Why EU report pleasantly surprised Ukraine and what mistakes still need to be addressed
The European Commission’s conclusions on Ukraine turned out to be unexpectedly optimistic.
The report rated Ukraine’s actions better than in any of the past three years since it joined the enlargement package. For the first time, European bureaucrats did not identify a single negotiation chapter where Ukraine had failed to make progress in meeting the accession requirements. The number of areas in which Ukraine shows "good progress" is higher than ever before.
Still, it would be a mistake to believe the EU issued no critiques or expectations.
Read more about what the European Commission’s report says about Ukraine in the article by Sergiy Sydorenko, European Pravda's editor: Ukraine warned but not punished: EU report assesses reforms and failures, setting the bar for Kyiv.
Ukraine achieved a personal best this year.
If we also pay attention to the economic criterion and public administration reform (which are not separate negotiation chapters but are of great importance to the EU), Ukraine received a "good progress in reforms" rating in 13 areas – about one-third of all indicators assessed by the EU for a candidate country.
But there are also several caveats.
In reality, the report acknowledges that Brussels sees both Ukraine’s progress in fighting corruption and the fact that there are still actors within the country trying to undermine these efforts.
The report also referred to criminal proceedings initiated against NABU officers by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) actions that, in the EU’s view, have become systemic enough to warrant inclusion in the report. The Commission added that it does not consider this issue closed even after the repeal of the controversial July laws.
"Undue pressure on anti-corruption agencies remains a matter of concern," the report reads.
So how did it happen that, despite this criticism, Ukraine still received a better assessment than many expected?
The answer lies in the fact that, beyond the pressure on NABU, numerous other positive developments occurred over the year, which outweighed the negatives.
Moreover, the report repeatedly emphasises that "the independence of NABU and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) was swiftly restored following internal protests and serious concern from international partners."
Additionally, the EU values the fact that NABU and SAPO investigations frequently produce tangible results, demonstrating that the fight against corruption continues and not merely on paper.
Among other politically significant aspects of the report is the section dealing with the media sphere.
The European Commission set a deadline for how long the newscast may continue in its current form.
"The reassessment of the publicly funded Telethon should take place at the latest by the time of the eventual suspension of martial law," the report stated, reminding the authorities that surveys already show declining public trust in the joint newscast.
However, there are also many other requirements that Brussels expects Kyiv to fulfil and indeed, there are quite a few of them.
In this context, particular attention should be paid to the judicial reform requirements.
Brussels has effectively ended the debate over whether "international experts" are needed in selection commissions. The answer is yes, they are essential, as this is an explicit requirement in the Enlargement Report, at least concerning two commissions within the justice block (which holds exceptional importance for the EU).
Additionally, in this same section, the European Commission reiterated its demand to repeal the "Lozovyi amendments", to fill the remaining vacancies in the Constitutional Court, and, notably, introduced a new requirement: to establish a competitive selection procedure for the position of Prosecutor General.