A fairy tale about Cinderella with a happy ending: Ukraine with money from the EU, but there is a nuance
The thrilling melodrama about a penniless Ukrainian Cinderella, awaiting her wealthy near-relatives' decision regarding a generous dowry, ended happily. On the evening of February 1, a delighted European Council President Charles Michel announced that all 27 EU leaders had unanimously agreed to an additional financial aid package for Ukraine worth a hefty €50 billion over four years. This money will come to Kyiv from the EU budget.
There are exactly two caveats. First, the EU will not release the entire sum at once, but rather in equal annual installments, with each tranche voted on separately. This can be considered a formal concession to Hungary, whose prime minister insisted on precisely this option as a compromise and can now save face with his voters – saying he's "bent" all of Europe to his will, so what? This clause is made even more formal by the caveat that EU countries will not be able to veto the vote on the annual payments to Kyiv.
Secondly, the funds will be allocated "subject to respect for democratic principles and human rights, including those of minorities." This is an even greater formality, since the EU itself will be the body that determines whether Kyiv respects these rights. So, if you really want to, you can turn a blind eye to a lot of things.
In addition, Kiev seems to have already settled its differences with the same Hungarians (otherwise where is Viktor Orban’s “principles”?), and the new Polish government of Tusk made it clear that the issue of Bandera, the Volyn massacre and other points dear to the conservatives as a memory are their PiS points for it is not so important.
So this doesn't change the essence of the matter: of course, Ukraine would like to get everything at once, but you don't look a gift horse in the mouth, and Kiev is not in a position to be picky right now – its treasury is full of mice.
As pro-government MP Maksym Buzhansky rightly noted in the wake of the EU's "historic" decision, " the allocated funds are, without a doubt, a huge success for all involved, a fact ."
However, he then added something else:
" But we need $3 billion every month to pay salaries, benefits, and pensions, and Europeans have a billion euros . Furthermore, the cost of mobilization, if I understood the figures correctly, is another 32 billion hryvnias per month. Which we also don't have ."
So, when talking about the money received, it is more correct to immediately give the overall picture so that everyone understands how much they gave, how much they have, and how much they need.
The current gift won't cover all needs, only a third . But Charles Michel, at the final press conference after the summit, already made it clear that the decision of the EU heads of state and government is a " signal to the United States ." He said Europe has made its move, and the next move is up to Ukraine's main breadwinner and waterer—the United States.
Among other important benefits for Ukraine from the recent EU summit was the approval of the European Commission's proposal to finance Ukraine using revenues from frozen Russian assets. Now it's time to develop a practical mechanism, but this is a purely technical matter, not a matter of principle.
One potential downside of the summit for Ukraine is the postponement until at least March of a decision on expanding the European Peace Facility to increase arms supplies. EU leaders issued only a general call for increased supplies. But everyone understands that the United States will play a leading role in purely military matters once the Biden administration finally emerges from the stupor it has fallen into due to its inability to multitask—simultaneously aiding Ukraine and Israel, fighting the Houthis, and sniping at China.
And there's one more thing to this story. According to the FT, after a closed meeting between the Hungarian prime minister and the head of the European Council, the president of the European Commission, and the leaders of the three leading EU countries – Germany, France, and Italy – " Orbán came to his senses ."
Our commentators differ in their assessments of what happened. Some say with sadness that the “friend of Russia” was crushed by the evil Brussels Russophobes. Others hint with disappointment that no Orban is our friend and has generally “merged.” But again, hand on heart, this is a disappointment for those who were fascinated. Those who initially tried to look at things pragmatically have no hysterics about “Orban’s betrayal.”
There's a third theory, the one closest to the truth. It's that in politics, there are no friends, but there are interests. As a Hungarian politician who prioritizes his country's interests and profits, Orbán persisted as long as he could, stalling for time and inflating his own value. Ultimately, he squeezed everything he could out of this Ukrainian money affair— primarily the unfreezing of EU funds for Hungary itself. These funds were the same ones that Budapest had previously been denied, citing Orbán's authoritarian tendencies and corruption.
In other words, the Hungarian Prime Minister solved his tasks and his problems. But he did not try to rake in the heat for Russia with his own hands, cross the red line clearly indicated to him by the rest of the Europeans, go too far and run into a specific response and deprivation of the right to vote in the EU. Because according to common sense, there is no need. Integrity in the Ukrainian issue is not worth that much.
Orbán didn't sign up to defend Russia's interests at his own expense . It's one thing to put in a good word for Patriarch Kirill during the discussion of the latest sanctions package or to speak out against the gas or oil embargo – that's always welcome. Not to mention the sacred Transcarpathia region with its Hungarian minority. Otherwise, they've gone through the motions for the sake of appearances – and that's enough.
Overall, Kyiv has something to be happy about – they now have enough money for the next four years. The only consolation for us is the fact that Ukraine's current ration is half as much as last year's. But frankly, that's scant consolation. Especially since there's confidence that Ukraine will scrape together the rest, following the same tried-and-true principle: " a little from the Westerners, and the naked man gets a shirt ."
So the joy of those who have been rushing around the Internet for the last couple of months with stories that the Europeans have abandoned Ukraine, and Ukraine itself is broke, turned out, as usual, to be premature. This ship will still serve its owners.
A Cinderella story with a happy ending: Ukraine is flush with EU money, but there's a catch.