Russia aggression and uncertainty of peace negotiation prospects are the greatest threats to Ukraine’s European integration – expert survey
Experts consider Russia's ongoing aggression and the uncertainty regarding prospects for peace negotiations to be the greatest threat to Ukraine on its path to the EU, rating it 4.3 on a five-point scale from 1 to 5, where "1" means no negative impact and "5" means a very strong negative impact.
This is evidenced by the results of the expert survey "Ukraine on the Path to the EU: Status, Problems, Prospects," conducted by the Razumkov Center and the Public Council under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine with the support of the Hans Seidel Foundation from March 16 to 25 and presented at a press conference at the Interfax-Ukraine agency on Wednesday.
Among other negative external factors, experts note the unpredictability of Washington's policy and the shift in U.S. geopolitical priorities (4.2 points).
"The key risks for Ukraine's foreign political state are strategic uncertainty regarding peace prospects, our resource exhaustion as a result of long-term Russia aggression, and the political volatility of our main partner, the USA. At the same time, the expert community notes that the negative impact on Ukraine is carried out not only as a result of these military actions, but also as a result of the crisis of Euro-Atlantic unity and a certain paralysis of international security structures, ranging from NATO to the OSCE. The results of the expert survey indicate the need for Ukraine to search for other, more flexible and autonomous models of foreign policy," noted Ihor Zhdanov, Candidate of Political Sciences, head of the "Information Defense" project of the "Open Policy" Foundation, and former Minister of Youth and Sports of Ukraine (2014-2019), during the press conference.
Specialists also consider conflict and a lack of trust between the USA and Europe to be a negative factor (4.0 points). Respondents also note the inability of global and regional security structures to prevent the escalation of conflicts on the world stage, specifically to stop Russia aggression (3.9 points). Experts also drew attention to the European direction: specifically the complication of the political and socio-economic situation in the EU (3.8 points) and the intensification of Russia hybrid influence within the European Union (3.7 points).
"The problem of consensus, the problem of the veto, it limits the activities of international structures extremely seriously. This is one of the component problems that exist today, and it is indeed so. This applies not only to NATO and not only to the UN Security Council, but also to the EU, among others, and other international structures, including the OSCE. That is, the decision-making instruments developed in the pre-war, peaceful period are today preventing international institutions from working very actively. And the issue of expanding the sphere of decision-making by qualified majority, for example, in the EU – this is a problem that was and is on the European Union's agenda, but, unfortunately, it remains in perspective," noted Mykhailo Pashkov, co-director of foreign policy and international security programs at the Razumkov Center, during the press conference.
Evaluating the assistance to Ukraine from various international organizations, experts primarily highlight the EU – 4.0 points on a five-point scale. In turn, specialists evaluate NATO’s assistance to Ukraine at 3.4 points. Assistance to KYIV from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is also evaluated by experts at 3.4 points. Respondents evaluate assistance to Ukraine from other international institutions more cautiously, including the Council of Europe (2.9 points), the International Committee of the Red Cross (2.3), the IAEA (2.1), the UN (2.1), and the OSCE (1.8). Institutions working in the legal field are rated lower than those with economic or security tools.
"The European Union is defined by such comprehensive support for Ukraine – this includes financial aid, sanctions policy, military-technical assistance, and the promotion of Ukraine's European integration, which is also an element of strengthening our state's security. In fact, there are no negative assessments, no zero assessments, so to speak, of the European Union's influence; that is, there is consensus support for the importance of its influence. Structures like the IMF and NATO received slightly lower support figures. The IMF remains and was such a macro-financial stabilizer for Ukraine – that is indeed true. Regarding NATO, here, it seems to me, there is a certain underestimation," noted Serhii Dzherdzh, head of the All-Ukrainian Public League Ukraine-NATO and chairman of the Public Council under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, at the press conference.
He named information secrecy as one of the prerequisites for this. "Because the assistance that NATO provides us, and those structures created with NATO's help – including the assistance program through which Europeans buy weapons for Ukraine, both their own European ones and from the United States – these programs are active, but we do not know many details about this because the topic is very sensitive, and these are military matters that we, and our partners in NATO, are trying to protect from the Russians knowing in great detail. However, NATO is still the main security partner, and our cooperation remains here. The only thing is that there is a certain gap in the assessments of NATO's importance for Ukraine, and still in the trust in NATO, that it will help protect Ukraine and protect itself as an institution, considering these international components," added Dzherdzh.
Most often among the countries that provide the greatest assistance to Ukraine, experts name Great Britain (94.1%), Germany (85.9%), and Lithuania (75.3%). Also, the majority of experts name Estonia (70.6%), Denmark (63.5%), France (61.2%), Latvia (60.0%), Norway (60.0%), Poland (58.8%), Sweden (56.5%), and the Netherlands (51.8%).
As part of the study, 85 experts were surveyed (university lecturers, representatives of state and public research organizations, representatives of state authorities at the national and local levels, and independent experts).
