Ukraine: a Turning Point for the European Union?

Michel Dévoluy
Professor emeritus in economics, holder of the Jean Monnet Chair at the University of Strasbourg

Admitting Ukraine as a priority candidate to join the EU seemed self-evident. The suffering of the Ukrainians has moved public opinion and led Western politicians to react strongly and promptly. Beyond legitimate emotions, this choice of the EU marks a turning point which is not without consequences for its future.

So far, the European Union (EU) has embodied peace. For the first time, it validates the candidacy of a country, Ukraine, because this country is at war. Russia, the aggressor state, is at the same time designated as an adversary of the EU. The acceptance of the candidacy of Moldova, a potential future target of Russia, is based on the same logic.

This choice places the EU on the side of international law and morality. Beautiful and vast ambition, unfortunately not always respected in the practice of realpolitik. With this decision, the EU is taking a turn that affects its place and its image in the world. But that's not all. The full and complete admission of Ukraine, admittedly still a long way off, will affect the political balance of the Union and its institutional functioning. These questions, which are essential for the future of European construction, deserve to be raised. They in no way obscure the atrocities of this war.

Despite all of its remarkable achievements, Europe remains unfinished. Only a sovereign and democratic Union will be fully capable of standing at the service of its Member States and its citizens. This is therefore the goal to be achieved, as soon as possible. European sovereignty is built on three pillars: unreserved sharing of the Union's values ​​and objectives, genuine strategic autonomy, and strong, democratic common institutions. None of this has really been taken into account for Ukraine. We had to go fast and make an impression.

From a geo-strategic point of view, the reactions of the EU in the Ukrainian crisis have blurred its image. Rather than demonstrating its independence, the EU has mainly participated in bringing NATO back to the center stage. The fact that the member countries of the G7, meeting at the end of June 2022 in Bavaria, insisted on strongly welcoming the choice of the EU in favor of Ukraine, testifies to the state of the balance of power in the world. While Westerners rejoice at the EU's decision on Ukraine, most of the 193 UN member states remain neutral, or, for a few, sympathetic to Russia. Finally, the choice to hastily begin the admission procedure for Ukraine makes the Union appear as a subsidiary of NATO. This alignment with the Transatlantic Organization undermines the capital of confidence that the EU has accumulated with States that are not attracted to the Western sphere of influence. In doing so, Europe is damaging the image of peace and universalism that it wanted to convey across the planet for more than seventy years.

With regard to the proper internal functioning of the Union, the enlargement to new members slows down the process of deepening. More countries implies automatically an increase in the heterogeneity of the whole. Joint decision-making becomes more complex and compromises more difficult. In short, an enlargement delays the prospects of forming a political Europe. Actually, a good way to slow down the deepening is to welcome new members.

By quickly agreeing to Ukraine's request, Europe has made itself the spokesperson of the public opinions shocked by the images of the war. The widely publicized pressures by President Zelensky have of course played their part. But above all, this choice allowed NATO – and therefore the United States – to regain control without having to officially welcome Ukraine as a new member. An open war with Russia has thus been ruled out, while Cold War tensions between East and West have come to the fore again.

Another delicate problem: validating the candidacy of Ukraine amounts to disavowing the pro-Russian separatists. This choice of the EU disqualifies part of the population currently living on Ukrainian soil. How will they react if one day they find themselves belonging to the EU?

Finally, this decision upsets the principles supported by the EU. While the Union fights bad practices, it is committed here to support a State recognized as corrupt. Similarly, the EU, which wishes to promote human values, remains very sober in its reactions when the Ukrainian leaders decide to banish all traces of Russian culture. And what to say in the face of the indignation of other candidate states that the EU has forced to wait for years?

Finally, it must be repeated, the admission of new members will not facilitate the functioning of the EU. The cumbersomeness of decision-making procedures, in particular considering the rule of unanimity, will be accentuated. Here we see again the tensions between widening and deepening.

The Heads of State and Government of Germany, France and Italy probably sensed, at the start of the war, all the equivocal effects of this promptness to formalize Ukraine's candidacy. At first they were procrastinating, then they joined the majority in favor of a return of NATO to the forefront, and resumed the old reflexes of the Cold War.

This bifurcation of the EU can still be modified. But on two conditions.

First, the EU should reaffirm its geo-strategic uniqueness and its aspirations to an acknowledged sovereignty. Namely, the Union could abandon its policy of semi-/co-belligerence in favor of Ukraine and openly defend in the face of the two warring parties concerned the immense benefits of a rapid compromise: to stop the human and material disasters, to avoid an expansion of the conflict with its nuclear risks, to eliminate the root-causes of an energy, economic and food global crisis, to alleviate the climatic, environmental and financial costs linked to war and to the inevitable reconstruction. This role of enlightened arbiter would reduce the misfortunes of the populations under the bombs and would give the EU the means to regain an image dissociated from NATO and the indirect tutelage of the United States. Its aspiration for peace would once again come to the fore. In short, the EU would thus affirm its strategic autonomy and its unique place within the international community.

Secondly, the enlargement towards Ukraine, pending other States, must not hinder the essential deepening of European construction. How can a more heterogeneous Europe be made compatible with a Europe that wishes to move rapidly towards a political Europe? There is a solution: a multi-speed Europe. This theme was underlying President Macron's proposal to create a "European Political Community" to welcome future members of the EU. Despite its ambiguous wording, the idea was promising. But for lack of support, it was quickly dismissed. Too bad. The establishment of a Europe at several speeds – or with concentric circles – is decisive for the future of the EU. Without the motor of a hard core, the Union will remain in the middle of the ford, and barely audible on the international level. It is not too late, especially since many Europeans no longer stiffen up at the prospect of a revision of the Treaties that would go in this direction. And time is running out.