EU summit: Why joining Ukraine also poses risks

Ukraine is one of the largest countries in Europe and at the same time the poorest, and there is also corruption. Before the war, it was hard to imagine that the country could become a member of the EU. But Putin’s attack changed everything.

Despite all the back and forth about the start of accession negotiations with Ukraine, despite all the arguments about veto threats from Hungary and retaliation from Austria – the Europeans should agree on one point: without Russia’s war of aggression, no one would seriously consider Ukraine’s admission into the country the EU talk.

With 40 million inhabitants before the war, Ukraine is one of the largest countries in Europe – but it is also one of the poorest. In addition to poverty, there is corruption and an almost 2,000 kilometer long border with Russia. For years it was hard to imagine that such a country could become a member of the EU.

At most, in the very distant future, as French President Emanuel Macron predicted in May 2022 – and by then the war had already been raging for several weeks. Sure, Ukraine is an “EU member of hearts” because of its courageous fight, Macron argued. “But we all know that accession will not take years, but several decades.”

Skepticism not only from Macron

Macron was not alone in his skepticism; people in other capitals were also wondering whether the EU would get ahead of itself with Ukraine. Just financially.

Bulgaria is currently the poorest country in the EU – but when you look at per capita income, Ukrainians are far behind. They don’t even have half the money that Bulgarians have at their disposal.

And that means for the EU budget, which is committed to the goal of a fairer distribution of wealth: many countries that are now net recipients would become net payers. Anyone who still receives billions every year from the Brussels community funds would then have to support Ukraine with similar sums.

High demands Agricultural subsidies

From the agricultural funds alone, Ukraine, which is largely agricultural, would have higher demands for area bonuses than any other country. Agriculture experts in Brussels fear that Ukraine would crash the entire system of agricultural subsidies – and thus a third of the entire EU budget.

Others see more of a chance that the traditional agricultural policy will finally be reformed because there is no other way. Which of course brings the previous beneficiaries of the Brussels redistribution onto the scene. Poland, for example, which was actually in favor of Ukraine’s rapid integration into the EU, did not hesitate for a second to boycott Ukrainian grain imports when the interests of its own farmers were threatened.

The EU Commission wants to give the green light

Can the EU even afford such a redistribution? It must, says the Commission, and its President Ursula von der Leyen emphasizes that it is about completely different goals, higher ones: “Ukraine is not just fighting against the attacker, but for Europe,” von der Leyen just explained again in the European Parliament in Strasbourg. “Coming into our family would be Ukraine’s ultimate victory.” The EU should now play the decisive role.

The Commission recommends giving the green light for accession talks at the summit. Representatives of the federal government believe that the talks could even begin during the war – an idea that was completely unimaginable a few months ago.

Geopolitical symbol against the Kremlin

But Putin’s aggression has changed the view of the enlargement strategy. It’s about a geopolitical signal against the Kremlin, which makes people look more mildly on the rule of law deficits in Ukraine.

Before the war, Ukraine was ranked 122nd in Transparency International’s corruption index. And the European Court of Auditors found corruption even in the highest government circles. Could it be that this changed during the war?

Absolutely, says Commission President von der Leyen and never tires of praising how the Ukrainian parliament pushed through one anti-corruption law after another under the most difficult wartime conditions.

Corruption as a hurdle

At the same time, the media continues to uncover new corruption scandals. According to research by the Süddeutsche Zeitung, the judiciary and authorities that are supposed to take action against corruption are “themselves riddled with corruption.”

Afterwards, responsible officials systematically demand bribes of up to six figures. More than 40 of the leading Ukrainian business companies therefore publicly complained about a “wave of corruption”, which was the reason for a “second wave of emigration of industrial businesses abroad”.

Follow into the highest circles

President Volodymyr Zelensky has already fired his defense minister, other deputy ministers, the deputy head of the presidential office and even the president of the Supreme Court because of enrichment in state offices or inaction against corruption. The man had accepted around $3 million in bribes.

Does this prove that the controls are effective? Or is the problem just getting worse? In Brussels people are concerned about the development, after all, billions of EU funds are flowing into Ukraine and now cover a large part of the current government activities there.

Geopolitical interests in the foreground

In the debate about the start of accession negotiations, the focus for a long time was on fulfilling the rule of law criteria, reports a high-ranking EU diplomat – i.e. the fight against corruption, oligarch power and money laundering.

That has shifted, says the diplomat, and the EU’s geopolitical interests are now in the foreground. Which translates roughly to mean that Ukraine should be protected from further attacks by Moscow by connecting and then integrating into the EU as quickly as possible. Also with the aim of securing the EU.

The question of exorbitant costs will remain relevant, as will the question of drastic reforms of the Community budget and decision-making processes. The Dutch Europe expert Matthias Matthijs sees this as both opportunities and risks for the EU.

Regression to the level of the 1990s?

“Accepting Ukraine gives more weight to the idea that the EU plays a geopolitical and geoeconomic role,” says Matthjis, who currently teaches in Washington at Johns Hopkins University.

However, the EU will probably have to pay a price for this: less deepening of the cooperation between the member states. “There is simply a risk that the European Union will become less coherent as a result of enlargement,” suspects Matthijs. He believes it is likely that the EU will have to accept a step backwards in integration – to the level of the mid-90s.