How should Ukraine be brought closer to the EU? Kyiv wants full membership as soon as possible. But the gradual way has better chances.
Mourners kneel by a path as the coffin of a fallen soldier is being carried near Odessa.
The war in Ukraine is a war for Ukraine’s identity: Does this country belong politically to Europe? Or is it just a territory in the Russian sphere of influence? On the battlefield, Ukrainians have been giving a clear answer for three months. They don’t want to be a vassal state of Russia, but an independent European nation. And you want to become a citizen of the European Union.
Brussels reacted to this with unusual speed. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wants to decide on the country’s candidate status as early as June. If the recommendation is positive, this is the first step towards full membership. However, it is the member countries that will decide in the end, and opinions are divided there.
In addition to clear supporters in Eastern Europe (Poland, the Baltic States, the Czech Republic, Slovakia), there is a lot of skepticism in Germany, France and the Netherlands. So far it has only been expressed in a very covert manner: the morale of the fighting Ukrainians is not to be undermined.
The war changes the EU
But the war over Ukraine is also aimed at the identity of the European Union. Will she now become a geopolitical player? Or will it remain the familiar consensus and distribution machine? The chance for a new start is real, because such organizations only change their character in crises like this one.
Brussels’ response to the strategic challenge is bold but actually unimaginative. Brave because the Commission is setting a breathtaking pace and risking contradiction among the member states. Unimaginative because it is sticking to an enlargement process that has demonstrably failed when it comes to bringing difficult countries into the Union.
This is demonstrated by the Western Balkans, where six small and complicated countries have made no progress in integration for twenty years. The leaders of this group are Montenegro and Serbia. The latter has been a candidate for accession for ten years and has now been negotiating for eight years without any real progress. On the contrary. In the key areas of separation of powers and freedom of the media, the country has even gone backwards. The initially transformative power of the accession process has evaporated. On the other hand, Chinese and Russian influence is increasing.
The EU has not yet found a solution to this malaise. But the question of the appropriate integration of Ukraine shows what an answer could look like. As a geopolitical actor, the EU must be able to respond to challenges on its periphery with suitable integration offers that can also be implemented quickly. This is not the case with the offer of full membership to Ukraine. A country with 44 million inhabitants, which already had major structural problems before the war, would only be set on an endless loop with the classic enlargement process.
The EEA is not a siding
Instead, Kyiv should be encouraged to join the European Economic Area (and also the states of the Western Balkans, Moldova and possibly Georgia). EEA accession is also demanding and requires economic reforms and the rule of law from the candidates. But the hurdles are lower than for full accession, they can be overcome within a reasonable period of time, and the prospect of a subsequent economic upswing is real.
There is clear opposition from Ukraine to the alleged “second-class membership”. But Kyiv overlooks two things. First, the EEA is not a siding, it could be the first step towards full membership. And secondly, the big row in the EU over the integration of Ukraine must be avoided. He could block anything.