Ukraine and the EU: scenarios of European integration

European integration is a dream of Ukrainians and a geopolitical choice written in the Constitution. Hundreds of politicians, government officials and public activists work hard every day towards this goal. This year, despite the war, Ukraine made significant progress on the path to European integration, and the support of citizens for this idea reached a record high. In turn, the European Union (EU) provided unprecedented assistance to Ukraine in response to the war, including financial, humanitarian, and – for the first time in the history of the EU – financed the supply of lethal weapons to the country that was attacked, demonstrating that the tagline of the campaign “Together, we are Europe” has a practical dimension.

However, in the long term, the path to the European Union does not appear to be without difficulty. This process is associated with numerous challenges and looks to be neither easy nor quick. We all remember the history of the United Kingdom’s membership in the EU and the referendum on subsequent withdrawal from the EU, the long wait for Turkey that ended in a reversal of the political course, the conflict between the European North and South on financial issues, and the present opportunism of some Eastern European countries. What will be the Ukrainian way? Will Ukraine be successful? Will it bring the expected benefits to both the EU and Ukraine?

The key factors and possible scenarios of Ukrainian-European integration were studied in detail at the strategic foresight recently organised by the EU-funded CEU4U Project. Strategic foresight is a scenario forecasting of social, economic and political developments with a far-sighted perspective, carried out by people who take direct responsibility for realising the best future scenario. As a producer and moderator of this foresight, I fully enjoyed the variety of opinions and challenges. The live workshop brought together a wide variety of representatives and experts, including those from: the government; Parliament; think tanks and NGOs; economists; sociologists; political scientists; lawyers; diplomats; cultural and media experts; ecologists; leaders of business communities; futurologists; experts in energy; education; health care; etc. The extensive report is available in Ukrainian. In this publication I shall briefly outline the main outcomes.

The year 2032 was chosen as the destination point of the study. By this point in the decade, all current processes should have led to certain results, and we will be able to see what Ukraine’s path to the European Union will be. Having outlined more than 90 diverse political, economic, social, cultural, technological, and environmental trends, among others, the foresight participants chose the three most important trends that will determine the future of Ukraine and its European choice. These are:

• Capacity, independence, and stability of state institutions.
• Efficient and fair justice aimed at protecting civil rights and freedoms.
• Development of the private sector, building a “country of entrepreneurs”, which includes, in particular, full-scale privatisation, availability of concessions and leases of state property, successful private activity in the field of education and health care, etc.

These key trends are analogous to railway forks, which determine where the Ukrainian train will turn on its way to Europe and at which station it will arrive at in ten years. Since not all combinations of key paths are possible, a total of five scenarios were described, of which European integration was successful in one, failed in two, and problematic in a further two. It is currently impossible to estimate the probabilities of the scenarios, but their boundaries, characteristics and development trajectories are clearly visible.

Only one of the scenarios (“We are the champions”) represents a successful European integration. Powerful institutions, developed justice, ensuring rights and freedoms and a developed private sector of the economy would lead Ukraine to the status of a full-fledged member of the European Union, which can fully benefit from the common market, acquis communautaire and the open movement of people, ideas, capital, and goods. This is the most difficult scenario as it requires the full implementation of reforms that are already on the agenda (some of them were included in the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement of 2014) or will appear during the EU accession process. First of all, we are talking about judicial reform and public administration reform, which are constantly delayed. An important success factor in this scenario is successful decentralisation, namely the ability of communities to plan, change, attract funds, and implement. The prerequisite for this scenario is a successful post-war recovery and security guarantees for Ukraine. Economic freedom, inclusiveness, and sustainability are constant principles on this path, and adult education, the development of business culture and effective communication of reforms to society will constantly accompany the process. The role of civil society is important, as it is responsible for advocacy and monitoring changes, and acts as a “bridge” between the Ukrainian state and the EU.

But this scenario is only one of five.

It makes sense to only briefly dwell on two unambiguously negative scenarios, because their risks are obvious. A strong state in the absence of justice and an underdeveloped private sphere leads us to an authoritarian scenario of “1984”, reminiscent of the USSR: justice is controlled, society is apathetic, and the media is completely controlled by the government. The maximum concentration of power with no checks and balances, the fiscal crisis, censorship in the media, populism in politics and playing on the discontent of the masses do not bode well. The slide to authoritarianism is evolutionary, not sudden. The economy is falling sharply, and the average life expectancy of the population is decreasing. Key safeguards against such a scenario are the accelerated development of civil society, a free political process and freedom of speech, judicial reform, and entrepreneurship development, as well as adult education and creating “red lines” for the digitisation of state services so that it does not turn into total control.

Another negative scenario is formed in case of institutional failure and lack of justice. Even the developed private sector does not save this situation, so this scenario has been called “Haitianization”, characterised by anarchy, gangsterism, and radicalisation. Excessive weakening of state institutions leads to a “failed state” or “soft authoritarianism”.

These two negative scenarios are obvious, and civil society constantly fears them and monitors early signals to prevent them. Much more interesting are two borderline “twilight” scenarios, when European integration may have taken place (or may have failed), but its consequences are highly questionable both for Ukraine and for Europe.

In the “Slay the Dragon and Become a Dragon” scenario, the capacity of state institutions and a developed private sector of the economy are combined with the absence of justice, civil rights and liberties. Here we are dealing with a small European-integrated semblance of Russia or China, and it is not obvious that the European Union would want to have such a member, except in the case of a purely formal approach to Ukrainian European integration as a prize for victory in the war. This is exactly the approach that a number of Ukrainian politicians call for the European Union, proclaiming the slogan “first European integration, then [possibly] reforms.” If the Ukrainian and European political elites reach an agreement that EU membership will be a reward for victory, and not an assessment of well-done homework, then the formally implemented reforms and their formal assessment will lead us to this scenario. Social and economic polarisation, appropriation of the victory and recovery process by the political elite, centralisation and media censorship, restriction of political activity and freedom of speech, as well as the reduction of the role of the parliament await this situation. A safeguard against such a scenario is primarily the active role of civil society in a wide sense (including local leaders, business communities, army veteran communities, etc.) and its direct communication with the institutions of the European Union.

Another “twilight” scenario is formed as a result of successful European integration with capable institutions and effective justice, but with limited private initiative. This scenario is called “Kindergarten” and currently is promoted by some influential Ukrainian politicians. The economy becomes extremely centralised and monopolised because of increased role of the state (including state ownership of enterprises), increased regulation, formation of new monopolists (loyal to the political leadership) and other restrictions on economic freedoms. European regulations are used in this situation to suppress entrepreneurial initiative, and European funds are directed primarily to social protection. The media are also monopolised, and private business leave the country. Society is polarised, consisting of the political elite and socially protected paternalists, and the middle class is washed away, along with its demand for democracy and human rights. This story is reminiscent of Orbán’s regime in Hungary. Safeguards against such a scenario are the active role of private business communities, their interaction with other players, including civil society and EU institutions, as well as the EU’s focused attention on the development of mass entrepreneurship and ensuring free and fair competition in Ukraine.

Scenario analysis proves that European integration of Ukraine will neither necessarily happen nor necessarily be successful. Therefore, the foresight ended with the search for answers to the questions of what the Ukrainian state, civil society and European institutions should do for successful European integration. Also, the participants of the foresight researched the stereotypes of the mutual perception of Europeans and Ukrainians and tried to formulate the value of European integration for both sides: Ukraine and the European Union.

Summing up, I would like to note that a successful Ukraine is possible only if there is a combination of capable state institutions, effective and fair justice and a developed mass private initiative. Successful reform of the judicial system and public administration, improvement of decentralisation, and increasing the capacity of communities must be combined with the growth of economic freedom, increasing the role of civil society and free media. High-quality communication of reforms to society and education of adults are necessary conditions for success, and direct communication of civil society, local self-government and business communities with the European institutions and their European peers (NGOs, businesses, communities, etc.) serves as a safeguard against slipping into negative and “twilight” scenarios.

The most important thing here seems to be Europe’s perception of Ukraine as a problem or as an opportunity. This means that Ukraine’s path to the European Union is a road with two-way traffic: the EU must recognise and articulate the value that Ukraine’s accession creates for it, and not just in the role of a mentor waiting for Ukraine to complete its “homework”, but rather move together with Ukraine into a new, better reality.

For high quality, mutual benefits to come from the European integration of Ukraine, EU institutions must maintain a dialogue, not only with the Ukrainian state, but also with civil society (which in Ukrainian conditions often is not only a “watch dog”, but also a “sledge dog”). EU institutions must also develop direct peer-to-peer relations at various levels (including between cities and regions, business communities, cultural institutions, think tanks and universities, etc.), develop educational programmes, strengthen synergy between donor projects. And of course, the EU must demand real, non-formal matching of the membership criteria, not to reward Ukrainian victory while reforms remain unimplemented. The rule of law and the development of democracy in Ukraine should be the highest priorities in the European-Ukrainian dialogue to prevent negative scenarios.

Concrete, practical steps can be very effective, such as adding the Ukrainian language to EU web portals to increase the availability of information, introducing Ukrainian Studies in universities, including regional economic development agencies in EU economic development programmes, stimulating various exchange programmes, etc.

The value of European integration for Ukraine is obvious, but what value does Ukraine bring to the European home? It is not only Ukraine’s educated and hardworking people, natural resources and large market. Ukraine will bring to the EU modern digital solutions for the public and banking sectors, a lot of service innovations, and can become a “regulatory sandbox” (testing ground) for new ideas. Ukraine will contribute to the feeling to be inspired and secured, help overcome the destructive influence of Russian propaganda, and give impetus to the rethinking of values in culture. And, of course, Ukraine will play an important role in the European security system, add expertise in strengthening the military potential, and also will become an interface for communication with the peoples of the Caucasus, Central Asia, etc.

The participants of the foresight marked the current Ukraine with the metaphor “Leukocytes of Freedom”, as the Ukrainian experience of fighting against autocracy for freedom will help to protect European societies from the pathogens of autocracies and the products of the destruction of social fabrics, strengthening the immunity of the democratic world. Then, the European future can be marked with the metaphor of “Reinventing Europe”, or “Renaissance 2.0”, as Ukrainians can tactfully propose the renewal of what is outdated or does not work in the European home. The mutual reinterpretation of experience will lead to the formation of a new reality in which only the best institutional, legal, technological, and creative solutions will exist. This is an idealistic but possible and desirable scenario.