December 13, 2023 - 1:00pm
Admitting Ukraine into the European Union could cost up to €190 billion out of the bloc’s €1.1 trillion multi-year budget, according to German Economic Institute (IW) figures.
According to the new study’s calculations, approximately €50-90 billion would be diverted to cohesion funds while a further €70-90 billion would go to agricultural subsidies. These figures mark a substantial financial hit to EU member states, with the authors concluding that many current net recipients of EU funds would turn into net contributors.
EU heads of state are due to gather in Brussels later this week to formally consider admitting Ukraine into the bloc, but these findings may cast a cloud over talks. Agriculture has been a major point of contention among Central and Eastern European states, with Bulgarian and Romanian farmers protesting the import of Ukrainian grain by blocking border checkpoints following the lifting of import bans. Hungary is also sceptical, and Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has warned that he will obstruct accession talks.
The latest report out of Germany aligns with leaked EU estimates from October which found that Ukrainian accession would cost $186 billion, including €96.5 billion in farming subsidies and €61 billion in cohesion funds. This EU analysis concluded that, if Ukraine is admitted, “all member states will have to pay more to and receive less from the EU budget”, and wealthy nations will have to contribute substantially more.
As the EU mulls its relationship with Kyiv, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is meeting with US President Joe Biden and members of Congress today in Washington D.C., where the mood towards Ukraine is even less sunny.
Zelenskyy’s private remarks to members of Congress failed to move the needle among Republicans, who are maintaining their refusal to sign on to further Ukraine aid in a stalled legislative funding package until their border security demands are met. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson reiterated his support for Ukraine against Putin’s invasion in his meeting with Zelenskyy, but said the White House had still not articulated a path to victory despite his numerous requests. Zelenskyy’s remarks contained no new information, according to Senator Eric Schmitt.
A vocal contingent of the Republican Party has long criticised American support for Ukrainian defence, considering the effort excessively costly, irrelevant to American interests and unlikely to result in a win for Kyiv. Johnson, who is far more sceptical of Ukraine aid than his predecessor, Kevin McCarthy, recently bristled at Biden’s request for further aid funding.
All of this hesitation comes amid a growing scepticism about Ukraine’s chances of total victory; Ukraine’s commander-in-chief called the conflict a “stalemate” in November, and in the same month European leaders began discussing peace negotiations behind the scenes. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy continues to resist calls for negotiations — an attitude one of his close aides called delusional, according to Time.
The US has given $44.2 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since Russia’s 2022 invasion. The EU and its member states have provided $91 billion.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“The US has given $44.2 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since Russia’s 2022 invasion. The EU and its member states have provided $91 billion”
Simply staggering! And what have we got for that? Two of the most corrupt countries on earth slogging it out in a ‘death fest’! Brilliant !
You do realise that you are arguing in favour of sending arms to Ukraine to prolong the war, don’t you? If both countries are corrupt, then paying them to fight each other is cheap at twice the price. Pity they couldn’t both lose and all that.
As things are panning out, they are both losing.
Is the US really among the most corrupt countries on earth? Bit of an exaggeration I’d say.
I believe he meant Ukraine, but America is not innocent in charges of corruption, particularly the major cities, which have been one-party fiefdoms since forever. America’s corruption is subtle, indirect, and given a veneer of legality but that doesn’t make it much better. Corporate lobbyists push for their interests in Congress, wealthy oligarchs finance huge issues based superPACS that skirt campaign finance laws. Public employee unions threaten strikes if the state legislature or city council passes this or that reform bill. A huge chunk of the bureaucracy is subject to being replaced whenever the party in power changes. We euphemistically call it ‘patronage’. It doesn’t happen much at the national level but it’s rampant at the lower levels. There’s very little that’s outright illegal or per se corrupt but there’s plenty of ways to influence outcomes through undemocratic means. Outright bribery and quid pro quo corruption is relatively rare, for whatever it’s worth, but I wouldn’t nominate the US for being least corrupt either. At best, I’d say the US is anywhere from around the middle of the pack to on the high end on the corruption scale depending on how you weight various types of corruption.
It’s hard to make national comparisons, but from my personal observations, the USA is certainly pervasively corrupt. Not for any evil purpose, unless Capitalism is evil: it’s to avoid stupid regulations and promote good business.
I’m sorry that was a bit obtuse. The two ‘corrupt’ countries I am referring to are Russia and the Ukraine.
You overlook that, at least in America’s case, it’s been estimated that up to 90% of military assistance is actually spent in the USA – a massive boost to US manufacturing. Not saying that makes it all ok, just that it does rather adjust the ‘why are we helping those corrupt countries angle’. Moreover, I think many US powers-that-be consider it a bargain price for dismantling the Russian military/Putin regime (again, I make no claims as to the veracity of this prediction).
Totally agree.
Quite so. I think seven of the ten, and the entire top 5 manufacturers of weapons are American companies whose primary client is the US government and whose secondary clients are allies who have to be approved by the same. Populists opposing the Ukraine war are somewhat misguided in their isolationism because international conflict and economic nationalism go hand in hand, always have and always will. A new Cold War is just what the doctor ordered for America’s floundering industrial base, because everything that goes into American weapons won’t be ‘made in China’ anymore. America will use the excuse of ‘national security’ to do what the Chinese have unapologetically done for three decades, that is subsidize and quietly support the industries and companies that are deemed important to US’s geopolitical goals.
Still don’t think Ukraine should get into the EU, but if the Europeans are that stupid more power to them I guess. On the other hand, America using Ukraine to fight the Russians until the political cost becomes too great is a sound, albeit highly unethical, strategy.
Well it looks like that foolish plan is not working, the Russians are slowly winning and Putin is going nowhere
The Russian military is getting stronger
The MSM is nothing but lies
Yes I know Dom, you never said you believed the predictions
The one thing that the Russian military has always been good at is wars of attrition. They are uniquely able to fight these because the Russian leadership couldn’t care less if Russian soldiers die. That is not just a “Ukraine War” thing, it goes back right through the 2oth Century, and probably a lot longer.
Do you believe that if Russia is successful in Ukraine, it will stop there?
Then the region goes nuclear.
There is not way Poland, Sweden and Finland would accept Russia nuclear blackmail if support of USA is uncertain.
Maybe someone better informed could tell me, but how is it feasible to admit a country as a member of the EU when it is currently under partial occupation? A situation which seems unlikely to change in the foreseeable future given the reported stalemate on the ground.
It is completely and utterly absurd, driven by politics rather than any kind of common sense, belief in the final outcome actually being achieved and (I rather assume) regardless of what the applicable rules about this actually say.
It never ceases to amaze me how the EU can push agendas like this which go against clear voter sentiment right across the bloc…and then engage in mass hand-wringing about the backlash, growing EU-scepticism in hte polls and election results such as those returned in NL a few weeks ago.
This is just talk.
Nothing will happen.
Ukraine would have to meet many convergence criteria, which is unlikely for at least 20 years.
Admitting Ukraine would be economically too expensive, so with decision requiring agreement of all current members, it might never happen, whatever Brussels clowns are claiming now.
As far as I have read, no-one is considering admitting Ukraine to the EU until (long after) any conflict has been resolved.
Even opening membership negotiations with a country still mired in war is crazy.
Cyprus?
This is an exception with links between Greece and Cyprus going back centuries.
Even ignoring this, Cyprus is small, so much less costly to EU.
I don’t think partial occupation prevents country from EU membership at least in theory.
This principle only, officially, applies to NATO membership.
Wow, they’re really selling it to us, aren’t they?
No doubt member states will all be guilt-tripped into giving the green light for negotiations to begin with some kind of apocalyptic scenario bandied around for the event that the motion is blocked.
Even though starting negotiation isn’t any guarantee for membership (see: Turkey), it just strikes me as unbelievably disingenuous to start negotiations when the probability of achieving the end goal is so slim.
It may take a while, and cost a bit, but Ukraine’s future is with the West. To the extent that it has a “Russian” heritage, it needs to turn its back on that.
Being part of the West does not mean being a member of the EU.
The same kind of dynamic has developed with this EU membership discussion as with the open borders in 2015 and “lockdown as the only alternative” at the start of the pandemic…driven less by logic and rational consideration than by emotion and symbolism. It cannot end well.
This Russian heritage of Ukraine is just Putin propaganda.
There was never one Ukraine.
Poland and Lithuania ruled most of it.
Only in treaty of 1654 (or therebout), this region was partitioned between Poland and Russia along Dniepr river.
After Poland was in turned partitioned in 1792, Western Ukraine became part of Austrian Empire, known as Galicia. Then Polish again after 1918.
Russia only controlled Western Ukraine since 1944.
So much for Russia claims that Ukraine was always part of Greater Russia.
Presumably Poroshenko signed the EU’s Trade and Association Agreement in 2014, thus losing access to Russia’s cheap gas, as the EU refused to countenance Ukraine belonging to two separate trade agreements.
Hold on, this stuff about agricultural subsidies makes no sense.
Statement 1 : the EU will need to pay 70-90bn Euros in agricultural subsidies
Statement 2 : Easter European countries are currently trying to block agricultural imports from Ukraine since they undercut their domestic production costs
So why would Ukraine need subsidies ???
Or is it actually the case that EU subsidies *increase prices* rather than reduce them ? In which case, it’s a double excess cost for the EU taxpayer. But surely subsidies are intended to help producers lower prices to be more competitive – which Ukraine already is …
Furthermore, I’m not sure we can take German estimates of the cost here at face value – they have a vested interest in producing a large number in the hope this increases the chance they’ll never need to underwrite it.
I suppose the subsidies might be “required” for the other countries (i.e. everyone *except Ukraine*). As though they don’t have enough agricultural subsidies already … . In the mad world of the CAP, I suppose anthing’s possible. Only the Germans and French could blame the Ukrainians for being better at agricultural production and make out it’s somehow their fault … .
No, the consumer pays twice. Prices are set by the EU Commission at above market level, then the products receive subsidies . The same since de Gaulle fixed it in 1962 or thereabouts. Plus destroying surpluses, milk etc quotas.
My understanding of your 2nd point is that agreement between Ukraine and countries like Poland and Romania was that grain is destined for other markets and for sale in transit countries.
In practice crooks from both Poland and Ukraine were selling grain in Poland thus lowering market prices, leading to farmer protests and political fallout.
Some people claim that grain issue and abortion issue are two biggest factor in PiS loosing general election.
Suggesting EU membership to the Ukraine at this point in time would be another cruel deception for the Ukrainians, to add to “as long as it takes” and other lies.
Ukraine as it currently stands is about as far away from qualifying for membership as you can be. Even if the war ends tomorrow and there were a genuine political will in Ukraine to dismantle the corruption, the discrimination, and (re-)build a genuine democracy, it will take at least 10 years. Even if the population want it, the political landscape right now is not conducive.
Ukrainians deserve from us something we’ve refused to offer: honesty.
Romania was the first country to sign a T&A agreement, in 1994, and joined in 2007, under the wire I would say.
No wonder the EU want the UK back in €€€€€€…..
This must be one of the most stupid wars so far. All the leaders, on both sides, should be ashamed. I suspect even Mr Biden realises that now. I suspect Mr Biden is secretly relieved that the evil Republicans are preventing him from wasting a further $60B on weapons, to merely delay the inevitable negotiations. He can now blame his political rivals for him being unable to provide ‘as much money as it takes’.