Nicu Popescu — “On Ukraine, the EU operates through words, not stick”

On the eve of Vilnius's upcoming summit on Eastern partnership Nicu Popescu, a Moldovan researcher for Paris's Institute for Security Studies, tells Presseurop he believes that, even if Ukraine eventually decided not to sign an association agreement with the EU on November 28, huge steps lie ahead in bringing Georgia and Moldova closer to the Union.

By Iulia Badea Guéritée and Judith Sinnige

Yulia Tymoshenko seems to be a Trojan Horse and an Achilles' heel for Ukraine. It is even said that the Ukrainian government requested € 20 billion to offset losses suffered by Ukraine due to a very unfavorable contract for Kiev signed by Timosenko with Moscow. On the other hand, everyone is surprised that EU “blackmailed” Kiev: Yulia in exchange for the agreement. The same as the one practiced by the Russians, right?

Nicu Popescu - I am not sure about exact sums, but it is clear that Ukraine is in a rather difficult economic situation which could get worse under Russia pressure. Consequently Ukraine needs foreign support to maintain the economic situation afloat until the next presidential election in spring 2015 at least. So it was asking for European and American support which could have facilitated access to credit lines from the international financial organisations in order to keep the country afloat.

As for Timoshenko – it is not blackmail on behalf of the EU. Ukraine says it wants to join the EU at some point, and at the current stage it formally aspires to sign an association agreement, to obtain visa-free travel and strengthen its energy link to the EU in order to dilute its energy reliance on Russia. The EU wants the same but has a few conditions. Among them is a more transparent and fairer justice system which does not become am enforcement tool for politicians. That’s is why there is so much focus on Tymoshenko.

But such conditions differs fundamentally from Ukraine’s relations with Russia. On two accounts. To begin with Ukraine wants to come closer to the EU, not to Russia. What the EU is doing is putting some conditions to let Ukraine come closer. What Russia is doing is trying to force on Ukraine something Kiev is openly not willing to do. Then the tools also differ a lot. Russia is not simply putting political pressure, but is applying real-life coercive tools. Not words, but stick - very specific trade restrictions which are costing the Ukrainians a lot of money and possibly jobs. Such methods are not part of the EU toolbox. The EU operates through words, not sticks.

Obviously Kiev will not sign the agreement. Will Moldova and Georgia suffer because of that?

Procedurally, there is no impact on Moldova and Georgia. The EU has its own speed of relations with these states that does not depend on Ukraine or Armenia. However, there would be indirect negative effects. For Georgia and Moldova, is has been easier to move closer to the EU, and to implement EU standards as is this was part of a wider regional trend in which Ukraine is a key player. This being said, the situation between Georgia and Moldova differ. Moldova is directly on EU’s border, and at roughly the same distance from Moscow as it is from Italy. This kind of geography matters. Georgia’s geography is more complicated.

The agreements a step towards the EU. They do not promis EU membership, but in the case of Moldova and Ukraine they mention that the two countries are European, whereas for Georgia the agreement mentions it is a East European country. These are diplomatic formulas that are there for a whole series of reasons. What matters though is that even of the agreement does not promis membership, its implementation is like preparing to join the EU – it presupposes the same things – implementing the EU acquis, adapting to EU standards and transforming these countries in line with European practices.

What are these signatures representing for these states? Is this a reward because they will not join the EU so quicklu? How are these states named in official documents, given that between Georgia and Moldova there is even a difference of continent?

The agreements is a step towards the EU. They do not promise EU membership, but in the case of Moldova and Ukraine they mention that the two countries are European, whereas for Georgia the agreement mentions it is a East European country. These are diplomatic formulas that are there for a whole series of reasons. What matters though is that even if the agreement does not promise membership, its implementation is like preparing to join the EU – it assumes the same things – implementing the EU “acquis”, adapting to EU standards and transforming these countries in line with European practices.

The agreement signed by Moldova does not complicate relations with Transnistria?

Transnistria could benefit from EU-Moldova relations and EU-Moldova free trade. All these years Transnistria benefited from easier access to the EU market by virtue of it being legally part of Moldova. The same should happen once the Association Agreement in signed. They will need to fulfill certain conditions, to ensure mechanisms to monitor that the benefits that come with have a free trade area with the EU are not abused, but if they want they can work with the EU and Chisinau to achieve that. The problem is that it seems that they do not want to do that now for political reasons.