Your recent article “How the EU broke Ukraine (with help from Russia)” (November 24) gets three things wrong about my country.
First, its headline parrots the Russian propaganda trope that blames the European Union for the conflict in Ukraine by pushing the country to sign an association agreement. In fact, successive Ukrainian governments pushed for the agreement between 2007 and 2014. In 2010, the ousted president Viktor Yanukovych successfully campaigned for the presidency on a platform supporting European integration. Though pro-EU sentiments varied regionally, on the eve of Euromaidan more Ukrainians wanted a closer relationship with the EU than wanted to join the Russia-led Customs Union.
Yanukovych’s patrons in Moscow belatedly grasped the seriousness of Ukraine escaping from Russia’s orbit. They desperately tried to halt the process using loans, embargoes and threats. Yanukovych caved, underestimating the strength of Ukrainian pro-European sentiment and the public anger at rampant corruption, repression and poverty simmering beneath the surface.
Second, the article’s description of the country as “ravaged by war and nearly broke” is hyperbolic and misleading. It obscures solutions to the current crisis by ignoring Ukraine’s successes and significant potential.
Yes, the southern and easternmost reaches of my country are occupied by Russia and its proxies, but the vast majority of its enormous territory remains unaffected. Huge swathes of rich agricultural land are there to be tapped, our tech centers are thriving and the economy has stabilized.
Finally, asking whether Brussels can fix Ukraine misdiagnoses the current challenge. Ukrainians believe it is our responsibility to change our country for the better.
The reforms cited in POLITICO’s article have been successful because EU assistance amplifies the bottom-up pressure from Ukrainian civil society. Without groups like those supported by my organization, the Open Society Foundation, the political class would have turned those reforms into a box-ticking exercise.
The question Brussels should be asking is not how to fix Ukraine, but how the EU can help Ukrainians help themselves.
Many of us are concerned that the pace of reform will slow after the country received visa-free travel to the EU this year. And with national elections on the horizon in 2019, the authorities may become more averse to politically risky changes.
Brussels would benefit from listening to local Ukrainian voices. If outright membership is unlikely in the near future, it needs to show Ukrainians the tangible benefits of Europeanization. Options include enhancing the Eastern Partnership framework to allow greater involvement in the Common Security and Defense Policy; gradual access to the Single European Payment Area; and an increase in multi-year zero tariffs to support modernization.
The EU needs to take a pragmatic approach – not to repairing Ukraine, but to rewarding it for the meaningful implementation of difficult reforms.
Vladyslav Galushko
Open Society Initiative for Europe, program manager
London, United Kingdom