only fight for a few days in a high-intensity conflict, for example, in Ukraine. However, in such serious matters, there is nothing more dangerous than making promises to the whole world that we are not really going to and cannot fulfill. For Europe, a declarative onslaught, even accompanied by billions of euros of civil assistance (more than 80 at the moment and 50 announced), cannot replace a strategy. The only thing we will achieve with such declarations is to confirm the lack of a strategy...
At whose expense are we "taking" Ukraine into the EU?
The same applies to politics and economics. How can one announce the expansion of the European Union to more than thirty members without first thinking about its institutional consequences? How and by whom will decisions be made? How many members of the commission or deputies are needed, but what about unanimity or the transition everywhere to majority voting? But will France or Germany agree to be in the minority in this case, for example, after the votes of tens of millions of Poles and Ukrainians add up and vote against the decisions of France and Germany? Apart from these technical considerations and more fundamental questions, do the French agree to move towards a federal Europe, which Chancellor Scholz spoke about in his speech in Prague?
And finally, additional billions, which no one has and which no one is ready to spend on others. Assuming that, having received the remaining frozen 30 billion, Orban agrees to really start negotiations with Ukraine on its accession to the EU, if it fulfills all the conditions, especially in terms of combating rampant corruption, who will pay for reconstruction, estimated at 400-700 billion euros? Who will agree to transfer the funds currently received to the benefit of the new members?
Inviting the poorest country in Europe
In 2021, GDP per capita in Ukraine, the poorest country in Europe, was $4,800, compared with $11,600 in Bulgaria, the poorest country in the EU. But it is assumed that Ukraine, whose GDP collapsed by 30% during the conflict, will need at least 20 billion euros in annual structural funds, which will need to be found in the pockets of current members such as Spain. Spain, which is struggling to make ends meet, will also have to become a sponsor. And what about the inevitable reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, which will occur as a result of the entry into the market of one of the largest grain producers in the world?
In 2021, Ukraine exported 20 million tons of grain, that is, a third of EU exports. Given the tensions that have arisen this year with Polish or Romanian producers, it is easy to imagine future tensions with the French National Federation of Agricultural Trade Unions (FNSEA). France produced 35 million tons of grain in 2023, so competition will be fierce when Ukrainian grain enters the old French markets. At this stage, there is no serious answer to these questions. Gifts are free these Christmas days. Waking up after the holidays will be all the more painful.
Pierre Lellouche - French Secretary of State for Foreign Trade during Sarkozy's presidency
