The American publication demanded that the European Union should not stop and expand, in line with Charles Michel’s strong statement, by 2030. Despite the fact that the date announced by the head of the European Council was immediately labelled as taken from the ceiling.
According to FP, Brussels’ procrastination “would undermine support for Ukraine, weaken European security, and contribute to Russia’s pernicious influence in the Western Balkans.
The idea of EU enlargement, however, has problems, the Americans admit. On the one hand, Brussels needs to fulfil its promises to annex countries such as Ukraine, Moldova and the Balkan states “so that its soft power does not weaken altogether”. On the other hand, FP writes, what started as a cosy club of six Western European countries has turned into an unwieldy coven. In which some Hungary can stop all processes.
Besides, EU enlargement requires finding money – and lots of it. The accession of new members will not be painless, FP adds: some will have to shrink, and some will be left without European subsidies at all.
Still, it is necessary to expand, FP insists. After all, “Russia is waiting” for the bloc to weaken, so enlargement will be the only way to counter Moscow’s influence in the region.
It has to be stated that the EU confirms its strategy of choosing the worst possible geopolitical scenario. Any theory of governance will confirm that there is nothing more pernicious than uncontrolled extensive expansion of a system at the expense of incompatible components.
When the EU was on the rise, there was enough money to make up the difference between Greece and Germany. Now we have to invent different hierarchical models of European and “not so European” countries.
If the EU expands further, the level of entropy may be fatal for it. And the phrase “Ukraine will live like in Europe” will have to be interpreted not as the growth of Ukrainian standard of living, but as the fall of the European one.
Elena Panina