The u.s. with trump are doing this strange dance where they always threaten to withdraw support, but then it's been almost one year trump is in power and he still hasn't withdrawn support. Hopefully the dance will continue for another year, and hopefully the European war industry will have caught up at a certain point.
You forgot the context, president Zelensky didn't say Ukraine will be in EU by 2027. President Zelensky said - current peace plan includes the provision to integrate into the EU 2027 if it gets signed. It already implies that the war would be over by 2026. Read the article, not just the headline.
I love Ukraine, I want Ukraine to join the EU, but the timeline is absurd! We couldn't integrate Norway or Iceland within a year, let alone Ukraine.
Let's set the ambition to 2030, so it will finally happen 2035-2040.
(I see this as entirely separate from the ongoing war - in that war we should fully support Ukraine, and we should give them security guarantees as quickly and as far reaching as possible)
as an addendum, joining the union too quickly could also damage Ukraine!
Imagine the best case: War ending 2026, Ukraine joining EU in 2027. Suddenly Ukrainians have freedom of movement and the choice between their destroyed and troubled home country or the rest of Europe - the depopulation and brain drain would be unprecedented!
I think half of ukranians would seeking work or safer country. Even now if war would stop, I dont think they will return to ukraine if they already settle down in europe.
Even now if war would stop, I dont think they will return to ukraine if they already settle down in europe
And those who're still in Ukraine will seek an exit ASAP because of how living on a powder keg, with a looming russian reinvasion (because there will not be any sufficient safety guarantees given), is not exactly a good life.
There is already precedent for that, when the other former eastern block states joined, they didn't get full freedom of movement and some other things straight away either.
Anyway yes, full membership by 2027 is definitely not happening - but it doesn't need to be full membership. With some creativity it's easy to come up with some half-way associate membership with some limitations and evolve it gradually over time.
Exactly. The Copenhagen criteria exist to protect both the EU and the candidate. Ukraine joining by 2027 would be undesirable for both sides, it's way too early.
It's more urgent to get a lasting peace agreement with real security guarantees.
Not just that. The free movement of capital means that whichever companies and land wasn’nt already bought up by foreign investors will be bought cheaply. Compaines will be closed b/c whoever buys them buys it only to gain market access.
Ye, almost as if the process should've started in 2014, after already 7 years of negotiations and after the country had a bloody revolution to join the EU. You know, instead of stalling the process to appease putin and suck some of dat juicy gas. Ukraine could've gone a long way to actually integrate in 8 years between 2014 - 2022 and further, if the membership wasn't kept off the table. And yeah, this speech is obviously directed on his internal audience. Ukrainians have been defending their path to EU very ferociously. 121 people died in an actual revolution (and hundreds more wounded and crippled) and god knows how many died in this war, fighting for a civilizational choice of pro european direction for Ukraine. People in Ukraine are BLOODY DESPERATE to finally hear something good about that EU membership, which have been dangled in front of their noses this whole time, like the dad's keys. My guess is that he says a soon and definitive EU membership is a part of the peace deal, together with some bullshit being gone from it, to prepare Ukrainians to the possibility of it actually getting signed. Because before that, all the news were portraying it as an unaccaptabe bullshit. His politicians inside Ukraine are currently doing a similar signaling, saying this changed version of the agreement may be a possible compromise, but it wont be pretty.
Forget 2014, the process should have started in 2005, after Yuschenko's election. Some kind of concrete progress towards EU membership would have avoided the widespread disillusionment that helped get Yanukovych elected. 21 years of promises with no results is ridiculous.
The EU didn't like Ukraine back then. They literally shut down US attempts under Bush to get Ukraine into NATO in 2008. Not a chance they'd take them in the EU back then, when they wouldn't even let them start a path into a defense alliance.
EU has the ability to provide custom accession paths. Doing a 2 year speed run that does some integration and yearly eval for more is doable.
Also: it's the sheer size of regulations that have to be brought into the law. Ukraine could go for a break a bank moves. It is still their, be or not to be.
I hope we can give them some special membership status though, allowing for some movement as well as really good trade deals. Everything that will help in getting it back on its feet. And cooperation with a dedicated commission with the sole task of making them full members, helping out in dealing with corruption legalislation, oversight, etc. And allowing them in as fast as is humanly possible.
The EU will need reform too regarding farming subsidies. And we need to end the veto or restrict it... Somehow. We cabt turn into the gridlock of the US, where we can't get important things through because one country has been taken over by Russia.
"unlikely by diplomats" is a nice way of saying: rotfl, you stupid or smth?
Between 5 and 10 years of convergence, after hostilities stop, is perhaps the more fitting timeframe for Ukraine. The other problem is, the EU member states themselves may need time to process that too. Both in terms of EU reform that everyone sees is needed (different views in what direction it should go, though) and simply having all member states agree to the accession - it must be unanimous, and obviously there are some current governments that would block accession no mater what.
Not necessarily: look at Korea, Israel-Palestine, the African Great Lakes Region, or any of the other long-running or frozen conflicts around the world. The fighting may end, or at least enter a lower-intensity phase (as it did between 2014 and 2022), but that doesn't always mean an end to hostilities.
Ukraine"s integration will probably take 15 to 20 years after the war ends. It will be,by a far margin, the most challenging candidate the EU has ever had. I would say a more realistic approach for Kyiv would be to secure some sort of association agreement with the EU in order to obtain the much needed funds for reconstruction. The reconstruction of Ukraine alone will require funds in the order of hundreds of billions of euros.
You need to pay attention to whom the leader is addresing here, and it's Ukrainians. He clearly considers it a possibility that some sort of a compromised might actually end up being signed before new year but it won't be pretty. Since untill now, all the news about peace plan were outrageously negative, Ukrainians are aggresively against this whole thing. So he makes a speech to emphasize something nice as well as some absense of the bullshit. In parrallel he has his officials in Ukraine to signal that the compromise is possible, but it won't be pretty.
The sad reality is that even if Ukraine gets an acceptable peace it will still be a damaged country. Corruption is still high. There will be a lot of unemployed veterans with PTSD. There will be a lot of guns, drones and grenades floating around. I’m certain that their spirit will be enough to handle that and come out on top. But it is not realistic that they will be accepted into the EU quite soon.
It would be an economic and political disaster for the EU if they sidestepped the normal accession protocol, not to mention unfair on the other candidate countries who are better positioned. What message would that convey to them? Never happening, but then again you have to look at the fools who are in charge now in Brussels.
Not really. I've worked in Ukraine over the last 15 years (including since the war, and I'll bow to no man in my solidarity with Ukraine and desire for them to win), and the reality is the country is decades away from EU membership. It is deeply steeped in corruption, and far from aligned with EU membership criteria on human rights or protection of minorities. It has a long way to go.
Nobody wants another Hungary in the EU. EU membership once Ukraine meets the rules is solidarity; promising it will be a free gift they can get in a year or two is irresponsible and it's highly regrettable that some politicians seem to have given that impression.
Putting aside that the process won't be initiated until the invasion is repelled for obvious reasons, Ukraine wouldn't be served by entering the EU before its economy is rebuilt to some degree of robustness, and legally, it has to work through the chapters of the acquis. That just takes some time.
EU needs to get its act together real damn quick and whoever said Ukraine doesn’t have borders is projecting a false statement. One thing is certain if Ukraine is sacrificed as a consequence of the incompetency of the EU bickering frivolously over decisions there will be a major conflict in Europe. And this won’t be your grandfathers war either.
Well, yeah. First, the war needs to end. Then, the economy must be significantly rebuilt before at least certain chapters of the acquis can be reasonably opened, let alone closed. It'll be a long process, sadly.
Then, the economy must be significantly rebuilt before at least certain chapters of the acquis can be reasonably opened, let alone closed
And this will not happen, because without actual guarantees that can deter russia (and which won't be given to Ukraine), the damocles sword of impending russian reinvasion will keep investment away and the population drain ongoing - no one wants to keep playing the russian roulette by living on a powder keg.
Ukraine has never met the standards for EU integration. I am highly sympathetic to the Ukrainians over the war but even before the war they didn’t meet the qualifications. Ever since the end of the USSR Ukraine has only ever had a half functional democracy with lots of corruption, even after Euromaiden.
It may be very democratic compared to Russia but the Russian Federation isn’t the benchmark.
I personally think corruption will be one of biggest arguments for stopping Ukraine joining. Even when Zelenski tries to fight it, its soo deep rooted there that it will be decades (if ever) when corruption will leave it (dam even now some of EU countries are deep in corruption and Ukraine has much much worse case here). Maybe one day, but def not soon
Wrote elsewhere about this bullet speed EU membership of Ukraine:
I think what EU needs to do at the moment is to create some "half-membership" status where half-members get
rotating representation in EU Commission (as the veto practically exists in the commission, limited/rotating veto rights)
reduced (say, like a country half of their population) representation in EU parliament (e.g. Ukraine is represented not like a ~40M Poland but like a ~20M Romania)
a right to cherry pick/opt in or out EU policies depending on their needs (they can join or not join present or future EU policies)
no automatic application of four freedom of movements (goods, people, capital and services) but some guaranteed legislative favoring towards citizens/goods/companies/banks of half member states in full members and vice versa.
no unanimity requirement to be a half member state.
I'd say not only Ukraine but also UK and even Turkey could be interested with such a thing. These countries will likely be the "bridges" (so not exactly europe but not outside europe either) between europe and other cultural spheres: UK with other anglo-saxon countries (Canada, US, Australia and New Zealand) and perhaps commonwealth nations, Ukraine with Russia&Belarus (yes, ironically), Turkey with Muslim&Turkic&Caucasian countries. I could even add a speculative Iberian federation to be the bridge with latin american countries, but that's up to them to decide (and there's no particular interest atm)
the so called "half-membership" you are talking about is probably already well represented by the superset of treaties that already do exist (european economic area, schengen etc.).
No, once you are a full member all your citizens have automatic freedom of movement in all other member states and your country should have aligned with acquis communautaire. With half membership the countries won't have this. Freedom of movement of workers was one of the major arguments for Brexit. With half membership it won't be as automatic as it is with full membership.
Also I think none of these countries (Ukraine, Turkey, UK) are particularly interested (nor are capable to) get a full fledged european integration with Schengen and Eurozone membership in the short run (even in the long run) anyway. These will be just border countries bridging between Europe and non-Europe and adapting accordingly with their cherry picking rights.
It needs to be formalized more - this is a general problem the EU has, there is no flexibility. Some countries want more/faster integration, others want to be a bit more sovereign.
There needs to be a way for the countries that want more integration to proceed without getting held up by a couple of countries that don't want to participate out of principle and veto everything.
Developing a more tiered membership system where countries can opt in/out of different things at their speed would solve a lot of problems (including what to do with ukraine as a potential member - and even potentially what to do with Turkey/UK/other more peripheral states that might be interested in more cooperation but definitely not full membership).
Wouldn’t this end up in making the EU even more inefficient/toothless? If members can just opt out of obligations whenever they want what’s the point of the EU?
Every member state would love all the benefits with none of the obligations. If you make this an option half the member states in the EU will vote to downgrade to the more ‘sovereign’ status within three years, and the whole federation becomes twice as loosey goosey as it already is.
Ugh, questioning your reading comprehension skills atm. I said UK will be the new designated bridge between EU and anglo-saxon countries (US Canada Australia and New Zealand). That does not concern US, that is not a US policy, what you say (US wanting to assert dominance) has nothing to do with this.
Yeah sure..and once the money they receive will be conditioned by implementing EU directives and regulations they'll veto everything and probably go back crying in Russia's welcoming arms...
The war could still be going on in 2027.
very likely actually.
Very unlikely actually, w/o US support and w/o army reforms we will fall in 2026.
The u.s. with trump are doing this strange dance where they always threaten to withdraw support, but then it's been almost one year trump is in power and he still hasn't withdrawn support. Hopefully the dance will continue for another year, and hopefully the European war industry will have caught up at a certain point.
Hope so, and US is important not only in hardware, but intelligence information is a big deal for European army as well 🤷♂️
? You are only getting news from those nutjobs calling themselves right wing journalists in USA? Cause Trump speed a lot of support for Ukraine.
Under Biden USA almost, almost matched the EU in support. But note that done support, especially intelligence is not included.
Under Trump USA does not even send 1/10 of the EU help.
No. It's strong EU shouldering procurement and billing for vast majority of help for Ukraine.
Hope Ukraine endures until the midterm elections. Support for Ukraine is growing in the US society.
You forgot the context, president Zelensky didn't say Ukraine will be in EU by 2027. President Zelensky said - current peace plan includes the provision to integrate into the EU 2027 if it gets signed. It already implies that the war would be over by 2026. Read the article, not just the headline.
I love Ukraine, I want Ukraine to join the EU, but the timeline is absurd! We couldn't integrate Norway or Iceland within a year, let alone Ukraine.
Let's set the ambition to 2030, so it will finally happen 2035-2040.
(I see this as entirely separate from the ongoing war - in that war we should fully support Ukraine, and we should give them security guarantees as quickly and as far reaching as possible)
as an addendum, joining the union too quickly could also damage Ukraine!
Imagine the best case: War ending 2026, Ukraine joining EU in 2027. Suddenly Ukrainians have freedom of movement and the choice between their destroyed and troubled home country or the rest of Europe - the depopulation and brain drain would be unprecedented!
I think half of ukranians would seeking work or safer country. Even now if war would stop, I dont think they will return to ukraine if they already settle down in europe.
And those who're still in Ukraine will seek an exit ASAP because of how living on a powder keg, with a looming russian reinvasion (because there will not be any sufficient safety guarantees given), is not exactly a good life.
I agree. it became a trauma and I would also live in fear of reinvasion.
There is already precedent for that, when the other former eastern block states joined, they didn't get full freedom of movement and some other things straight away either.
Anyway yes, full membership by 2027 is definitely not happening - but it doesn't need to be full membership. With some creativity it's easy to come up with some half-way associate membership with some limitations and evolve it gradually over time.
Just political membership with ukrainian mps in europarliament and representative in eurocommision is enough. Economic, schengen, etc can come later.
Exactly. The Copenhagen criteria exist to protect both the EU and the candidate. Ukraine joining by 2027 would be undesirable for both sides, it's way too early.
It's more urgent to get a lasting peace agreement with real security guarantees.
Not just that. The free movement of capital means that whichever companies and land wasn’nt already bought up by foreign investors will be bought cheaply. Compaines will be closed b/c whoever buys them buys it only to gain market access.
Ye, almost as if the process should've started in 2014, after already 7 years of negotiations and after the country had a bloody revolution to join the EU. You know, instead of stalling the process to appease putin and suck some of dat juicy gas. Ukraine could've gone a long way to actually integrate in 8 years between 2014 - 2022 and further, if the membership wasn't kept off the table. And yeah, this speech is obviously directed on his internal audience. Ukrainians have been defending their path to EU very ferociously. 121 people died in an actual revolution (and hundreds more wounded and crippled) and god knows how many died in this war, fighting for a civilizational choice of pro european direction for Ukraine. People in Ukraine are BLOODY DESPERATE to finally hear something good about that EU membership, which have been dangled in front of their noses this whole time, like the dad's keys. My guess is that he says a soon and definitive EU membership is a part of the peace deal, together with some bullshit being gone from it, to prepare Ukrainians to the possibility of it actually getting signed. Because before that, all the news were portraying it as an unaccaptabe bullshit. His politicians inside Ukraine are currently doing a similar signaling, saying this changed version of the agreement may be a possible compromise, but it wont be pretty.
Forget 2014, the process should have started in 2005, after Yuschenko's election. Some kind of concrete progress towards EU membership would have avoided the widespread disillusionment that helped get Yanukovych elected. 21 years of promises with no results is ridiculous.
The EU didn't like Ukraine back then. They literally shut down US attempts under Bush to get Ukraine into NATO in 2008. Not a chance they'd take them in the EU back then, when they wouldn't even let them start a path into a defense alliance.
EU has the ability to provide custom accession paths. Doing a 2 year speed run that does some integration and yearly eval for more is doable.
Also: it's the sheer size of regulations that have to be brought into the law. Ukraine could go for a break a bank moves. It is still their, be or not to be.
I hope we can give them some special membership status though, allowing for some movement as well as really good trade deals. Everything that will help in getting it back on its feet. And cooperation with a dedicated commission with the sole task of making them full members, helping out in dealing with corruption legalislation, oversight, etc. And allowing them in as fast as is humanly possible.
The EU will need reform too regarding farming subsidies. And we need to end the veto or restrict it... Somehow. We cabt turn into the gridlock of the US, where we can't get important things through because one country has been taken over by Russia.
"unlikely by diplomats" is a nice way of saying: rotfl, you stupid or smth?
Between 5 and 10 years of convergence, after hostilities stop, is perhaps the more fitting timeframe for Ukraine. The other problem is, the EU member states themselves may need time to process that too. Both in terms of EU reform that everyone sees is needed (different views in what direction it should go, though) and simply having all member states agree to the accession - it must be unanimous, and obviously there are some current governments that would block accession no mater what.
Bold of you to assume they'd stop
eventually they will have to stop.
Not necessarily: look at Korea, Israel-Palestine, the African Great Lakes Region, or any of the other long-running or frozen conflicts around the world. The fighting may end, or at least enter a lower-intensity phase (as it did between 2014 and 2022), but that doesn't always mean an end to hostilities.
Exactly.
And since there's going no actual guarantees, russia can reinvade more or less at their leisure and rearmament pace.
Huh...
Well...
After all the pro Ukrainian solidarity ends no one will want Ukraine in the EU let’s be fr.
Ukraine"s integration will probably take 15 to 20 years after the war ends. It will be,by a far margin, the most challenging candidate the EU has ever had. I would say a more realistic approach for Kyiv would be to secure some sort of association agreement with the EU in order to obtain the much needed funds for reconstruction. The reconstruction of Ukraine alone will require funds in the order of hundreds of billions of euros.
It is an absurd idea. It would take 5 to 10 years for them to join. Fix their country, get rid of corruption, adapt new laws and regulations, etc
You need to pay attention to whom the leader is addresing here, and it's Ukrainians. He clearly considers it a possibility that some sort of a compromised might actually end up being signed before new year but it won't be pretty. Since untill now, all the news about peace plan were outrageously negative, Ukrainians are aggresively against this whole thing. So he makes a speech to emphasize something nice as well as some absense of the bullshit. In parrallel he has his officials in Ukraine to signal that the compromise is possible, but it won't be pretty.
The sad reality is that even if Ukraine gets an acceptable peace it will still be a damaged country. Corruption is still high. There will be a lot of unemployed veterans with PTSD. There will be a lot of guns, drones and grenades floating around. I’m certain that their spirit will be enough to handle that and come out on top. But it is not realistic that they will be accepted into the EU quite soon.
It would be an economic and political disaster for the EU if they sidestepped the normal accession protocol, not to mention unfair on the other candidate countries who are better positioned. What message would that convey to them? Never happening, but then again you have to look at the fools who are in charge now in Brussels.
I mean, obviously. The accession path of any country into the EU takes usually way more years for very good reasons.
When I read headlines like "Ukraine in EU in 2027", I'm like "eh? Do people even know what they are talking about?".
That's pretty underhanded. They talk about great solidarity with Ukraine, but when push comes to shove, they abandon it.
Not really. I've worked in Ukraine over the last 15 years (including since the war, and I'll bow to no man in my solidarity with Ukraine and desire for them to win), and the reality is the country is decades away from EU membership. It is deeply steeped in corruption, and far from aligned with EU membership criteria on human rights or protection of minorities. It has a long way to go.
Nobody wants another Hungary in the EU. EU membership once Ukraine meets the rules is solidarity; promising it will be a free gift they can get in a year or two is irresponsible and it's highly regrettable that some politicians seem to have given that impression.
Putting aside that the process won't be initiated until the invasion is repelled for obvious reasons, Ukraine wouldn't be served by entering the EU before its economy is rebuilt to some degree of robustness, and legally, it has to work through the chapters of the acquis. That just takes some time.
EU needs to get its act together real damn quick and whoever said Ukraine doesn’t have borders is projecting a false statement. One thing is certain if Ukraine is sacrificed as a consequence of the incompetency of the EU bickering frivolously over decisions there will be a major conflict in Europe. And this won’t be your grandfathers war either.
Well, yeah. First, the war needs to end. Then, the economy must be significantly rebuilt before at least certain chapters of the acquis can be reasonably opened, let alone closed. It'll be a long process, sadly.
And this will not happen, because without actual guarantees that can deter russia (and which won't be given to Ukraine), the damocles sword of impending russian reinvasion will keep investment away and the population drain ongoing - no one wants to keep playing the russian roulette by living on a powder keg.
As much as I am in favour of supporting Ukraine, but the country is at least 1-2 decades away from being able to join the EU.
If hungary is in europe , ukraine can join tomorrow
How many mistakes do you need before you start to learn?
All this solidarity with Ukraine, but the moment discussion of entering EU happens, all say "in 20 years"
Ukraine has never met the standards for EU integration. I am highly sympathetic to the Ukrainians over the war but even before the war they didn’t meet the qualifications. Ever since the end of the USSR Ukraine has only ever had a half functional democracy with lots of corruption, even after Euromaiden.
It may be very democratic compared to Russia but the Russian Federation isn’t the benchmark.
Considering the corrupt system is in Ukraine, I am afraid they'll never make it to the EU. They will almost fail in all aspects.
i dont agree. you they fire relevant corrupt groups/people it will solve but ukranians also must rebel against those corrupts.
I personally think corruption will be one of biggest arguments for stopping Ukraine joining. Even when Zelenski tries to fight it, its soo deep rooted there that it will be decades (if ever) when corruption will leave it (dam even now some of EU countries are deep in corruption and Ukraine has much much worse case here). Maybe one day, but def not soon
And once again, Europe let Ukraine down.
How exactly has Europe let Ukraine down before? Also, how exactly does Europe owe anything to Ukraine?
Anyone who thinks EU membership is on the table anytime soon: how the Hell are you going to get Orban to agree?
As long as anti EU parties continue to win elections in EU states, talking about inviting new countries in seems rather academic.
Wrote elsewhere about this bullet speed EU membership of Ukraine:
I think what EU needs to do at the moment is to create some "half-membership" status where half-members get
I'd say not only Ukraine but also UK and even Turkey could be interested with such a thing. These countries will likely be the "bridges" (so not exactly europe but not outside europe either) between europe and other cultural spheres: UK with other anglo-saxon countries (Canada, US, Australia and New Zealand) and perhaps commonwealth nations, Ukraine with Russia&Belarus (yes, ironically), Turkey with Muslim&Turkic&Caucasian countries. I could even add a speculative Iberian federation to be the bridge with latin american countries, but that's up to them to decide (and there's no particular interest atm)
the so called "half-membership" you are talking about is probably already well represented by the superset of treaties that already do exist (european economic area, schengen etc.).
No, once you are a full member all your citizens have automatic freedom of movement in all other member states and your country should have aligned with acquis communautaire. With half membership the countries won't have this. Freedom of movement of workers was one of the major arguments for Brexit. With half membership it won't be as automatic as it is with full membership.
Also I think none of these countries (Ukraine, Turkey, UK) are particularly interested (nor are capable to) get a full fledged european integration with Schengen and Eurozone membership in the short run (even in the long run) anyway. These will be just border countries bridging between Europe and non-Europe and adapting accordingly with their cherry picking rights.
It needs to be formalized more - this is a general problem the EU has, there is no flexibility. Some countries want more/faster integration, others want to be a bit more sovereign.
There needs to be a way for the countries that want more integration to proceed without getting held up by a couple of countries that don't want to participate out of principle and veto everything.
Developing a more tiered membership system where countries can opt in/out of different things at their speed would solve a lot of problems (including what to do with ukraine as a potential member - and even potentially what to do with Turkey/UK/other more peripheral states that might be interested in more cooperation but definitely not full membership).
Wouldn’t this end up in making the EU even more inefficient/toothless? If members can just opt out of obligations whenever they want what’s the point of the EU?
Every member state would love all the benefits with none of the obligations. If you make this an option half the member states in the EU will vote to downgrade to the more ‘sovereign’ status within three years, and the whole federation becomes twice as loosey goosey as it already is.
[deleted]
There's nothing about the US in this. Read again
[deleted]
Ugh, questioning your reading comprehension skills atm. I said UK will be the new designated bridge between EU and anglo-saxon countries (US Canada Australia and New Zealand). That does not concern US, that is not a US policy, what you say (US wanting to assert dominance) has nothing to do with this.
Yeah sure..and once the money they receive will be conditioned by implementing EU directives and regulations they'll veto everything and probably go back crying in Russia's welcoming arms...
Username checks out
We would most likely will be invaded again, so don't bother - we wouldn't join.