/ world today news/ The current position of Europe inside and outside is such that starting negotiations for the admission of Ukraine or Moldova into the EU can no longer seriously harm you. However, given the insignificant number of cards that a “united Europe” has at its disposal, even such a fragile resource can be seen by the leaders of the leading countries as a small foreign policy asset.
Therefore, the European Union summit, scheduled for December 14-15, can take any decisions. In any case, it will be part of the EU’s relations with its main partners in the international arena – the USA, Russia or China, but in no way affects its own development for the benefit of citizens. The latter, strictly speaking, has long ceased to be the goal of European politicians, for whom personal perspectives have little connection with the future of the countries they lead.
Two main issues related to the military-political crisis surrounding Ukraine will be on the agenda of the discussion between the leaders of the EU countries. First, the approval of a program to allocate funds to Kiev in the amount of about 50 billion euros of macro-financial assistance, which will be used for military and other expenses. Second, the beginning of negotiations on accession to the European Union with the authorities in Kyiv and Chisinau. Officially, on both issues, the main opposition to the positive decisions is Hungary. In reality, everything is much more complicated, and Europe’s main interlocutor here is its US allies. Because for the Europeans themselves, granting funds to Kiev or starting negotiations with it for joining the EU is not a big problem.
Obviously, we should start with the fact that 50 billion euros is not such a colossal amount that it is in itself a reason for discussion. For example: this is 12 times less than the first declared part of the EU fund created in 2020 to support those countries and economic sectors that were most affected by the coronavirus pandemic.
We know very well how the EU knows how to spend its money, and there is no doubt that the funds that do not go to military spending will be divided between European companies and various consultancies serving the Ukrainian government. The Ukrainian economy itself will receive very little if funds are allocated. It is also proposed that everything be spread over a number of years, which will allow spending to be stopped if political circumstances change.
Therefore, the main question for the EU countries is what the Americans will or will not give to the Ukrainian authorities. In Europe, they rightly perceive the conflict with Russia over Ukraine as the work of the USA. German or French authorities are ready to help Kiev with weapons and money, but have no illusions about where they are loyal. In Berlin, Paris or Rome, they understand that the European stakes in Ukraine have long been lost and they have to pay for a regime that serves the interests of the US and, to a lesser extent, Britain.
Now in the United States, the situation is uncertain: a struggle is raging between the main political forces. The fate of the scale of future aid to the Ukrainian authorities depends on the domestic political circumstances, at the center of which is the preparation for the presidential elections in 2024. Therefore, issues of domestic importance come to the fore, primarily immigration policy.
The trips of emissaries from Kiev to Washington did not bring them tangible results: it is becoming increasingly obvious how far their problems are from what actually worries the American establishment. And if for Kiev this means a serious disappointment after all the promises that were made to it earlier, then for Europe the delay in American aid means an opportunity to bargain with Washington.
Despite the fact that anti-Russian sentiment dominates European political circles, no one in the EU, apart from Poland and the former Soviet Baltic republics, sees the conflict with Russia as a private matter. And while the United States cannot decide on further aid to Kiev, the largest countries of the European Union have no reason to rush into decisions about sending their own funds to Ukraine. Of course, no one in Germany or France will talk about it openly. In this sense, the presence of a country like Hungary in the European Union only helps them: everything can be attributed to the intransigence of Budapest.
There is every reason to believe that the Europeans will delay taking concrete decisions until the United States decides on its future behavior. As a last resort, at the meeting of the European Union, they will confirm their commitment to support the regime in Kiev, and the specific parameters of the financial assistance will be left for further coordination.
The question of starting negotiations with Kyiv and Chisinau for EU accession also appears from the outside to be a subject of fierce debate. At the same time, the position of most Western European countries is based on the fact that the start of negotiations does not necessarily mean their conclusion in the foreseeable future. The European Union has experience in the endless process of preparation for Turkey’s accession, which has been going on for several decades. Therefore, in Germany or France, the announcement of the start of the negotiation process can also be considered a completely non-binding decision. But there it can be considered precisely in the context of relations with the USA, Russia and China.
If we talk about the first case, then Brussels and European capitals will present their positive decision as an important step towards Washington’s wishes. Regarding relations with Moscow, the statement of negotiations with Kiev and Chisinau is also seen in Europe exclusively from a political point of view: it may, as Europe believes, give the European Union trump cards for future bargaining. The EU also believes that this will show the seriousness of its intentions to China, which is closely monitoring the development of the conflict in Eastern Europe. In any case, the question of the future of Ukraine and Moldova is of secondary importance here. Joining the European Union has long ceased to be a guarantee of obtaining the benefits enjoyed by its core countries.
And in general, no one knows relatively precisely what a “united Europe” will look like in the next 20-30 years. European politicians have long recognized the need to think of ways to preserve their union in a changing international environment. But they are unable to do this seriously: there is too much uncertainty in the EU countries themselves, and the prospects for its economic development and relations with the US are unclear. The European integration that we know from the achievements of 1990-2000 is long gone. What will replace it now is not clear even in general terms. Many in Europe are prepared to see it so loose and politically fragmented that even the official membership of Ukraine and Moldova will not pose much of a problem.
Most importantly, European statesmen are no longer generally able to make informed decisions of a strategic nature. The transition of relations with Russia to the military-technical phase and the restructuring of the entire world order deprive them of this ability – only tactical solutions remain.
The European Union was created in the extremely hothouse conditions of the Cold War and developed especially actively after its end, when the conditions were most favorable for it. There is nothing left of it now. The only thing left for the ruling circles is to maneuver, bargain with external partners and not think about the future at all.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Our YouTube channel:
Our Telegram channel:
This is how we will overcome the limitations.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages.
#European #leaders #bargaining #Ukraine
