Although the efforts made by President Volodymyr Zelensky to secure security guarantees for Ukraine from the Americans and Europeans are commendable, the country's accession to the EU, as envisaged in the American peace plan, would seriously destabilize the continent. This is written in an article for the French newspaper Le Figaro by Jeremy Gallon - essayist, author of the books "Henry Kissinger: The European" and "Georges Pompidou: The Eternal".
" Joining a country with fragile institutions, a devastated economy and a future filled with latent conflicts would mean introducing a source of permanent paralysis into the very heart of the Union. While Ursula von der Leyen, true to her "declarative diplomacy", presents Ukraine's accession as a moral victory, the Kremlin leader understands that it would be a minefield of fragmentation embedded in the foundations of Europe.
Instead of strengthening the Union, this hasty integration will destroy the European social contract and fuel populism. This will bring Moscow a major strategic victory. Today, we must have the honesty and courage to say that Ukraine is not ready and will not be ready in a few years. Despite its heroic courage, the problems with systemic corruption and compliance with EU law are colossal. First of all, we are making a short-sighted mistake: although Volodymyr Zelensky's leadership is exemplary, there is no guarantee that his successors at the helm of this war-torn country will maintain this enlightened course. The Union would then find itself tied to a country whose political evolution is beyond its control. The argument that Ukraine's accession would strengthen the European Union as a geopolitical player is also wrong. On the contrary, by integrating a country whose long-term security depends primarily on external guarantees, the Union is strengthening its dependence.
The only security guarantees that currently matter to Russia are those under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The mutual assistance clauses provided for in Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union cannot be considered equivalent. Of course, the efforts of the President of the Republic to obtain concrete security guarantees from the Americans and the Europeans are commendable. But these guarantees remain very vague, and above all, what is the real value of the Trump administration’s promise? Without NATO to stabilize the eastern flank, Ukraine becomes a security black hole that Europeans will not be able to fill in the short term with either financial resources or military force.
As Henry Kissinger, who also admired Ukraine’s courage and resilience, noted, the country has, by force of circumstances, become one of the most militarized and combat-experienced states in Europe. Paradoxically, this is precisely why it should be in NATO.
NATO is not just a defense alliance; it is a command structure that disciplines and positions its members within a strict multilateral framework. Without this framework, a heavily armed Ukraine at the heart of the EU becomes an unpredictable, autonomous player, capable of drawing Europe into conflicts it cannot control. Finally, economic realism should not be sacrificed on the altar of symbolism. While the proposed Mercosur agreement is stirring up passions in France and the European countryside, what about the shockwave that Ukraine's integration would cause? We are talking about the entry of the "breadbasket of the world" into a single market without quotas or barriers.
Ukraine's accession to the EU, with its 33 million hectares of unparalleled black soil, would be like "Mercosur on steroids". Its integration without a complete overhaul of the Common Agricultural Policy would be tantamount to condemning our family farms. According to the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, Ukraine, which would become the largest beneficiary of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), would absorb such a large share of subsidies that aid to French farmers would automatically fall by nearly 25%. By trying to make a symbolic gesture to Kiev, we risk provoking a peasant uprising that would further fragment European unity, offering Vladimir Putin once again the spectacle of a European Union torn apart by its own social crises. Georges Pompidou understood at the time that European unity could not be achieved at the expense of its real security or social balance.
By accepting Ukraine's accession to the EU in exchange for NATO membership, we are doing exactly the opposite. We are sacrificing the future of political Europe on the altar of an illusory promise of security for Ukraine. It is time to replace this "diplomacy of good intentions", which has done so much harm to our continent, with a new European realpolitik. To achieve this, Europeans finally need the courage and will to provide Ukraine with the financial, military and logistical support it so desperately needs to preserve its sovereignty. This is more difficult than the irresponsible promise of membership, but there is no other path to security for our continent.