BRUSSELS - BY EU INSIDER - Apr 13,2024

Ukraine officially became a candidate for European Union (EU) membership after a fast-track process triggered by Russia's invasion. Currently, Kyiv is on the brink of the negotiations stage, anticipated to commence as indicated by EU officials. Historically, this stage has been the most prolonged, technical, and bureaucratic phase, necessitating extensive reforms aligned with the "Copenhagen criteria" encompassing political, legal, and economic conditions for membership.

 

In June 2022, the European Commission recommended granting Ukraine candidate status, with the understanding that Kyiv must fulfill seven measures to enhance anti-corruption efforts and uphold the rule of law. Recently, Kyiv stated its compliance with each of these conditions. The EU now holds the decision-making authority to determine if Ukraine has met the basic requirements before entering the rigorous negotiation process.

 

While Ukraine's progress from applicant to candidate status was swift, it is crucial for advocates to manage expectations regarding the subsequent steps toward membership. These steps are unlikely to be as rapid or straightforward. Kyiv might find itself in a pre-negotiation limbo similar to the current aspiring EU nations in the Western Balkans. For instance, Belgrade and Podgorica took approximately two years to initiate negotiations after attaining candidate status.

 

Tirana had to wait for six years to commence formal negotiations after becoming a candidate in 2014, while Skopje remained idle for 15 years before initiating talks with Brussels. Although each nation faced specific challenges impeding their progress, none encountered the predicament Ukraine faced, defending against an invading military before commencing negotiations.

 

The EU's revised accessions methodology, introduced in 2020, aims to make the enlargement process more credible, predictable, and dynamic. However, this modified approach is unlikely to expedite Ukraine's progress or that of the current candidates. EU accession is contingent upon "fundamentals," including technical, legal, and bureaucratic reforms that encompass the rule of law, functional democratic institutions, and public administration reform.

 

Chapters addressing these fundamentals are opened first and closed last, posing a significant challenge for current EU candidates grappling with systemic corruption and political inefficiencies.

 

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that Ukraine's accelerated path to candidate status was partially due to the circumstances surrounding Russia's invasion. This acknowledgment does not diminish Ukraine's achievement, its political determination to join the EU, or the progress made in strengthening ties with the EU before and during the invasion.

 

It simply highlights that aspiring EU nations with better political and economic conditions had to wait considerably longer to attain candidate status. This also raises the question for many observers: Will the EU expedite Ukraine's membership in a similar manner to its candidacy, considering the existing geopolitical challenge?

 

EU leaders have cautioned that Ukraine's path to accession will take time, emphasizing the importance of technical criteria for membership. However, it is crucial to consider the geopolitical dynamics at play and the EU's political will to support Ukraine's application.

 

The question at hand is not whether Ukraine deserves to join the EU, but rather concerns its readiness for membership and whether the EU will overlook necessary reforms in light of geopolitical challenges. Additionally, how will the Western Balkans, who have been in various stages of the accession process for over a decade, interpret the EU's decisions if Ukraine is fast-tracked?

 

The technical nature of accession negotiations, comprehensive reforms, and the EU's previous enlargement fatigue have led some Western Balkan nations to question whether membership is a distant or likely reality. The slow pace has contributed to declines in popular support for the EU in some candidate countries. Given this context, how will the EU balance geopolitical considerations and the candidates' capacity for reform?

 

Accelerating Ukraine's negotiations by prioritizing geopolitical circumstances over technical reforms could further alienate other EU hopefuls. Considering the Balkan candidates' experience with negotiations, one can question whether technical criteria or geopolitical considerations take precedence in membership talks.

 

For instance, Bulgaria and Romania faced intense scrutiny regarding their capacity to join, but their eventual membership provided a stable political and economic anchor in a region surrounded by instability and helped overcome geographic divisions from the Cold War. Despite serious challenges related to crime, rule of law, and corruption, both countries entered the EU with special cooperation and verification requirements. This demonstrates the interplay between readiness based on technical criteria and the strategic considerations involved in integration.

 

While Russia's invasion has revitalized the EU's enlargement initiative and sparked debates about Brussels' role as a geopolitical actor, the accession process for candidates should remain grounded in their ability to implement necessary reforms and meet standards. The EU's strategic challenges related to the Russia-Ukraine war are significant but should not be the primary determining factor for Ukraine's eventual membership.

 

Prioritizing Ukraine's EU path for strategic reasons while overlooking the aspirations of the Western Balkan nations to join the bloc would undermine the EU's credibility and erode trust in the accession process.

The EU must also consider its capacity to integrate new members. Membership entails institutional impacts that require reforming decision-making procedures.

 

Moreover, both Ukraine and the Western Balkans would rank among the poorest member states based on various economic measures. What economic and financial challenges would rushed membership create for both the EU and the Ukrainian economy? If reforms are overlooked, it will be more difficult for Kyiv to succeed within the new club, and Brussels will face additional hurdles in fully absorbing Ukraine and addressing its existing problems.

 

The EU is confronted with a series of difficult questions compounded by the strategic challenge of the war. Brussels must find a way to implement its enlargement initiative while balancing the ambitions of candidates without compromising the realities of reform, which are bound to influence the pace of negotiations.

 

Russia's invasion has added further complexity to Ukraine's path to EU membership. While initially, the invasion had a positive impact on Ukraine's EU application, the resolution of the war will determine the speed at which Kyiv joins the EU.

 

The concept of victory in this conflict is somewhat ambiguous, but Russia could achieve a limited form of victory on the battlefield that would impede Ukraine's EU prospects. Predictions suggest that Russia may not have the capacity to fully occupy Ukraine, but it could achieve strategic outcomes that align with its objectives.

 

Such a victory for Russia would fulfill the Kremlin's goal of decoupling Ukraine from the West. It would render the West's efforts, resources, and political support for Ukraine as sunk costs. To avoid this scenario, the West should continue providing substantial military, political, and financial support to Ukraine.

 

Another potential outcome that could bring temporary calm, but not lasting peace, is a ceasefire or armistice. This would halt active hostilities and create an opportunity for a future peace settlement addressing the underlying causes of the conflict. However, a brokered ceasefire agreement could also serve as a basis for a frozen conflict rather than a step towards a negotiated settlement. Such a frozen conflict could fuel resentment between the warring parties, leading to renewed fighting in the future.

 

Russia's initial incursion in 2014 and the recent escalation in 2022 were motivated, in part, by Kyiv's decision to align itself more closely with the EU and NATO. If hostilities end with a ceasefire, Russia could escalate again if Kyiv moves towards the West. Both Minsk Agreements were repeatedly violated by both sides and failed to prevent the 2022 invasion. Therefore, a ceasefire's inability to achieve its strategic objectives could be used as a tactical or operational pause under the guise of a good faith agreement to end hostilities.

 

Frozen conflicts have a tendency to reignite into fierce fighting despite periods of relative calm. The recent Second Nagorno-Karabakh conflict serves as an example of a long-standing dispute reigniting after one side sought to resolve territorial issues and achieve strategic goals.

 

Whether a frozen conflict is mitigated through an agreement or not, it would leave the door open for future violence. Unresolved territorial disputes and questions about Ukraine's sovereignty would persist, accompanied by the threat of renewed conflict. How would the EU assess the risks of further integrating Ukraine under the implicit threat of a frozen conflict?

 

If this scenario were to materialize, the EU would have to consider its options: continue integration efforts with Ukraine at the risk of Russia provoking renewed violence or maintain the status quo of a frozen conflict at the expense of Ukraine's EU aspirations. Such a lack of progress would be frustrating for policymakers and categorize Ukraine's EU membership path.

 

The most desirable outcome for Ukraine's membership goals would be a victory in regaining the disputed and conquered territory, including Crimea. However, even in such a scenario, Ukraine's accession to the EU would not be a quick process. The aftermath of war would leave physical and psychological wounds that need to be addressed. Reintegrating regions that have been out of Kyiv's control since 2014 would be a complex and challenging task.

 

The Donbas and Crimea, in particular, have shown a preference for Moscow's influence over EU integration, creating a potential clash with Ukraine's Western orientation. Reconciliation and the rule of law would be essential for reintegration and consolidating democracy. Retaliation and retribution, as well as the influx of refugees resulting from military actions, would be at odds with the fundamental values of the EU, further complicating Ukraine's path to membership.

 

The post-war period would require patience, dedication, and sustained Western financial and political support. While other priorities may emerge in EU capitals, continued support would be necessary to deter further conflict and keep Ukraine on its EU membership trajectory.

 

The technical challenges of EU accession, as seen in the experiences of Western Balkan countries, coupled with Ukraine's ongoing conflict, make a speedy EU membership unlikely. However, this does not mean that Ukraine should not join the EU. It emphasizes the reality that comprehensive and extensive reforms are required before a candidate can join the EU.

 

These reforms should not be overlooked, as they are crucial for the potential success of new members within the EU. Rebuilding Ukraine will require significant financial support, and the responsibility of absorbing such a large country will pose challenges for EU institutions. Brussels faces the difficult task of bringing in new members while carefully managing the various factors that will complicate its goals.