Ukrainian president signs formal request to join the European Union
reuters.com
reuters.com
It takes many years of reforms and organizational/legal/economic changes to reach the point of entry. This is a matter of compatibility and this is a drawn-our process. I come from Poland and the political establishment had to work for many years with much active help from EU member states to make that happen.
Ukraine currently has the goal of joining the EU in the constitution and one should remember that the R invasion in 2014 and the escape of Janukovich to Russia was largely motivated by the Euro Maidan - a series of protests which were triggered when, after winning the election, Janukovich told everyone that there would be no plan to join the EU after all.
Right now we shouldn’t be pushing the idea on Ukrainians that there is a possibility of fast-tracking this process. It will only make them angry when legal complexities reveal that it will take many years for it to happen.
Euromaidan (/ˌjʊərəˌmaɪˈdɑːn, ˌjʊəroʊ-/;[74][75] Ukrainian: Євромайдан, romanized: Yevromaidan, literally 'Euro Square'[nb 6]) was a wave of demonstrations and civil unrest in Ukraine, which began on the night of 21 November 2013 with public protests in Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) in Kyiv. The protests were sparked by the Ukrainian government's decision to suspend the signing of the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, instead choosing closer ties to Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union. The scope of the protests widened, with calls for the resignation of the President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, and the Second Azarov Government.[79] The protests were fueled by the perception of "widespread government corruption", "abuse of power", and "violation of human rights in Ukraine".[80] Transparency International named President Yanukovych as the top example of corruption in the world.[81] The situation escalated after the violent dispersal of protesters on 30 November, leading to many more protesters joining.[5] The protests led to the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, known as the Revolution of Dignity.
During the Euromaidan, there were protests and clashes with police throughout Ukraine, especially at the Maidan (central square) in Kyiv, which was occupied and barricaded by protesters, along with some administrative buildings,[82] including Kyiv City State Administration. On 8 December, the crowd toppled a Lenin statue nearby. Protests and clashes increased in January, after the Ukrainian parliament passed a group of anti-protest laws. Protesters occupied government buildings in many regions of Ukraine. The protests climaxed in mid-February. Riot police advanced towards Maidan and clashed with protesters but did not fully occupy it. Police fired live and rubber ammunition at multiple locations in Kyiv. There was fierce fighting in Kyiv on 18–20 February (see List of people killed during Euromaidan). As a result of these events, the Agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine was signed on 21 February 2014 by Yanukovych, and the leaders of the parliamentary opposition (Vitaly Klitschko, Arseny Yatsenyuk, Oleh Tyahnybok) under the mediation of the European Union and the Russian Federation. The signing was witnessed by the Foreign Ministers of Germany and Poland, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Radosław Sikorski, respectively, and the Director of the Continental Europe Department of the French Foreign Ministry, Eric Fournier.[83] Vladimir Lukin, representing Russia, refused to sign the agreement.
Shortly after the agreement was signed, Yanukovych and other high government officials fled the country.[84] Protesters gained control of the presidential administration and Yanukovych's private estate. Afterwards, the parliament removed Yanukovych from office, replaced the government with Oleksandr Turchynov, and ordered that former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko be released from prison.[85] Events in Kyiv were soon followed by the Crimean crisis and pro-Russian unrest in Eastern Ukraine. Despite the ousting of Yanukovych,[86] the installation of a new government, and the adoption of the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement's political provisions, the protests have sustained pressure on the government to reject Russian influence in Ukraine.
(there have been rumblings and disquiet about the potential for conflict in this area for a long period of time, and we could hope that wise, co-operative politicians would prepare defensive plans in advance)
And now imagine 10-20 years down the a post-Putin Russia influencing Ukraine once again, only now it is a EU member state, Zelenskyy has retired and some other euro-sceptic madman is manipulating the EU only from the inside. This also is a concern politically - how sure can we be that Ukraine, which is known for swinging East-West, doesn’t swing back?
Just look at the conflicts that Poland and Hungary have caused. These are countries which are basically breaking democratic standards from the inside and vetoing change. Not an easy situation.
Probably a good thing that it started in 1994 with the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between them, moved on to the Joint EU–Ukraine Action Plan in 2005, and then to the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement in 2013, which didn't get signed because of Russian interference and led directly to a revolution.
Oh, and then after the revolution, we got the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement.
So they might not be quite ready, it's not like this has come out of nowhere, and lots of reforms haven't already happened.
Edit: I have looked it up and there are several precedents for a country joining the EU while opting out of defense[0]. However this would be the first time the EU would be in the position of wanting to refuse mutual defense, rather than the individual country wishing to opt-out.
https://ecfr.eu/publication/ambiguous-alliance-neutrality-op...
I thought only NATO and the UN have collective defense.
Article 42: > 7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
It's basically like Article 5 but for the EU.
(Yeah, I know, the threat was more about NATO than the EU. Still, the logic applies.)
To be sure Russia is the clear aggressor here and their political ambitions are no more sensible.
It seems to me like the clear sensible political solution here is for all sides to guarantee the security and neutrality of Ukraine (make it the Switzerland of Eurasia), and for Donetsk and Crimea to remain part of Ukraine as autonomous regions - a la Sud Tirol in Italy.
For NATO the apparent inconsistency is only apparent. It’s an important principle that Ukraine is free to apply or not apply for any membership they want. And similarly the countries within NATO are free to form alliances with whoever they want, so they are free to accept or reject an application from Ukraine. What’s the alternative? NATO accepting that Russia decides the international politics of other countries, because right now their opinions happen to align?
> It seems to me like the clear sensible political solution here is for all sides to guarantee the security and neutrality of Ukraine
It does seem reasonable. But how could Russia be trusted in the matter? And how could Ukraine trust the west to help them if Russia doesn’t live up to its part of the agreement? Ukraine gave up its nukes after the fall of the Soviet Union with security guarantees from the west. That didn’t work.
Any “neutral demilitarized Ukraine” seems it can only work if Ukraine is in a military alliance like NATO that would guarantee its safety. The negotiations about demilitarization make sense but would have to concern only what material can be on Ukraine territory, whether NATO excercies can take place there and so on. And on that it makes sense to go very non-confrontional. Norway has self-imposed such restrictions in the area closest to Russia for example: no excercises take place there and so on.
I'm not an expert, but I believe there are economic metrics needed to even qualify, and Ukraine is far below those metrics.
In practice the only thing that really matters is a full mutual defense commitment, in the manner of NATO or the EU, because without that any commitment is only theoretical.
1: https://www.npr.org/2014/03/09/288298641/the-role-of-1994-nu...
Ukraine is clearly not yet ready for a fast approval process to join the EU. At the same point it needs to join the NATO, as it’s clearly working together with it at this point.
https://ecfr.eu/publication/ambiguous-alliance-neutrality-op...
It's certainly not impossible for Putin to have a fatal heart attack tonight.
The decision before the EU would be to actively join the war against Russia.