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.
Would China attack Taiwan during the American lame duck period? For months, there have been worries that Beijing would seek to take advantage of an American president slowed by age and a potentially chaotic transition to make a move on Taiwan. In the wake of an American election that ended without drama, that far-fetched scenario will likely prove purely hypothetical. But there is a crisis brewing elsewhere in Asia — one with which US president-elect Donald Trump may have to deal during his first days in office. Tensions between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea have been at
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hypersonic missile carried a simple message to the West over Ukraine: Back off, and if you do not, Russia reserves the right to hit US and British military facilities. Russia fired a new intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missile known as “Oreshnik,” or Hazel Tree, at Ukraine on Thursday in what Putin said was a direct response to strikes on Russia by Ukrainian forces with US and British missiles. In a special statement from the Kremlin just after 8pm in Moscow that day, the Russian president said the war was escalating toward a global conflict, although he avoided any nuclear
US President-elect Donald Trump has been declaring his personnel picks for his incoming Cabinet. Many are staunchly opposed to China. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, Trump’s nomination to be his next secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security, said that since 2000, China has had a long-term plan to destroy the US. US Representative Mike Waltz, nominated by Trump to be national security adviser, has stated that the US is engaged in a cold war with China, and has criticized Canada as being weak on Beijing. Even more vocal and unequivocal than these two Cabinet picks is Trump’s nomination for
An article written by Uber Eats Taiwan general manager Chai Lee (李佳穎) published in the Liberty Times (sister paper of the Taipei Times) on Tuesday said that Uber Eats promises to engage in negotiations to create a “win-win” situation. The article asserted that Uber Eats’ acquisition of Foodpanda would bring about better results for Taiwan. The National Delivery Industrial Union (NDIU), a trade union for food couriers in Taiwan, would like to express its doubts about and dissatisfaction with Lee’s article — if Uber Eats truly has a clear plan, why has this so-called plan not been presented at relevant
RSS