Also: excellent moderation by Miriam Kosmehl!
@antjewiener.bsky.social :'The EU needs to change the way they treat Ukraine. We need to bring in diverse knowledge, learn from each other. The importance of security might be constitutive to a new European identity. The EU has to measure their own success through the integration of Ukraine'
@antjewiener.bsky.social stressed that āThe approach to enlargement has to change - on process and context. In the last round of EU enlargement, the West was working on a constitution, and the East was supposed to followā
Prof. Dirk Leuffen: āOn the accession, we have a demand side and a supply side - [ā¦] we will see long phases of getting Ukraine in, and some will have to pay the price to persuade those sceptical. [ā¦] Ukraine will have to pay with timeā
Prof. Frank Schimmelpfennig elaborates: āWhat we can expect is an even more differentiated integration when the countries [currently in the accession process] join.ā āOne way of working around integration issues might be to differentiate around rights and obligations.'
Bƶrzel: āThe accession perspectives gives hope, but Ukraine also needs security guarantees. We have to ask the question where that could come from.ā
Prof. Tanja Bƶrzel explained that āIt is not only about the accession capacity, but also the enlargement capacity of Ukraine. [ā¦] accession takes time: the requirements for membership make a lot of sense, and it is in Ukraines interest to be prepared to join the EU.ā
Prof. Markus Kotzur weighed that āthe European Union showed its pragmatic strengths and weaknesses at the same time.ā
Prof. Roman Petrov mentioned that āVictory over Viktor had a clear cost- monetarily, but I can also only wonder about sustainability and reliability. But I cross my fingers for the normative approachā.
