The Ukrainian counteroffensive has stalled. For the first time since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the feeling that Russia might actually be winning is taking root. The long-applauded Western resolve in support of Ukraine is waning. The western Balkans are broiling. Next year’s presidential election in the US does not bode well for Europe, either. In this context, the timing of the summit of EU leaders on Thursday and yesterday could make it the most consequential in the bloc’s recent history.
For EU leaders, there is pressure to open accession negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova and agree to a 50 billion euro (US$54.8 billion) package of financial help for Kyiv — they would be well advised not to underestimate the gravity of these two decisions.
They need to send a strong signal to Russian President Vladimir Putin that his hopes of turning the tide of the war to his benefit are grossly premature. They must leave no doubt about the EU’s commitment to bringing Ukraine into the European bloc. More broadly, they must also convey to European citizens why efforts to integrate Ukraine and other countries are the right investment for the future of the EU.
Such decisive action is needed more than ever. As a new opinion poll shows, large numbers of European citizens believe that Ukraine’s membership in the EU would undermine, at 45 percent on average, rather than strengthen, at 25 percent, Europe’s security. Asked about the impact on their own country, only 15 percent of French and 20 percent of German respondents expect any positives to manifest for their country’s security from such a move, and 39 and 47 percent, respectively, believe the outcome would be negative. Only in Poland do positive opinions clearly prevail — 41 versus 30 percent.
For the western Balkan countries, there are similarly gloomy views, with few Europeans seeing their possible accession as having any upswing in benefits for the EU’s security, at 23 percent versus 33 percent believing the opposite. The results of the survey — conducted in six EU member states — Germany, France, Denmark, Poland, Romania and Austria — by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) — are sobering and a warning. European politicians continuously restate that EU enlargement is necessary for geopolitical reasons. However, they have not yet managed to bring European societies on board to support this view. The worry that accepting new members could drag the EU into conflicts appears to be greater than the conviction that their membership would insulate Europe from Russian or Chinese influences.
Still, the conversation remains open. A plurality — 37 percent on average — of the citizens in the six countries surveyed by the ECFR believe that Ukraine should be able to join the EU — and this often includes people who are aware of the negative consequences of such an event. It seems that the emotional support for Ukrainians is still strong and outweighs rational considerations.
There is less enthusiasm for the western Balkan countries, however. Only 20 to 30 percent of Europeans would like to see them as future members of the bloc. The differences in attitudes across the EU are significant. In Denmark and Poland, 50 percent and 47 percent, respectively, support Ukraine’s accession. In Austria, only 28 percent are in favor, while 52 percent are against it. Yet in most countries, 20 to 40 percent of respondents do not have an opinion or are indifferent to the prospect of Ukraine’s accession, as well as to enlargement in general. This suggests that there is a large constituency of Europeans who could still be convinced that their own future depends — like never before — on the EU’s resolve to make use of its main asset: integration of its European neighbors into the sphere of peace and economic prosperity.
The urgency to make meaningful steps toward this goal could not be more obvious. Should Ukraine lose not only a part of its territory, but also belief in the credibility of the EU’s offer, it would have dramatic consequences for Europe. In order to become a stable and predictable country, Ukraine needs to win the war. The key measure of its victory, however, would not be the restoration of full control of its territory, but winning control of its future as a European, prosperous and democratic country. The EU is Ukraine’s only chance. If this chance is lost, the EU would bear not only the responsibility, but also the burden of dealing with the massive geopolitical impact of this failure. The same is true for the western Balkans. It is perhaps the very last moment to stop those countries from drifting away into Russian or Chinese orbits.
Neither the European public nor many EU leaders seem to fully grasp the gravity of this situation. They appear to believe that maintaining the status quo is still possible and that the institutional reform debate constitutes an adequate response to geopolitical challenges. This is wrong and dangerous. At this week’s summit, it is imperative that leaders do not shy away from alarmist language and tough decisions. They need to recognize that EU unity is not a goal in itself and overcome Hungarian Prime Minsiter Viktor Orban’s obstructionism by setting up the Ukraine facility — if needed, in a coalition of the willing, excluding Hungary.
They should open negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova, commit to necessary military support next year and declare that the EU would prepare the next budget for enlargement. They should also agree that bilateral disputes between EU member states and candidate countries would be dealt with outside the enlargement policy framework. This would help ensure that by 2028, candidate countries that have fulfilled the EU’s requisite criteria and accepted a strong “rule of law” conditionality would, at the very least, enjoy the financial and economic benefits of integration.
There is no other way to underline the EU’s commitment to enlargement as a crucial geopolitical choice other than to give clear commitments to Ukraine and other candidate countries. A clear message is also needed for citizens of the existing 27 member states of the EU and the many who are still to be persuaded of the need for enlargement. They need to realize that their security and stability are at risk. Political elites will not win the battle for hearts and minds with sermons. They need to walk the walk.
Piotr Buras is the head of the Warsaw office at the ECFR. Engjellushe Morina is a senior policy fellow at the ECFR.
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s