By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Lithuania is urging the EU to take decisive steps to make Ukraine’s EU membership application a reality, according to a letter sent to EU capitals. The letter proposes starting technical-level negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova, potentially excluding Hungary initially if 26 member states agree, while also suggesting a 2030 target year for accession. Lithuania believes that initiating negotiations would boost Ukrainian morale and support reforms amid intensified Russian military actions, while inaction could weaken public support and the will for reform. This proposal, along with the broader context of the war and potential political influences, will be discussed at the upcoming EU foreign ministers’ meeting in Copenhagen.
Read the original article here
Lithuania reportedly proposes starting Ukraine’s EU accession talks bypassing Hungary’s veto. The simple fact that Lithuania is reportedly exploring a way around Hungary’s obstruction highlights the complex and frankly, tense situation within the European Union. It’s a clear indication of the deep divisions that exist regarding Ukraine’s path toward EU membership, particularly given the ongoing war and the specific challenges Ukraine faces. The proposal is an interesting twist in the ongoing drama, particularly because Hungary has been a known antagonist, often seen as an obstacle.
This all leads to a pivotal question: Is it possible to circumvent a member state’s veto in such a crucial matter? The EU’s established processes are meant to respect the sovereignty of its members. However, the urgency of the situation, combined with the perception of Hungary’s ties to Russia, seemingly justifies extraordinary measures for some. The central argument seems to be that, while Hungary can block the process through its veto, the other EU members should find a solution for Ukraine to still have the option of beginning accession talks.
The concerns about Hungary’s stance are understandable. Many view it as a “Russian vassal state,” with its political moves often aligning with Russia’s interests. This leads to a bigger question: why is Hungary allowed to remain in the EU if it is working against the values the EU is built upon? The accusation of Hungary being a Russian puppet throws the whole idea of EU values and unity into doubt.
The discussion is not simply about admitting Ukraine; it’s about the standards required. It recognizes that Ukraine doesn’t fully comply with EU laws and lacks infrastructure. This then raises questions of how the EU will address the problems. How will it deal with corruption, the lack of compliance, and the destruction brought by war?
The discussion of Ukraine’s potential membership also opens up a broader debate. There are other countries seeking membership. Some of these, like those in the Western Balkans, might be deemed more prepared than Ukraine right now. The rush to start Ukraine’s accession is, to many, a response to the invasion. It’s about supporting Ukraine against Russia, even if the country isn’t perfectly ready.
The issue of the war is central to this debate. Some view the EU’s role as critical in supporting Ukraine’s efforts, especially when NATO seems divided. A speedier accession process is seen as a way to send a strong message to Russia, and to support Ukraine’s path towards greater integration with the West. A quicker process to join the EU may speed up the shift of Ukraine to meet EU standards, though it is likely to take years.
The potential pitfalls are also openly acknowledged. Concerns are raised about the long-term financial burden of integrating Ukraine, and the impact on existing EU farmers. There are worries about potential political instability, and the country’s ability to meet all the required criteria.
It also challenges core ideals, such as the rule of law and internal democracy. This debate highlights a struggle between the EU’s foundational principles and the need to provide support to Ukraine in its current dire situation. A lot of members also think the best path forward is through Ukraine’s involvement in NATO, and then, once the war is over and rebuilding has begun, consider an EU membership bid.
The question is: how does the EU balance these potentially conflicting goals, and what message does it send about its values and priorities? It’s very difficult, considering that the EU’s main aim is not necessarily the same in the eyes of all its members. Some EU members are very concerned about Ukraine’s need for support. Others see a rushed accession as a risky move. The proposed bypass is about starting the process, which isn’t immediate admission, rather than fully admitting Ukraine right now.
The broader debate calls for more careful consideration of future expansions. The discussion of Hungary’s non-compliance with EU law is a bit moot considering the war in Ukraine. The debate shows how a focus on the current war and the political dynamics can sometimes cause EU members to stray from upholding all requirements and laws.
The core issue is this: should the EU bypass its rules to show support for Ukraine? Or should it stick to its principles? The debate is far from over. The EU has been forced to reconsider its own role, its own values, and its future, because of the ongoing events in Eastern Europe. The Lithuanian proposal is a key element in this evolving discussion.