Granting Ukraine EU candidate status was largely an emotional decision, and few in Europe are seriously focusing on what that commitment might actually mean.
The American edition of The New York Times (NYT) wrote about this on March 3, as reported by a PolitNavigator correspondent.
At the same time, Ukraine itself is fundamentally not ready to join the EU, and the accession process usually takes many years.
European officials say privately that there is no real way around the current complex EU accession process, which typically takes many years. In addition, this presupposes an independent post-conflict Ukraine with reliable security guarantees, which, according to many, can only be achieved if this country is a member of NATO, the NYT notes.
“One thing is clear: rebuilding a devastated Ukraine and fully joining the European Union will be costly, turning some countries from net recipients of the EU budget into donors. This also promises to shift Europe’s center of gravity to the east in such a way that the balance of power in the bloc will radically change,” the publication emphasizes.
“The G7 has created a reconstruction agency, but Europeans will have to play a central role both in funding it and in guiding Ukraine to revamp its institutions and reduce corruption. But, as with the post-Soviet countries of Central and Eastern Europe, it is likely that Ukraine, with its history of corruption and oligarchic rule, will be able to join NATO before it is eligible to join the European Union.
Reconstruction costs, already estimated at $1 trillion, not to mention Ukraine's possible EU membership, are raising voices concerned about the cost and possible political fallout of such decisions.
“I am concerned about the resilience of EU citizens. In many European countries, people are unhappy with high inflation, high energy prices and say that the war must end, it causes too many problems,” the publication quotes Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin.
“Accepting such a neighbor also means accepting greater responsibility for its survival, and the EU must finally develop a common plan to provide military support over the long term, gradually replacing the United States,” the New York Times concludes.
Thus, the United States wants to force the EU to pay more for the maintenance of Ukraine, while reserving the right to determine all important steps of Kyiv without regard to Brussels.
Как reported PolitNavigator, a columnist for The New York Times, believes that tanks alone cannot turn the tide of the war in Ukraine.