Failure of the EU summit

As it was predicted, the summit in Vilnius resulted in Ukrainian failure. The President Viktor Yanukovych did not sign the association agreement with the European Union, while Moldova and Georgia initialed it. The fetor of EU diplomacy failure rose over Vilnius and the breeze of success blew from Russia. At least this is how it was referred as by the mainstream media. Suddenly the fathers of loud-accented failure sank into the ground, as drinking from the cup of bitterness has never been easy in Brussels. Usually, the opposition cause fury over there. At least when the citizens of France, the Netherlands of Italy have binned the EU constitution. Their opinion has never been respected or accepted and the referendum has repeated until the goal was achieved. In the name of democracy, of course. But also on the other side of the barricade, in Moscow, nobody was celebrating. It was well known that this is just a prelude and a Ukrainian story will be repeated for many years. And this is how everybody got cheesed of the Vilnius summit. The time for recriminations and waiting for what the future will bring came.

The revolution was announced

And tomorrow brought 'unexpected' twist. Like years ago, crowds of Ukrainians turned out on the streets of Kiev and now famous Maidan square got filled with demonstrators. Clashes, arrivals of politicians from neighbouring countries, combat speeches. The revolution was announced. All perfectly staged as the previous time, even the same place chosen. Only the leading colour has changed from orange to blue and, horror of horrors, to Bandera's brown-black. And only a naïve observer could believe that these events are just pure coincidence. In fact this is an eternal trial of strength between the East and West. While people and all the rest together with an ideology matching the situation are just the background of the battle. The earlier Central European countries like Poland or Lithuania understand that, the better. And there is something to think about. Ukraine in the European Union does not necessarily mean 'better' to us.

The time of chaos

The idea of the Eastern Partnership should be understood as a kind of a trial of strength between the EU and Russia. It is focused mainly on expanding the EU sphere of influence to lands which are traditionally (since the collapse of the First Polish Republic) reserved to Russia. The short interwar era has changed nothing in this regard. Ukraine, like Belarus, is the domain of Russian influence. Without having it in mind, any political action taken on the east of Bug River is like walking on a diplomatic minefield full of surprises. Such situation was noticed in 2005 when previously declared unity of Ukrainian opposition did not survive the test of time. It soon turned out, that the Orange Revolution, similarly to any other in history, began to eat its children, while the leader of the Revolution - Yulia Tymoshenko and Viktor Yushchenko – became avowed enemies. The time of chaos came which was subdued only by a prorussian Yanukovych. And he unexpectedly made a turn to a presidential authoritarianism. And this is exactly Ukraine – unpredictable and chaotic. This is the first fact to be remembered. So how do we deal with Ukraine? Deliberately and in cold blood first of all, without emotions that are fatal in case of this country.

Strategic competitor

Let's look at Ukraine in a bit different way. This country is larger than Poland and even several times larger than Lithuania. Therefore, if Ukraine joins the EU, it can be considered as a strategic competitor. We should not forget that full integration and membership in the European structures are the consequences of each association. It was the same story with our countries too. Do we with full consciousness want Ukraine to become the EU member state in the future? This would mean big problems for us. There would be a shift of huge funds in the EU budget for Ukraine. And it would be performed at the expenses of current beneficiaries, i.e. the new member states starting with Estonia, through Lithuania, Poland and ending with Romania. It is primarily cohesion and structural funds. But what we, as the agricultural countries, should worry most about is the move of the centre of gravity in the financing of agriculture. If Ukraine joined the EU, it would become the biggest agricultural country and would receive the most aid in this sector. At the expense of our farmers, of course, as the budget of the European Union is not bottomless. The possible extension would also mean problems in trade. Cheaper Ukrainian agricultural products would easily supplant the products produced in our countries from the EU common market. Is it more than obvious. The same would apply to the European labour market. Cheaper Ukrainian employees would easily replace our employees after opening the borders. This way we would treat ourselves to another journey of peoples in Europe. And it would be bigger that the one after the enlargement of 2004. Is this what we need? And if not, why do we panic after the failure of Vilnius summit?

Hostages of Giedroyc doctrine

It seems, that there are two reasons for such mood, although both share the common denominator – anti-Russianness. Firstly, Germany pushes towards the integration of Ukraine with the Union. And not because of political reasons. Germans have proved several times that in the name of their own business they are able to get along with Russia above the head of the entire union. For example - construction of the Nord Stream pipeline linking the two countries. This was made despite the opposition of the European Parliament and many countries, whose energy security was threatened. But in this case Germans are concerned only about trade and new huge Ukrainian market for German products. Today the market is occupied by Russian companies. According to the statistics, the German economy was gaining the most after every enlargement of the EU. Hence its economic anti-Russianness derived in the context of Ukraine. The enlargement with Ukraine would give Germans the opportunity to create kind of a bypass decreasing the importance of Poland in this part of Europe. For sure Ukraine would be a perfect counterbalance for the position of Poland in the European structures. Secondly, Poland also pushes towards the integration of Ukraine because of the almost exclusively political reasons. Since the beginning of the Third Polish Republic Poland is hostage of Giedroyc doctrine regarding the entire eastern policy. It assumes the existence of an anti-Russian safety belt starting from the Baltic Sea and going towards the Black Sea and the Caucasus with the full involvement of each of its constituent states. But it is muddling along towards the permanent conflict with Russia, towards the diplomatic war without paying attention to the costs. Because the aim justifies the means in this doctrine. Its eager followers had already submitted the Polish minority in Belarus on the altar of the doctrine, using the minority (contrary to common sense) for the fight against the dictatorship of the pro-Moscow Lukashenko. As the result, Polish organisations of the countries had decayed. Also, eyes are closed to the obvious discrimination of the Poles in Lithuania for the supposed 'good' of the issue. Everything is done in order to keep the Lithuanian state in the doctrinaire camp. This is why Lithuania does not fully fulfill treaty obligations nor respects international conventions when speaking about the Polish minority. And everything is made in the name of Giedroyc doctrine, which, already anachronistic today, is bankrupting on our eyes. Ukraine complements this image. Not the idea of freedom is the most important in this issue, but emotions and money. It was openly admitted by the President Yanukovych, who is perfectly aware which way the gas flows in his country. The EU did not pay the required 20 billion Euro for the compensation of the price increase of Russian gas, what would certainly happen after the signing of the association. It is not the European integration that Ukrainian authorities matter about, but a simple political trade. This is another truth worth learning. Thus, what can be received instead of the integration of Ukraine with the EU?

Cordon of buffer states

It is necessary to redefine the eastern policy of the European Union, which is a derivative of the Polish vision of the Europeanization of the former Soviet republics. The idea of Intermarium states cooperating closely is the same anachronism as the Warsaw Pact. One should not look for the conflict with Russia (what is inevitable in Giedroyc doctrine), but one needs to effectively isolate from it by the separation of spheres of influence and maintenance of buffer, bland, and 'orphan' states. Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine are such states today. Ukraine is not the state of West, as many would like to see it. Neither is it a state of a typical East. It is a conglomeration of cultures, languages, and religions. It is a state that is internally divided into two warring with each other parts, i.e. pro-Russian and post-UPA'ian. Conflict is permanently recorded into the political landscape of Ukraine. It will take much time for Ukraine to find a common unifying identity; many generations will pass before it happens. Ukraine is a good candidate, but for a buffer country. In the vital interests of the states of the Central Europe is the existence of countries between the EU and Russia. Admittedly independent ones, but weak and powerless at the same time, not belonging to any of the blocks. Paradoxically, the weaker Ukraine and Belarus, the better geopolitical interests of Poland and Lithuania. 'Hygienic' cordon of buffer states is a guarantee of the remoteness of the reconstruction of the Russian empire in the Soviet borders. This is a contemporary 'great wall of China' for the European Union. It might be worth to use it. And let's leave the internal Ukraine's problems for the Ukrainians themselves, as who, if not they, can solve them better. And we should wonder whether not signing the association agreement between Ukraine and the EU would not be the best solution for everyone nowadays.

Dr. Bogusław Rogalski, political scientist
ECR Advisor for International Affairs in the European Parliament