Ukraine’s plans for European integration have been met with resistance from Germany, one of the key players in the European Union. Germany refuses to include in the proposed association agreement between Ukraine and the EU a single sentence about Ukraine’s European perspective or even a mention that Ukraine belongs to European civilization.

This is strange, given that Ukraine’s territory belongs to Europe, except for the 0.015 percent around Tuzla Island, which geographically belongs to Asia. Our mentality is no less European than that of some EU members including Romania and Bulgaria, both of which also developed within the framework of Orthodox, rather than Catholic and Protestant, ethics.

The level of corruption and social problems here is not higher than in some European member states.
So what stopped Chancellor Angela Merkel from even recognizing Ukraine as a part of Europe?

Officially, Berlin says that the main problem is the incarceration of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. But two years ago, when Tymoshenko was in power, Ukraine for the first time came across the unwillingness of European politicians to consider including a paragraph about Ukraine’s European prospects into the association agreement.

Then, the official excuse for turning it down was political instability in Ukraine. I wonder what excuse Europe would have found to turn Ukraine down if the Tymoshenko case hadn’t happened.

Tymoshenko herself has asked Europe from behind the bars not to turn Ukraine down as far as Association and European prospects go. The arguments of advocates for closer ties between Ukraine and Europe are also weighty – for example, acquiring tools for more influence on Ukraine’s leadership to improve democracy.

There are several explanations for not giving Ukraine a clear EU membership perspective. I do not believe that Tymoshenko’s case is the basic reason.
The first question to ask is, “Who benefits?” In the EU, it is some lobby groups that represent the interests of certain big businesses.

It’s not a secret that the free trade zone is more advantageous for Europe than it is for Ukraine – at least in the short term. Ukraine could incur colossal financial losses of up to 5 billion euros per year, and it has agreed to significant concessions in the metal and electric energy sectors.

 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in Berlin on Aug. 30, 2010. Germany is seen by some as unfriendly to Ukraine’s European Union integration hopes because of its close economic ties to Russia (AFP)

Of course, Ukraine would like to know that it would get a certain compensation for it in the form of perspective EU membership. Many countries who had agreed to take on such losses either received a prospect of membership or serious compensation packages. The absence of a point about Ukraine’s European prospects would make it a one-sided document.

Second, Germany’s stance plays well for Russia. The failure of negotiations with Europe would only mean one thing for Ukraine: It will soon be absorbed by other integration processes – particularly the ones that include Russia and its satellites Belarus and Kazakhstan. Considering how heavy the Russian influence is on the German economy – particularly in the energy sector – as well as its politics, this theory has some basis behind it.

Third, Germany continues to consider Ukraine as some sort of an “undercover agent.” The image of Ukraine as an American creation is still running strong, and this type of stereotypical thinking is common among many European politicians.

The strengthening of the American position in Europe through resurrecting its Eastern European doctrine, seemingly buried by U.S. President Barack Obama in 2009, is a nightmare for many German and French politicians.

Fourth, the issue of Ukraine is tied to Turkey. Preferences given to Ukraine can upset Ankara, which sees itself as first in line.

The last point is particularly acute for Germany, but there are more countries that are particularly critical about Ukraine’s demand to introduce a membership perspective into the association agreement. They are France and the Netherlands.

These are the same countries that failed to vote for a European Constitution some time ago. They might have their own arguments, but the main issue for them is the official position of Berlin.

This position can lead to shortsighted consequences. Ukraine is already being pulled into a customs union controlled by the Russian Federation. Among other things, it can lead to the creation of a so-called “grain OPEC,” which would be impossible without Ukraine.

Using grain from Kuban and Kazakhstan, combined with Ukraine’s port facilities, could lead to Russia dictating grain prices and influence the food policies of an entire continent.

If Europe has no qualms about strengthening Russia, it should turn Ukraine down in its European aspirations.

Kost Bondarenko is the founder of the Institute of Ukrainian Politics and former deputy head of the Strong Ukraine party.