Opinions #51/23

Notes of jubilation from various European offices accompanied the EU’s decision to officially open the procedure for starting negotiations on the participation of Ukraine and Moldova in the Brussels Club. This club is becoming less and less exclusive. They promise to include the countries of the Western Balkans and even distant Caucasian Georgia. Of the 27 member states, the European Union can expand to 35.

Enthusiastic comments from representatives of the poker community (von der Leyen, Michel, Borrell, Metsola), whose terms of office are expiring, belong to the Eurocratic tradition: exaggerating the importance of the decision, minimizing the difficulties in its implementation, ignoring the associated problems.

In this case, compared to tradition, there is something more. The delight is shared abroad. In Washington, the European choice is praised as wise and responsible. The mainstream media is not far behind, emphasizing the historical significance of the event, although for now it remains primarily “potential.” If we want to be realistic, we should call it “hypothetical.”

This applies not so much to the rest of the Balkan countries, which are still outside the EU yet benefit from geographic proximity to it, but to the two republics in this side of the Black Sea – Ukraine and Moldova. They are facing a real risk of ending up on a narrow-gauge railway. The Turkish precedent is alarming.

Having joined NATO in 1952, this eastern gateway country secured an association agreement with the European Union in 1963, but it was not until a quarter of a century later (in 1987) that accession negotiations began. 60 years have passed against the backdrop of assurances from Brussels and the slowdown in the negotiation process.

Such a peculiar stop-and-go nullified all diplomatic efforts. Turks remember well the last favorable moment for entry into the EU. It was 2002, as Erdogan arrived at the European Council meeting in Copenhagen, convinced that he would hear the long-awaited “yes.” The Turks relied heavily on the head of the Italian government, Berlusconi, who declared support for the Turkish cause. However, faced with renewed doubts, especially from France and Germany, that is, Chirac and Schröder, he did not persist.

Following this disappointment, Ankara decided that its international projects would no longer prioritize Europe. Since then, Turkish geopolitics has consistently focused on the Middle East, Russia, and Central Asia.

Turkey continued to be criticized, albeit behind its back, for the heterogeneity associated with the fact that it is located on two continents. The European part, based in Istanbul, is different and culturally almost contrasts with the Anatolian-Asian part. In addition, Turkey is a predominantly Muslim country, as are Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina, which, however, are now just one step away from the EU.

Whenever its accession seemed imminent, Turkey was pointed out its failure to respect the principle of internal pacification. The Kurdish issue, which concerns a large minority of the population (about 20%) concentrated in the southeast of the country, represents an insurmountable vulnerability for the European Union. The EU does not allow the entry of countries with territorial conflicts within them. This principle is also decisively important for another supranational organization based in Brussels – NATO.

Thus, a similar problem will arise not only for Ukraine, but also for Moldova, which has not resolved a protracted dispute with the separatist Transdniestria.

So what value can last week’s decision have? Probably what was recorded in the comments in the United States: moral support at the most dramatic moment for the Ukrainian leadership. Without guarantees of unlimited funding and weapons from Washington, without the certainty of medium-term economic and military assistance from Europe, with a counteroffensive that, after five months of stalemate, has become a predominantly defensive strategy, with winter cold and darkness looming, as well as with growing discontent in society, in ruling groups, and even in the armed forces, the promise of accession to Europe tastes like a tonic for Zelensky. “A pat on the shoulder,” someone wrote.

A promise, or maybe a mirage.