The EC has recommended opening entrance talks with Ukraine and Moldova and granting candidacy status to Georgia. Talks with Moldova are the most damaging for peace in the region, given the country’s pro-Russian breakaway region. One of Russia’s long-term goals is contiguous access to Transnistria and thus the EU’s actions could undermine potential peace talks with Ukraine. That said, EU expansion largely remains political theatre – none of the new candidates have strong cases for joining any time soon.
EU seeks to hedge Russian influence. Yesterday, the European Commission recommended that the Council open negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova to join the bloc (with Moldova the “front-runner”) and grant Georgia candidacy status. The Commission applauded Ukraine and Moldova for their progress in pro-EU reforms. Somewhat contradictorily, however, EU officials described the recommendation to begin talks as “unconditional” but the two countries have still been asked to complete reforms that are already underway. Either way, the Council will likely approve the recommendation on 15 December and talks looks set to begin in earnest around March. No long-term timeline has been set – there was some urgency in Von der Leyen’s address, but she has previously dismissed the idea that the EU must expand by 2030. In expanding, the EU’s priority is clearly to undermine Russian influence. The EU is picking up the baton in areas where NATO cannot freely expand. Von der Leyen said that the EU must act quickly to bring in candidate countries, lest others “fill the vacuum”, referring to expansion as a “powerful lever” (she also said expansion is “the call of history”, sounding even a little imperialistic). Note that expansion itself is not the lever, merely the prospect of expansion – ‘play nicely and you can join our club someday’. Indeed, none of the countries under question have a strong case for joining this decade, if at all.
Ukraine is most likely country to be admitted in the medium-term. The recommendation to begin negotiations with Ukraine was unsurprising. Peace talks are increasingly on the agenda and the West is looking at the potential for post-war Ukraine. Our base case since the start of the war has been the eventual concession of territory by Ukraine and the integration (in some form) of the remaining country into Europe, with a potential demilitarised zone dividing the east and west. We do not think NATO can realistically expand into Ukraine and joining the EU would be the next ‘best’ thing. We think Ukraine could indeed join the EU but we are hesitant to call a timeframe – we would instinctively assume the can gets kicked as far down the road as possible (beyond 2030 until no longer relevant or frozen entirely like with Turkey), but there is no accounting for the madness of the European Commission, which could put Ukraine on a fast track. In any case, we think Ukraine is the most likely candidate to join the EU, ahead of Moldova and Georgia.
Opening talks with Moldova undermines peace negotiations in Ukraine. Opening talks with Moldova is the most problematic of the EC’s recommendations and the most concerning for Russia. Firstly, public opinion in Moldova is far more ambivalent toward Russia than in the other countries under question. Secondly, Russia has military based in Moldova’s breakaway region of Transnistria and considers Transnistrians as ‘Russians aboard’ much as it did the Russian-speaking population in Eastern Ukraine. We cannot see a lasting peace in Ukraine without some guarantees regarding Transnistria. Indeed, we assumed that one of the unspoken goals of the SMO was to give Russia contiguous access to Transnistria, i.e., through Odessa, and in the long-term, we think this remains one of Russia’s geopolitical priorities. However, this is unlikely to be achieved militarily any time soon, nor will Ukraine agree to such a concession in peace negotiations. Rather than giving Russia a guarantee of a neutral Moldova, the EU is actively looking to expand into the country, thus already undermining peace negotiations. Of all the EC’s recommendations, we think this one has the most damaging long-term prospects.
No legs for Georgia’s candidacy for now. As we expected, Georgia was granted candidacy with certain conditions and we doubt that the current government will significantly change its political trajectory, leaving little prospects for Georgia’s ascension for now. The EC said that the current government was “reluctant” to implement the recommendations, but that the will of the people and certain political leaders had “proved to be stronger”. Much will depend on the course of next year’s elections and how the public react.