The EU and Ukraine, a conversation with Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze
Chair of the Ukrainian Parliamentary Committee on Integration to the EU
On 28 February 2022, the President of Ukraine submitted the application of Ukraine to become a member of the European Union. EU leaders gathered in Versailles on 10-11 March examined Ukraine's bid for EU membership.
We had a conversation about the current situation with Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Integration of Ukraine to the EU, and former Vice-Prime-Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration of Ukraine. Ms Klympush-Tsintsadze is a member of the European Solidarity party.
On 3 March, she published an op-ed in Project Syndicate, which you can find here.
Recently, President Volodymyr Zelensky shared his belief that Ukraine will not enter NATO and that the country needs new formats of cooperation. Has there been a similar or other evolution in Ukrainians’ desire to join the EU? Especially given that the EU has not decided to end its import of Russian oil and gas?
There has been no such evolution in relation to NATO. Ukrainian support for joining NATO is at historic highs. Although this has, undoubtedly, been affected by the President’s rhetoric and NATO's inertia in establishing a no fly zone and providing aircrafts and air defence systems, 76% of the country still want Ukraine to join NATO. Therefore, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between the position of the country's leadership and the position of ordinary Ukrainians.
Support for EU accession is even greater, at 86%. The EU, in the eyes of Ukrainians, was stronger than expected. The EU imposed sanctions and took a common position on Russian aggression — this only confirms the Ukrainians' choice for Europe.
We understand that the EU cannot get rid of dependence on Russian energy immediately, (although it is positive that this issue is on the agenda) but Ukraine does not have time to wait until 2030. By purchasing Russian energy, the EU is actually sponsoring the war and the genocide of Ukraine, despite its help and sanctions
Europe itself created and nurtured this dependence, and joint drastic action is now needed. Tough times require difficult decisions. Even Germany can get rid of its energy dependence on Russia much faster. It would be enough to revive both coal-fired thermal power plants (without purchasing coal in Russia) and nuclear power plants. The Green Pact is, of course, important, but it cannot be more important than the destruction of Russian fascism in Europe.
How satisfied would Ukraine be with a deepening of cooperation under the Association Agreement? A recent policy paper by the European Policy Institute and Egmont makes a strong case that the AA is still “fit for purpose”. The Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) is already far reaching, and France’s Minister for European Affairs recently underlined that there were flexible ways to further EU-Ukraine relations without membership.
This is not simply a matter of membership or candidate status. It is a matter of confirming to the Ukrainian people, not in words but in deeds, that we are members of the European family.
I am convinced that there are various flexible ways to further develop EU-Ukraine relations without membership. I know that the Association Agreement has not yet been fully implemented in Ukraine. But I also know that Ukraine is more ready for membership than some countries that were once given the green light and some countries in the Western Balkans.
Therefore, I repeat one more time — the issue of membership in the context of brutal and cynical Russian aggression is not solely a matter of membership. It is a question of whether the values of the Western world really exist in practice or are simply declared.
The European Commission is currently engaging in a legal and moral battle with Hungary and Poland about the EU’s values, as enshrined in the European Treaties. Given Ukraine’s issues with governance and corruption, granting Kyiv a ‘fast track procedure’ would significantly undermine the Commission’s position in the rule-of-law debate. Seeing it from an extra-EU perspective, would you say that the current circumstances should trump legitimate concerns about rule-of-law?
Firstly, I do not see a direct link between the rule of law and fast-track procedure. Nobody is talking about breaking the regular rules of the EU membership procedure. Then, there has never been a similar situation in post-war Europe, namely the groundless start of the war by the nuclear power, Russia's de facto abolition of the world order, the attempt to restore the Yalta Peace, the USSR, and spheres of influence. This situation requires non-standard solutions.
Finally, I understand that no fast-track membership procedure exists. The requirements of membership are clear reforms, an adaptation of legislation, the rule of law, balance of different branches of government, quality and safety standards, etc.
I understand that, given the Brussels bureaucracy, this seems legally untenable, not to mention that it now seems politically impossible, especially given the position of Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and so on.
I understand that Ukraine's full economic integration is expensive for the EU. Hundreds of billions of dollars of investments, loans, and non-refundable aid were once "pumped" into the countries of the Soviet bloc. And even now, they receive much funding from EU programs. We see that the EU is still exhausted by this integration. And Ukraine is more prominent in territory and population than any of these countries. And Ukraine is at war.
I understand that there is also a population factor because representation in the European Parliament depends on population and, most importantly, the country's weighting in the European Council. According to this indicator, Ukraine will be the fourth or fifth in the EU. Indeed, Poland and Hungary are already rebellious. And of course, they are afraid of it and do not want it.
But there are two more critical factors.
If values remain in the EU and the EU considers itself an advanced democracy, Ukraine must become a member of the EU, despite all the above factors.
If the EU is genuinely representative democracy, its leaders must listen to their citizens, 70% of whom support Ukraine's accession to the EU, Poland 92%, Italy 71%, Germany 68%, and France 62%.
And if the above factors are so critical, then there is the Kubilius plan - full economic membership in the EU without political, i.e., without the right to vote. Of course, this is not what Ukrainian society expects, but at least for a start, it may be an option.
And most important. I do not see any obstacles to obtaining candidate status, as there are no such clear and detailed procedures as in the case of membership. And the "assessment" from the European Commission, which separates us from candidate status, is a reasonably concise document that can be prepared in Brussels in a couple of weeks. We need only one thing - political will. And we need to understand whether Ukraine will be part of the EU or the EU as a valued entity - will not exist. It will be just an economic union. And then who cares about the rule of law.
Although Georgia and Moldova have not been attacked by Russia on the same scale as Ukraine, they too are victims of the Russian government’s illegal and violent policies and actions, including infringements of national sovereignty by way of occupying territories. The two countries submitted their applications to join the EU shortly after Ukraine did. Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine have previously sought to work together as an ‘Associated Trio’ to stand out compared to other Eastern Partnership countries and accelerate their integration into the EU, for instance by obtaining access to the European Single Market. Does Ukraine plan on continuing to pursue efforts within this ‘Associated Trio’ or do you intend to pursue a more ‘solo’ path?
I understand the desire of Georgia and Moldova to take advantage of the situation. However, I have questions for Georgia. I am grateful to Georgia for Ukraine's support in the UN, the Council of Europe, the OSCE, and other international organisations, but the refusal to join anti-Russian sanctions and receiving Russian handouts in the form of Russia's partial lifting of sanctions on Georgia raises questions about the values of the Georgian government and not the people who go to thousands of rallies in support of Ukraine.
But more importantly, I am against joint consideration of applications. Situations are different. Russia is currently not waging a hot phase of the war against Moldova and Georgia. In addition, we are at various stages of readiness. They have the time and opportunity to move gradually towards the EU. And joint consideration of applications will complicate and prolong the procedure.
As for the Eastern Partnership: it is dead, and it is long over. Ever since the two countries decided to remain in the post-Soviet space and sphere of influence of the Russian Federation, one began to drift to Turkey, and three continued their movement to Europe.
The Eastern Partnership was created in different conditions and not with the goals pursued by the members of the Eastern Partnership and the EU today. And the policy of the Eastern Partnership, as an instrument of European integration, began to raise questions after the signing of visa-free travel and the signing of Association Agreements with Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova.
North American Indians say - If the horse is dead, dismount. But the European bureaucracy could not accept that the horse is dead. So, they came up with ways to save the Eastern Partnership. In response to these attempts, our European friends proposed the concept of an “Associated Trio,” and Ukraine, as well as Georgia and Moldova, agreed. But I repeat after the beginning of the Russian aggression, which Belarus de facto supports, horse is dead, finally dead. We don't need any Eastern Partnership, nor do we need any trios. We need EU membership. As a last resort - the intermediate options I mentioned above.
Do you believe that the negotiations between Ukraine and Russia will lead to a prompt and peaceful end of Russia’s war against Ukraine? Or will the solution come from elsewhere?
No, I do not believe that the negotiations will lead to any significant results, because it is very difficult to negotiate with a party that speaks the language of ultimatums and aims to destroy your statehood and sovereignty. As Golda Meir, the leader of Israel, said: Peace cannot be negotiated with those who have come to kill you.
Another problem is that Putin needs to keep face in front of his elites and the so-called people in “the backwoods”. He did not expect such resistance from the Ukrainian Armed Forces. He did not expect such strong national resistance, as his intelligence and local collaborators said that Russian troops would be greeted with bread and salt. Furthermore, he did not expect such a harsh reaction from the West. In fact, he expected a reproduction of the 2014 scenario.
Therefore, I honestly do not see how a compromise can be found with Putin without losing Ukraine's sovereignty and statehood. Therefore, I do not expect great results from the negotiations. The maximum possible agreements are about humanitarian corridors. Not even a ceasefire or an end to the bombing of residential areas. Just look at Mariupol. Russians use civilians as human shields. They are holding 400,000 people hostage. As the Butcher Harris, who was in charge of bombings of Germany for the RAF, said, destroying Dresden: “destroying civilians and their homes is as effective as destroying industry”. Killing the moral fiber of the nation is perhaps more important than destroying factories. This is what Russia is doing now.
During the Versailles Summit, French President Macron repeatedly stated that Europe was “not at war”. Some argue that Western leaders are too concerned about symbolism and verbal signals and that instead, they should openly acknowledge that the Russian government has been waging a war against them too, seeing as it has been attacking and ignoring international law, fundamental rights and the very principles of democracy. What is your take on this?
What do you think my attitude on this could be? As Hegel said: “The only thing that we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history”. Everyone remembers the Munich conspiracy and the appeasement of Hitler. What are the consequences? Putin was forgiven for Crimea and pacified since 2014, moreover, he was allowed to build Nord Stream-2, etc. What are the consequences?
I don't think Macron and other Western leaders realise that World War III is coming. It's been a long time since Putin's speech in Munich in 2008. It is still in the hybrid stage, but will inevitably go into the hot stage if Putin is not stopped in Ukraine. Stopping Putin in Ukraine is, in fact, the only way to prevent the war from coming physically to Europe.
And now Putin continues to test the weakness of some Western politicians. And when he sees weakness, he goes further. Can you imagine a similar war in the heart of Europe if we had political leaders comparable in scale to Roosevelt, Churchill, de Gaulle, Reagan, Thatcher? I don’t. I am convinced that all conscious people understand that the Third World War is already underway, but some European leaders prefer, like small children, to cover their faces with their hands and pretend that they are not here.
We would like to extend our deepest thanks to Ms Klympush-Tsintsadze and her team, especially Vladyslav Petrovskyi. This interview was conducted in Ukrainian, and translated to English. Many thanks to those who prepared and translated this interview — Nastassia Maes, Galyna Tkachenko, Vicktoria Omelianenko, Harry Higgins, Dana Fedun, and Thomas Harbor.
