Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna: "The entire EU enlargement process depends on the decisions regarding Ukraine"

Ukraine is waiting for fateful decisions of the European Union regarding our future membership in the EU. Already next week, on November 8, the European Commission will publish a report on Ukraine with an assessment of the progress of our country – not only in the implementation of the seven recommendations received together with the status of a candidate country, but also in approaching compliance with the criteria for the EU membership. If our hopes come true and the European Commission recommends starting pre-accession negotiations with our country, the EU leaders will discuss this proposal and make a decision at the summit to be held in December. There are enough reasons to expect that the European Council will give Ukraine the green light.

We met with the Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration of Ukraine Olha Stefanishyna a week before the presentation of the European Commission's document and a few days after the October meeting of the European Council. We started our conversation with some of the decisions that were made during this meeting.

— Olha Vitaliivna, at the last EU summit held last week, it was discussed about the use of frozen assets of the Russian Federation for the benefit of Ukraine and the corresponding future decision at the December meeting of the European Council. Why is it currently only about the profits from these assets? What prevents a full confiscation? Why can't/don't the EU countries change their legislation in order to transfer to Ukraine for reconstruction all these funds of the aggressor country, which brutally violated all principles of international law, including humanitarian law? After all, there has never been such a war in Europe. Why can't the EU also act in a non-standard way?

— There are two main positions here. The first is the political will, especially the USA, the consensus of the Group of Seven (G7), and all countries of the European Union that the frozen Russian assets should be used. It should be generally decided that Russian assets should be managed in such a way that the income received goes to the needs of Ukraine's recovery, possibly to temporary reparations until justice is restored. And there should not be any disagreements on this issue, but there should be full political consensus and absolute unity between the countries. On the other hand, this is an extremely complex legal construction. The Group of Seven (G7) is already working on it at the level of advisors. A team of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, the Prosecutor General works on behalf of our government.

The consequence of the sanctions was the freezing of assets. And now we have to work out the next step that will allow us to create additional pressure on Russia. We have to do this not only with the prospect that sanctions will be lifted if the war ends, but also with the prospect that the longer the war lasts, the greater the risk for the Russian Federation of losing these assets forever, that they will not just be frozen, but confiscated.

Indeed, we are waiting for a decision from the EU regarding frozen Russian assets in December, realizing that legally it is very difficult to do, since this decision must be, on the one hand, general, and on the other hand, clear for the banking and financial sector. It must be implemented by each of the 27 EU countries. And all the countries of the Big Seven (G7) must understand how it will interact.

Therefore, without exaggeration, this decision will be historic. The only thing that I, as a lawyer, can remember about such an unconventional approach is a whole layer of European regulation that emerged as a result of Italy's fight against such a phenomenon as the mafia. Everyone knew about the crimes of the Italian mafia, but there were no mechanisms for bringing them to justice. I think we are now in a similar situation, when we know that there is an aggressor, there is a criminal and there are crimes. And in this situation, we have to think unconventionally. I'm sure there will be a solution, and it will involve managing these frozen assets in a number of ways.

​— Even when making simpler decisions, which are supported by the majority of member states, we constantly run into obstacles that Hungary creates for the Ukrainian state, inhibiting financial and military aid to Ukraine, and the adoption of new sanctions against Russia. Should we be worried about the peculiarities of the Hungarian position in the preparation of the European Commission report on Ukraine and the upcoming EU decision on the start of accession negotiations?

— We have a bilateral dialogue with Hungary, but it is obvious that this dialogue between Kyiv and Budapest is used by the latter exclusively for trade with Brussels. Therefore, the primary responsibility here lies with the European institutions, the European Commission, which should not play along with individual member states. We, Ukrainians, or any states of the European Union should not feel that anyone has special sympathy for Hungary's position. However, unfortunately, today we feel such a special attitude towards Budapest.

— It is not difficult to guess that we are talking about the European Commissioner for Neighborhood and Enlargement, Olivér Várhelyi, who is Hungarian.

— I have a good working relationship with this European Commissioner. Our meetings are always constructive. At the same time, in the documents, in particular in the evaluations related to our implementation of tasks in the field of national minorities, we clearly see the Hungarian footprint, and this is sad. It's sad because we made a lot of effort to really move problematic issues and pass legislation. It is very sad to see this when we are trying our best to unite the country, when all national minorities, including the Hungarian one, unite and appeal to the leaders of the European Union to support Ukraine's European choice. And there are forces that are trying to divide our country. I think that this is not at all about the rights of national minorities. These are certain attempts to split the state at a time when we constantly say that only united we can achieve our victory.

— Have we got another problem? It refers to the unpleasant situation with Slovakia. The fact is that the new Prime Minister Fico already criticizes the previous government's decision to provide Ukraine with military aid, and warns the EU against adopting certain sanctions against Russia.

— We had no problems with Slovakia. And now there are no problems. We have no problems with the newly formed Slovak government. We calmly accept the statements and warnings made by the Prime Minister of Slovakia, in particular at the meeting of the European Council. I want to emphasize an important point. Since the beginning of the full-scale war and after Ukraine's application for EU membership, we have become part of European politics. Remember that there is a difference between steps taken, decisions made, and public statements. There are public statements for the Brussels, Ukrainian and internal audiences. We analyze them and understand in which case it is necessary to react, and in which case it is not necessary to react. Of course, we understand that a certain radicalization of positions may take place. Populist trends are in great demand right now – at a time of greatest testing. But after all, both Slovakia and Hungary are countries that are part of the EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

This means that there are checks and balances in these countries. Unlike Hungary, Slovakia is an active member of NATO. The military capability of Slovakia, part of NATO's eastern flank, depends on cooperation between allies. Therefore, we will judge by concrete actions, not by statements. Although, of course, it is unfortunate to see the speculation surrounding the support of Ukraine, especially in anticipation of at least 15 more different elections that will take place in European countries during this and the next years.

— In addition, there will be elections to the European Parliament. And looking at how the "Ukrainian issue" is being used in the election campaign in the USA, we understand that we cannot avoid it in Europe either. We are very dependent on our Western, particularly European, partners. But can we influence their decisions, especially when they threaten our national interests? Do we have any leverage? For example, transit, while we still have it...

— Of course, we can influence their decisions, we have our own means for this. Let's see how the dialogue regarding the export and transit of agricultural products will continue under the new Polish government. Ukraine has already proposed export mechanisms, for its part, the European Commission has determined the conditions for ensuring the synchronicity of the EU internal market. We believe that dialogue is productive, and all problematic issues can be resolved through it.

— I meant gas transit.

— We will look at the agricultural sector. Ukraine will not take any steps to stop gas transit to Europe. Let me remind you that since 2014, Slovakia has been and remains a country that helped Ukraine overcome its dependence on Russian gas. Just as Ukraine helped the EU overcome its dependence on Russian gas. Gratitude for this important step was, is and will be. But we will certainly not allow Ukraine and the Ukrainian struggle against the aggressor to become a topic for political speculation.

At the beginning of the war, supporting Ukraine was a sovereign decision of each government and each leader. The level of solidarity with Ukraine at the level of citizens was impressive.

Today, the situation is somewhat more complicated, in particular because it is not just about support, but about very specific decisions with certain consequences. Ukraine becomes a part of political election processes precisely because all these are sensitive issues: about the rights of citizens, about military aid, about sanctions restrictions, and about the exit of companies from the Russian market – these are all complex decisions that need to be explained to people. Now the situation is completely different compared to the one at the beginning of the war. We are ready for the fact that there will be such tensions in further political processes within the EU or in other democratic countries.

We must also take into account that decisions in the EU are made during the dialogue of leaders and countries. Therefore, the process sometimes takes a very long time, and it is important for the EU leaders to reach a consensus. And not necessarily because it is written in the EU treaty. Their goal is always not only to make a decision, but to have everyone understand it and then implement it. Because any unimplemented decision reduces the authority of the EU, reduces trust and, accordingly, reduces the probability of the next decision regarding Ukraine.

— We hope to receive another very important decision next week, when the European Commission's long-awaited assessment of Ukraine's progress in fulfilling the criteria for the EU membership will be published. Can we be sure that the European Commission recommends starting accession negotiations with Ukraine? What grade point average are you hoping for? We scored just 2.16 out of 5 in February.

— This will definitely be a positive assessment. I know this because I constantly interact with the European Commission. Almost every month I informed about our progress. We provided information not only on the implementation of the seven political steps (necessary for the opening of accession negotiations), but in general on the whole block of future negotiations, on all 35 chapters. Therefore, I am confident in the positive assessment of the European Commission. Of course, the report will contain recommendations for further steps in the field of reforms. These are, in fact, recommendations for next year, and now they will be every year.

I am confident that this report will be another tool to help rid us of our inferiority complex. For example, when a Ukrainian politician – me or anyone else – comes out and says that Ukraine is a developed democracy, we are laughed at and not believed. They say, look – corruption is flourishing in this country, the ex-prosecutor from Pechersk conducts a wedding and so on. But this report, prepared by the European Commission, will give an objective picture, for example, that we have had a competitive open election process throughout the history of independence. There were attempts at falsification, then we changed the legislation. In addition, this process was public, and all violations were exposed. The same applies to other areas: there will be recognition of achievements, problematic points and formulated recommendations. But, I am convinced, this report will demonstrate that we underestimate ourselves all the time. And we constantly feel unhappy, although we as a country are not like that. It is possible, of course, that we will see three bad words about Ukraine in the report, as we know how to do it, and we will only talk about them, but I ask everyone who is interested to read this document. This is an important report that will provide a fairly objective assessment.

— Will there be a recommendation to start accession negotiations with Ukraine?

— I hope so. After the decision of the European Commission, there must be a decision of the member states. Today, there are no countries that would be skeptical of the opening of negotiations or even question Ukraine's membership in the EU. There is no such country.

— And what about Hungary?

— Let me remind you that 11 packages of sanctions were adopted with the consent of Hungary, including. In addition, we received the status of a candidate for the EU membership as well as macro-financial assistance.

— Each time it happened with some problems...

— We may not be satisfied with everything. But the Hungarian position is clear, and so far we have not felt that it is somehow delaying the decision (regarding the opening of accession negotiations) that we are waiting for.

— Does Hungary insist that the European Commission's report contain additional conditions regarding national minorities? Or does Hungary insist that this report should contain provisions regarding corruption and other shortcomings?

— The European Commission is obliged to provide an objective report. Of course, some member states can shed light, draw attention to some things that they are particularly good at. This is, of course, permissible, but, I repeat, this report must be objective. And our country, the Ukrainian authorities, the Ukrainian government have no reason to believe that we did less than we could have done. Moreover, the Ukrainian delegation was in Budapest, we have certain agreements regarding the educational process and they are already being implemented. We postponed for a year the entry into force of the second part of the legislation regarding this component of education. Today, the parliament is considering additional legislative changes. Of course, we will look very carefully at this part of the report, and if we see a certain bias in it, we will express our position, we will not remain silent.

— On Thursday, November 2, a meeting of foreign ministers of the European Union and candidate countries, including Ukraine, was held in Berlin. The meeting discussed EU reform. Is it realistic to convince the EU: first the enlargement, in particular the admission of Ukraine, and then the reform of the European Union itself?

— Thank you for this question. I am very interested in watching the development of this process. The first such proposals began to take shape a year and a half ago. Interestingly, it was France and Germany that took the lead in this process.

— Who would doubt it...

— Well, we also started to worry a little at first. But these are my wonderful colleagues and friends – the Ministers of European Affairs of Germany and France – Anna Luhrmann and Laurence Boone. They are very progressive and modern. Convinced that it was Ukraine that helped shape the new strategic vision, Ukraine restored confidence in the expansion process, reminded of its geopolitical significance, and actually restarted it. At the same time, we have created a very uncomfortable situation for other countries, because it is difficult now to find arguments why they cannot fulfill certain conditions. Ukraine continues systemic reforms during a full-scale war; however, we do not ask for political concessions and adhere to the principle that decisions should be made on the basis of the achievements of each of the candidate countries.

And I want to warn those colleagues who will comment: the EU reform is absolutely not a negative process. There is no threat to Ukraine, to our integration process. Because Ukraine's future membership in the EU, our candidate status, is a decision that was able to put the issue of enlargement back on the agenda, to start conversations about real and inevitable EU reforms. And any decision of European leaders that undermines Ukraine's European path will automatically block the enlargement process, make it toxic again, as well as the EU reform process itself. Of course, only if Ukraine fails to implement reforms, another scenario is possible. But Ukraine will not fail in this matter. For ten years, we continued to move forward on the European integration path and even in the most difficult conditions. Therefore, the story of first EU reform and then enlargement or some kind of partial membership are mythic narratives. There is a political understanding of the importance and synchronicity of these processes. If you hear from fellow politicians – European or ours – that there is a big problem that we heroically solved, it is not so.

— But one can also understand the countries that are afraid that Ukraine, a huge country with its huge agricultural sector, and also a poor one, destroyed by Russia, will come and take the lion's share of the EU's structural funds. And our friends and allies, such as Poland or France, which receive significant sums of money from these funds, will no longer receive them. That is, here each country takes care of its own interests. But can it hinder us?

— Of course, each country takes care of its own interests. But I want to emphasize something. Currently, there are almost a dozen countries that want to participate in the enlargement of the EU. But if there had been no decision on Ukraine last June, there would have been no serious decisions regarding other countries regarding enlargement. Thus, the more ambitious the new decision on Ukraine will be, the more other countries will be able to count on. Ukraine's leadership in the enlargement process cannot make the enlargement agenda toxic.

It is obvious that Ukraine cannot stop being an agrarian country. We cannot pretend that we do not have an agricultural market and that we are not the granary of the whole of Europe. This is the objective reality that exists today. Brussels understands this. And the reform of the agricultural market has already begun – taking into account the fact that the European Union will receive the last largest market in Europe, which is located outside the EU. That is, Europe thinks a little differently, they understand that this is competition, and this is a normal situation for them. And we have to find our place, so to speak, to integrate Ukraine into the internal market of the EU. And that will be the subject of negotiations when they begin. But first of all, Europeans see a potential source of economic growth of the Union.

— Yes, our market is big. But the purchasing power of the population is low, including because of the war. And the population has decreased significantly...

— Of course, we live in conditions of a full-scale war. But, on the other hand, we have an extremely capable economy in the conditions of war. And no one says that Ukraine will become a member of the EU tomorrow, realizing that today the non-military budget is completely based on aid programs of international partners. But it won't always be like that. As the practice of previous years has shown, Ukraine needs an average of two years to reach a normal, dynamic economic development. We are guided by the fact that it will take time to restore our country, both financially and economically.

And regardless of whether Ukraine is inside the EU or outside it, the European Union is our ally. Financial support for our country is and will be, in particular through the four-year program of macro-financial assistance in the amount of 50 billion euros, already announced by the European Commission. These 50 billion are already a certain new financial format, because usually the countries that will take part in EU enlargement use special enlargement funds. But, as you rightly say, we would be like an elephant in a dish shop: the size and needs of Ukraine are incomparable to others. We have to survive. Therefore, these traditional financial instruments are not suitable for Ukraine. We do not want to create tension within the EU. But the EU also proactively proposed a solution. It is very important.

— So we will not apply for the EU social fund as a candidate country?

— The new program provides for a special fund for Ukraine, which accumulates the funds we need for reforms related to membership in the European Union, and also covers the four-year macro-financial need. And also credit funds that will have, according to the Brussels saying, a multiplier effect. This is when the European Commission extends its credit authority to investments in Ukraine. And all other players take it as a guarantee of their investment.

— You emphasized that Ukraine is a leader, and thanks to it, the expansion process was revived. That is, Ukraine is a kind of "European integration locomotive", and behind us are wagons of other countries. Isn't this something that will slow down our process of joining the EU? What is more profitable for Ukraine – to go for membership alone or in a large package with all other countries: Moldova, the Western Balkans?

— This is a difficult question... A year ago, when Ukraine was fighting for candidate status, we absolutely did not think about other countries that would want to participate in the EU enlargement process. Of course, we coordinated with colleagues from the Western Balkans, Moldova, and then Georgia. But we did not feel any co-responsibility for this process. We simply understood that this allows them to believe in the European dream again. But we thought only about the interests of our country. Today, the situation is radically different, we understand that the entire EU enlargement process depends on decisions regarding Ukraine. The higher the results of Ukraine and the higher expectations we form, the easier it will be to find a consensus, because there are countries in the EU that have a sense of special responsibility towards the countries of the Western Balkans. And the more ambitious the decision on Ukraine is, the more multi-layered is the dialogue on other countries. And where we can, we try to interact, for example, with the political leaders of Moldova: we exchange experience, share information on how the negotiation process is going, and provide them with what we are preparing. It is the same with some Western Balkan countries. Because we have to help each other. Today we are together and understand that each player has his own role. Ukraine's role is to move forward.

— You know, I am very impressed by your optimism, but when I read in your interviews that Ukraine will be ready for accession in two years, it seems to me that this is already too optimistic. After all, now we have active hostilities, our economy is destroyed, and everyone survives only at the expense of financing foreign partners. And even if all these problems are put aside, we still know that for most of the current EU members, only the negotiations took an average of four to five years, and the entire accession process took nine to ten years. What is the basis of your optimism when you talk about two years? In my opinion, this is quite dangerous, new unreasonable expectations may arise in society, and they will be followed by disappointment and hopelessness.

— I say that Ukraine will be ready, but this absolutely does not mean automatic membership, because the decision on Ukraine will not be separated from the decisions on other countries, from the internal reform of the EU, from the economic situation on the European market and in Ukraine. But I am sure that we will definitely be able to do it. While we waited for the European Commission's report, we did not spend this year just implementing the seven recommendations. We received from the EU the volume of all rules and standards that must be implemented by us - that's almost 28 thousand different acts. And our state, that is, the government, together with civil society, started doing self-screening. Because the first decision that will be made after the start of the negotiations will be that we should be "scanned", that is, to assess our legislation for compliance with European legislation. We used the experience of Albania, they also made such a decision at one time and made a self-assessment. Our self-screening showed that Ukrainian legislation is much more in line with European rules than is provided for in the Association Agreement with the EU. In addition, we do not need to implement such a large number of the EU acts before membership, then they simply become part of our legislation. More than 80 state institutions, more than a hundred employees, experts, international technical assistance projects were involved in our own screening. It was a very extensive process, it took us eight months, and now we know where we are.

Moreover, the president of Ukraine gave instructions to prepare the State program of preparation for joining the EU and the National plan for the adaptation of legislation. We already have a base for this. Therefore, I am sure that we can and will move quickly. We have experience in the implementation of the Association Agreement, which is almost ten years. We have created and operate a free trade zone with the EU. Therefore, we are confident in our abilities.

— A recent poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) showed that 60% of Ukrainians are ready to postpone EU membership so that Ukraine can defend its interests during negotiations with the European Union. So do we need to hurry? Will it be possible not to surrender Ukrainian positions and defend national interests in quick negotiations?

— Of course. The Ukrainian people are very wise. I can feel it from the solutions we are preparing. We try to communicate them correctly and see that people feel and understand certain steps. When we form the adaptation program, it will become the basic negotiating position, where the terms and scope will be determined. We will hold consultations with business representatives, citizens and conduct research. Currently, we are already starting a number of such studies on the influence of certain standards, rules and conditions of the EU internal market on the Ukrainian economy, the national producer of goods, on the survival of the economy in war conditions. Perhaps not all standards, for example, in the field of construction or labor, should be implemented immediately. Because we have a big task, namely the massive process of reconstruction of our country, and we have to set priorities taking this into account. If there is a delay on the part of the European Union, then, of course, there will be pressure from our side. But everything that concerns the work from our side, we do everything as quickly as possible.

— Purely bureaucratic – how is Ukraine preparing for negotiations? Are the directives being written? Has the composition of the delegation been formed? Have the negotiating positions already been prepared, if not for each cluster, each section, then at least for the first ones?

— There are basic positions. We have already decided on the architecture of the negotiation process. There will be one key negotiator and negotiators by direction. But it will not be a super-personalized process, we plan to structure the negotiations in such a way that there are constantly active groups that form a position – together with representatives of civil society, immediately with the involvement of parliament and business. The main negotiator will be a communicator and negotiator in the literal sense of the word. Our architecture is completely ready, my office has formed it, and we are now coordinating it. I have already discussed it with the prime minister, presented something to the speaker, and we will also discuss it with the president of Ukraine. I think that soon you will see the first solutions, which will be quite interesting.

— On the one hand, you really need to prepare for negotiations right now, and on the other hand, how can you conduct negotiations on joining the EU when no one knows what Ukraine will be like after the war, what the structure of its economy will be? What will our energy be like, for example? We don't even know how many of us there will be in the country. How to conduct negotiations under these conditions?

— Lack of clarity is also actually a certain clarity. These are conditions in which it is possible and necessary to plan the negotiation process. First, we know for sure that Ukraine will not stop being an agrarian country and we are also confident in its IT potential. And I do not agree with you that there is no understanding of the future structure of the economy. Secondly, there is a clear understanding that Ukraine is the largest market outside the EU and will become one of the largest markets in the EU in the future. Thirdly, and we defined this even before the war, because it is an obvious priority that cannot be bypassed, it is a green economy, a green transformation. This is objectively necessary if we want to attract funds and investments. And when we talk about large-scale reconstruction, it must be 100% based on the green agenda, because it is not only a global trend, but also a green light for finance. Therefore, it is clear how the Ukrainian energy industry will look like. On the other hand, we are already telling the world today what the energy system should look like, taking into account how we survived the winter. How should critical infrastructure be protected, what should be the volumes of generation, how to ensure security and continuity of supply and access to resources. The delegation of Ukraine will soon go to Brussels for a meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Council, where we will provide information on how to protect critical infrastructure and ensure energy sustainability.

Yes, we live in a period of uncertainty. We live in a country where hostilities continue and we cannot plan our lives for the future, we no longer know what "normal" is. But Ukraine will be able to overcome everything. And we are pleased that our partners have clarity, and you will see it in the European Commission's report on November 8. You'll like it.