Ukrainian conflict: Undermining the EU

Opinion by Anna van Densky

The zeal of French President Hollande to engage Ukrainian conflicting parties in Minsk peace talks before the end of this year gave hope, but the Rada's (parliament) removal of the non-aligned status buried it instantly. Following the US bill granting weapons supply to Kiev amounting to $350 million, this change in the Ukrainian defence doctrine does not leave much space for optimism. The Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO) in Donbass remains the 'bleeding wound' at Russia's borders bearing the earmarks of the traditional Washington policy of retaining its geopolitical foe. The Cold War is over, а proxi war is in, but will the EU survive?.

Kiev propelling a rapprochement with NATO indicates a further degradation of the conflict, leaving little chance for Minsk talks to succeed and result in а genuine truce. President Petro Poroshenko's initiative to change the Constitution, removing the neutrality status has created a grim climate: the relationship between Russia and US as the major proponent of the Alliance enlargement will be 'poisoned' for decades, warned Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. This recidive of the former US-Russia enmity will inevitable rub off on Europe, which is suffering a severe economic backlash already.

While continuing to assess the economic damage, in reality the EU is definitely interested in ending the war of sanctions with Russia, so is the Kremlin: President Putin recently stated that 'one political space' for Ukraine is possible – meaning a willingness to avoid a new protracted conflict in its neighbourhood. But in spite of the economic damage, European industry was not able to defend its interests in the Russian market, which was scarified in the name of the loyalty to overseas allies; neither was the Kremlin able to convince the West that it will not put a price on Ukraine's neutrality, which is crucial for Russia's defence.

However, Poroshenko's aspiration to engage with NATO in changing the military doctrine does not represent anything new, as that was exactly the ambition of his predecessor Yuchshenko, who ascended in the previous 'Orange Revolution'. The 'open door' policy towards Ukraine has remained valid since the Alliance Bucharest Summit in 2008, but Yuchshenko set it as a long-term strategic goal, underlining that citizens should be better informed about the 'benefits of the Alliance membership' in the first place, to avoid any turmoil related to the profound schism between pro-Western and pro-Russian moods in society.

Superficially ambitions, like many other 'new' beginnings in Ukrainian politics, the rapprochement with the Alliance amid the ongoing conflict in Donbass in reality increases the volatility and drama of Ukrainian politics. In a quarter of a century, foreign policy directions have been changing constantly, leaving frustrated in turn the whole ensemble of international players – the European Union, US and Russia. Furthermore, the ease with which bills are drawn, adopted or removed by the Rada undermine their credibility, adding to chaos and disarray. The military aid from Washington combined with a loss of neutrality indicates a shift away from a search for a political solution, instead fixing Donbass destiny as a protracted 'conflict' in spite of the understanding that a political solution remains the only way out. Articulated by all influential international players, it became an axiom, however once again common sense has gone a-begging.

This new belligerent twist shuts down any perspective for Minsk peace talks, as the integration into the Alliance even without becoming a full member makes it impossible to create a 'single political space' with the two self-proclaimed pro-Russian republics of Donetsk and Lugansk.

The existence of a chronic zone of instability between the EU and Russia lined by sanctions is clearly undermining Russia's security and economy, forcing Russian business to reorient to Asia. But where the EU will find a substitute for the lost Russian market?

Up to now, Europe has not managed to conduct an independent foreign policy towards Russia, substituting this by following in the US' footsteps. Paradoxically, the sanctions had an effect contrary to what was expected - they contributed to the popularity of President Putin who, against all the odds, scored the highest from the electorate in spite of the collapse of the rouble and subsequent economic decline. Meanwhile, the EU's rapidly degrading living standards contribute to the rise of the populist proponents of Euroscepticism on such a scale that the new president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, said that the European project has not only 'sceptics' but 'enemies'.

One must admit that the Frankenstein's monster that the EU has to fight is its own creation.

More voices from the EU member states are warning of the damaging effects of a failed enlargement policy, which overshadowed the initial purpose of the Union as a peace project enhancing the prosperity of its citizens. Growing Kiev demands for financial aid combined with the growth of a belligerent mood towards the population of the Donbass region (Novorossia) raise the question as to the sustainability of the EU's ambitions. Next to a black hole in terms of financial aid, the 45-million populated Ukraine with its economy in coma, endemic corruption and ongoing ATO rapidly becoming a threat to European security, with a growing illegal weapons market, private armies and neo-fascist flexing mussels.

As a response to this challenge, EU foreign policy is becoming increasingly clouded in contradicting declarations calling upon 'going beyond of being reactive and defensive' – what could the words of President Donald Tusk mean? Is the 'offensive' beyond the 'defensive'? At the moment, the EU has no collective defence, relying upon NATO but all countries of the bloc can deliver arms to Ukraine bilaterally, as there is no UN ban. Would that be a road to follow?

The swift resolution of the Ukrainian conflict would be too much of a fairy tale taking into consideration the geopolitical ambitions of the US and the total absence of independent foreign policy of the EU in the face of Russian resistance to NATO enlargement. The disgrace of the CIA prisons or tapping phone conversations – Europe has no strength to resist overseas whims and wishes. Even the economic damage from the turmoil in Ukraine may cause irreversible changes in the EU, deepening the crisis of confidence of citizens in European project, due to its enlargement doctrine.

The EU was created to push everyone up, not down - the interpretation of the EU as perpetum mobile of enlargement at the expense of its own population inevitably leads to decline. At the end of the Italian EU Presidency, it is right and proper to quote the great Niccolò Machiavelli:

"When they persist in attempts that are beyond their power, mishaps and blame ensue."

Share this article: