Exclusive
20
хв

Everything you need to know about how Ukraine will join the EU

Good news for Ukraine? There is a clear will to negotiate and Ukraine is not only a candidate country but has already embarked on the path, it is a European country, whose place is in the European Union - says Małgorzata Bonikowska, a politologist, doctor of sciences, president of the International relations centre, docent of the European centre of the Warsaw University

Mariia Gorska

Małgorzata Bonikowska. Photo: Piotr Kamionka/REPORTER

No items found.

Support Sestry

Even a small contribution to real journalism helps strengthen democracy. Join us, and together we will tell the world the inspiring stories of people fighting for freedom!

Donate

Mariia Gorska: On July 1st Ukraine began the negotiations on joining the EU. It is a unique case - a country resisting an aggressor is simultaneously going into the EU. As an expert on the European Commission in the 2000s and an employee of the Polish Committee for European Integration in the 1990s, how do you see this moment in Ukraine and Poland’s history?

Małgorzata Bonikowska: This is certainly a precedent. The EU has never faced such a situation before. None of the candidate countries have been in a state of open war. The Republic of Cyprus was the only country that joined while having problems at the borders.

But it was the war that led the EU, as a union of twenty-seven, to make decisions important to its history. Not only did it unequivocally condemn Russia and support the country that suffered from the attack and brutal invasion, but it also adopted more than a dozen packages of sanctions against Russia and introduced joint mechanisms of financial and military assistance to Ukraine.

This is also a precedent in the European Union - joint arms purchases from a common budget, the so-called «European Peace Facility». The EU has never engaged in this before.

This war has put the structures of the European Union into a state of shock. In response, certain measures have been taken that resulted in an expansion and a quick start of the negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova

Processes that could not be moved for years, if not decades, are now happening.

What are the main tasks for Ukraine during the negotiations?

While the war in Ukraine is an absolutely extraordinary situation, the process of negotiations about joining the EU is a standard procedure.

Poland, like other countries that joined the EU, went through this process. It involves a country that wants to join the European Union negotiating to adopt the entire legislative base and the main principles of the EU's functioning. Therefore, these are negotiations in which the position of the negotiating country is weak because, as a rule, this country still has to accept everything in the end.

The only question is how quickly and to what extent. The negotiations are based on clearly defined principles. There are 35 negotiation chapters concerning specific areas of state functioning, such as agriculture, environmental protection, education, the economy and healthcare. The negotiations concern how quickly and to what extent the country wishing to join the EU will adapt to the EU legislation and internal rules.

Transition periods are possible, meaning a slower adaptation. In exceptional cases, exemptions, known as derogations from EU rules, are possible. For example, Malta has additional guarantees against the purchase of property by citizens of other countries.

Working visit of the President of Ukraine to Brussels. Photo: www.president.ua

Where do the biggest problems lie in Ukraine’s case?

First and foremost, it is corruption - a massive problem. It concerns the whole functioning of the state in habits formed back in the Soviet time.

The organisation of the state largely relies on agreements and oligarchy, and society has become accustomed to this. Corruption, of course, exists everywhere to some small extent, including in the EU, but such cases are stigmatised. There is an apparatus to hold people accountable in such situations.

However, these are absolute exceptions and are unequivocally condemned. Upon joining the EU, Ukraine will need to adjust the functioning of its state, relying on strong institutions and transparent procedures.

How long can Ukraine's integration take, and is it realistic to implement changes during the war while simultaneously defending the country?

The EU understands that the war is an additional challenge that places a tremendous burden on the Ukrainian state.

At the same time, Ukraine receives significant military and financial assistance. Therefore, it is important that there is no doubt about where this aid is going and that it is not subject to corruption mechanisms. When we talk about the plan for Ukraine's reconstruction after the war, we think not only about where to get the funds, in what scale, and how to modernise the country, but also how to ensure these funds do not leak «to the side» into private hands.

This is important, and I believe that one of the methods is close cooperation with foreign advisors from EU countries, including Poland.

Before the start of negotiations, the President of Ukraine approved a delegation to take part in negotiating the joining with the EU that was comprised of government officials, diplomats and experts. How important is the composition of this group and what skills should these people have?

Negotiation group is a formal structure, created by the government of the country joining the EU.

Each negotiation area is headed by a deputy minister who coordinates the work of an entire team. This team comprises individuals with substantial knowledge of the areas of discussion. Usually, these are people appointed by the relevant ministries - ministry employees or external experts. Exactly these individuals, using their professional knowledge, must assess the implications of implementing EU norms in Ukraine and their impact on specific sectors. Their role is to analyze whether there is a need for delays or even deviations from EU rules, and if so, to what extent, as well as how to prepare the legal framework in your country for making the necessary changes.

Ukraine is subject to a screening process which involves analysing the entire legal situation for discrepancies, gaps in legislation, lack of regulations and the need for new ones. The negotiating team will provide recommendations on creating regulatory documents that will need to be submitted to the Ukrainian parliament. As a result of the negotiations, Ukraine's legal situation should closely align with the EU's legal framework, so that there are no discrepancies at the time of accession.

This concerns the «Acquis communautaire» legislation, meaning all the legal norms, directives and standards that member states must adhere to. At the same time, however, each country has the right to negotiate a longer implementation period for these rules in particularly challenging areas. In Poland's case, for example, this was environmental legislation, as it set requirements too high for our country's development stage at that time. We joined the EU in 2004, and the transition period lasted until 2017 because we understood that we could not implement all EU standards in this area faster.

The Ukrainian side together with the EU needs to identify such issues that pose clear difficulties and agree on an extended period for implementing EU norms in these areas.

According to expert estimates, negotiations with the EU typically take an average of 5-7 years. However, the war in Ukraine is accelerating Ukraine's path to the West. How long can the negotiation and accession process take in our case?

War and accession are two different things. The war makes the negotiations difficult for Ukraine, though it will not accelerate them but rather slow them down

This is because the EU is already a quite complex organisation, comprising 27 countries with significant differences among them, as well as in their political systems. The accession of each new country poses additional challenges. Therefore, the EU tries to prepare both itself and the acceding country for this moment, minimising the differences. The greater the differences, the greater the internal problems for the EU as a whole.

We cannot allow a situation where enlargement undermines the entire structure from within.

There are many concerns on the EU’s side regarding the next enlargement. We do not want to weaken but only strengthen our community. That is why negotiations with Ukraine will be long and complex. In Poland's case, they lasted five years, and in Spain's case - nearly eight, while Greece had shorter negotiations (four years and five months, - Edit.).

Ukraine is a large and populous country. A large country means large problems. Look at the situation in agriculture and the conflict between Poland and Ukraine over grain. There will be more such situations in many other areas. Even without the war, there are many challenges between Ukraine and the EU, so negotiations will not be easy, and the moment of Ukraine's accession to the EU will be challenging for both sides.

Zaporizhia Oblast, Ukraine, June 29th 2024. A man scatters winter wheat in a truck on a field during harvest. Photo: Dmytro Smolienko/Ukrinform/East News

What is the good news for Ukraine?

The good news is that there is a clear will to negotiate and that Ukraine is not only a candidate country but has already embarked on the path, with all twenty-seven EU member states convinced that Ukraine is a European country that must one day be a member of the European Union.

This is very good news for Ukraine. A few years ago, this prospect did not exist. Today, it is a reality materialising before our eyes.

What demands will Poland have in the negotiations with Ukraine? What will prevail - partnership or competition?

Ukraine is negotiating not with individual countries but with the European Commission.

The process is managed by the European Commission and the Directorate-General for Enlargement, which negotiates on behalf of all member states. The main idea is that the EU wants to expand and eventually accept Ukraine.

However, EU countries have different approaches to specific issues related to Ukraine's accession, depending on their own situations. There are countries where agriculture is a crucial aspect of the economy and is strong, such as Poland, France, and Italy, and there are those where agriculture is marginal, like Luxembourg.

Therefore, challenges like the ones posed by Ukrainian agriculture to the EU are crucial for some countries and less important for others. The same applies to other sectors.

Each member state analyses this through its own lens and provides the European Commission with specific comments and proposals regarding their preferences or concerns. It involves preserving the interests and positions of certain sectors and groups - entrepreneurs, farmers, the financial industry, the automotive industry - both in the EU and in Ukraine. Therefore, it is a process of reconciling very narrow details and specific technical issues.

In some respects, the negotiation process may seem like a step back for Ukraine. Due to the war, Ukraine suddenly became part of the European market at an accelerated pace, as the EU decided to help the Ukrainian economy by removing trade barriers. However, this was a temporary measure, driven by the Russian invasion and the desire to ensure Ukraine's survival.

Meanwhile, the war drags on, and we are facing a precedent where a country that is not in the EU has de-facto gained the same prerogatives that member-states have

This also applies to work permits and the free movement of people. During its negotiations with the EU, Poland particularly struggled with this issue, and we were unable to obtain the ability to freely operate in the European labour market from the first day of membership.

The only two countries that allowed us this opportunity at the time were the United Kingdom (which was then in the EU) and Ireland. All other EU countries imposed a seven-year transition period, meaning Poles could not work in EU countries without additional permits and procedures related to their employment.

Ukrainians, due to the war, have been granted the ability to move and work freely. In Poland, they receive a PESEL number, which means they can legally work, pay taxes, and, importantly, do not need to obtain any additional permits.

This would not have happened if it were not for the war.

NATO Summit. Photo: www.president.ua

How can Poland help Ukraine during the negotiations?

I believe Poland can do two things for Ukraine. First, we have gone through a similar process, so we have fresh practical experience to share. We negotiated our EU accession from 1998 to 2003. The people involved in this process are still active today. They can be asked for consultations, for example, as advisors to the Ukrainian government, to make the process as professional and efficient as possible.

Second, Poland, clearly interested in Ukraine's EU membership, can act as a bridge for Ukraine. Not all EU countries have such a clear vision of the future EU with Ukraine inside. There is a will, but some countries have significant reservations about how Ukraine functions and what it truly offers.

For example, Germany has many doubts. So today, Poland can play the role of a bridge, also connecting the cultural and historical closeness of our peoples. We can fulfil a similar role to the one Germany played for Poland in the late 1990s.

They wanted expansion and helped Western Europe not only recognise its inevitability but also see the benefits. Today, Poland can do the same for Ukraine.

What are the main lessons or advice you would give to Ukraine based on the Polish experience?

First and foremost, Ukraine needs to understand that everyone sympathises with it regarding the war. War is a terrible thing. But negotiations are different. Despite Ukraine's resistance to Russia, it will not receive special preferential treatment in the negotiations. It must become an EU member and accept the rules of this organisation.

Ukrainians have become very demanding. They feel they deserve everything because they are at war. This mindset is highly undesirable in negotiations. Ukraine must understand that it is joining a pool of countries that have agreed on a certain way of functioning, and excessive pressure and a lack of compromise will only lead to one thing - prolonging the negotiations.

The quick path to Ukraine's victory is joining NATO. However, the latest summit showed that NATO countries are not ready to offer Ukraine membership now. What should our actions be, and what are the prospects?

Firstly, continue fighting. Ukraine must withstand. No one knows how long - one year, two years - how long it will take. As long as the war in Ukraine continues, NATO will not accept Ukraine because the Alliance itself would be in a state of war.

After the end of the war, Ukraine’s situation will change - the Ukrainian army will be very experienced in combat and will be able to train the armies of the member-states itself. Accession to NATO will definitely be a step that will strengthen the Alliance.

We do not know how events will unfold in the United States and who will win the elections. However, an important part of thinking about Ukraine's future will be considerations about ending the war.

While Ukraine fights, Europe must remilitarise at an accelerated pace to provide Ukraine with enhanced assistance. Everyone here is racing against time, but not only us - Russia too. Look at the impact of sanctions - they have already led to Gazprom having negative financial results, meaning Russia's monetary resources for waging war are slowly running out. The faster their economy declines, the fewer funds Putin will have to finance the war, and the sooner it will end.

At some point, Russia will realise that it is not going to win this war and will come to the negotiating table. Otherwise, the negotiations will boil down to demands for Russia to retain the occupied territories and for Ukraine to be recognised as a buffer zone between Russia and NATO.

This situation is unacceptable for Ukraine and for the West.

Working visit of the President of Ukraine to Britain. Photo: www.president.ua

Countries from the so-called axis of evil, along with some countries from the Global South, are helping Russia survive despite sanctions. How do we deal with this?

This is a matter of Western diplomacy, but the news is not so bad here. Look, in our camp, we have Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea.

Regarding other countries, we must negotiate and cooperate. Indeed, Russia is not alone and has its friends, allies, and countries it communicates with. But these are not always countries hostile to the West. These are often neutral countries or even partners of the West, like, for example, India.

Recently, we saw photographs of Prime Minister Narendra Modi visiting Putin. From India's perspective, this meeting was desirable, but the West perceived it negatively. Europe and the USA must be very active in the countries of the Global South. Not only transmitting our narrative and our vision of the war but also putting concrete proposals on the table that are more attractive to these countries than what comes from Russia.

Russia does not have much to offer, only cheap energy resources and weapons. We can provide a better offer.

In 5-10 years, what Europe will we live in?

It depends on us and our decisions, as well as whether we will yield to the pressure we are put under. Europeans are not used to living under constant threat.

After World War II, Europe, not having war on its territory, became accustomed to the idea that economic issues are the most important and that there are no other threats.

Now, Europeans live in constant stress - economic inequality disappoints people, and the international situation causes fear. Suddenly, it turned out that Russia, which seemed like a normal country, is not. All this is a kind of foundation for anxiety, disappointment, protests, and anarchic behaviour, and all this means that we can be internally destabilised.

Europe has found itself in between two polarities. One - is inner anxiety and disappointment because of the inner and outer instability. Second - the desire to assemble and work together

Which path will prevail and what does it depend on, while Europe is still at a crossroads?

I think people will not want to go back to the past and live worse. Our world is shaped by values, but also by the way of life and certain habits we have - for example, moving freely, living a safe, prosperous life, being together and cooperating in situations of increased threat.

We are going through tough times, and they require the implementation of cooperation mechanisms within the EU and across the entire European continent.

A lot depends on the leaders here. I see hope in the fact that in democracies, there are not just one, three, or five heads, but many, many people who have good ideas. This is much more powerful than the principle of action in authoritarian systems, where everything is decided by the leader and his will.

We can count on many wise heads and many wise concepts. We are already doing this, all because the war in Ukraine has accelerated certain processes. We see significant internal changes in the European Union. NATO expansion is ongoing, the EU enlargement process has begun, the coordination of the EU's military industry has been strengthened, and a Commissioner for Defense has been appointed.

Ukraine is our catalyst for positive change. Europeans have always emerged from crises stronger.

No items found.
Р Е К Л А М А
Join the newsletter
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Chief Editor of the online magazine Sestry. Media expert, TV host, cultural manager. Ukrainian journalist, program director of the TV channel Espresso, organiser of international cultural events significant for Polish-Ukrainian dialogue, including the Vincenz projects in Ukraine. She was the chief editor of prime-time celebrity lifestyle shows aired on STB, 1+1, TET, and Novyi Kanal TV channels. Since 2013, she has been a journalist at the Espresso TV channel, hosting the programs «Week with Maria Gurska» and «Saturday Political Club» with Vitaliy Portnikov. Since February 24, 2022, she has been a host of the wartime TV marathon on Espresso. She is temporarily residing in Warsaw, where she has actively joined initiatives to support Ukrainian temporary migrants in the EU - launching the publication Sestry with a team of Polish and Ukrainian journalists.

Support Sestry

Nothing survives without words.
Together, we carry voices that must be heard.

Donate

The West had all the tools to foresee Russia's war against Ukraine - and chose to ignore them. Even before 2014, analysis reached NATO's highest offices: the annexation of Crimea, the threat to Mariupol, the Russian Federation's dominance in the Black Sea. The forecasts were accurate, but most member states opted for the illusion of partnership with the Kremlin.

Are changes still possible? What is required to achieve them? And can NATO remain an effective security alliance in a new era of threats? These and other questions were addressed in an interview with Sestry by Dr Stefanie Babst - one of the most influential security strategists in Europe, who worked at NATO for over 20 years, including as Head of the Strategic Foresight Team. Today, she is an independent analyst, the author of a book on the West's «blind spots» in its strategy toward Russia, and an active participant in international discussions on war, peace and security.

Ukraine, Russia and the strategic miscalculations of the West

Maryna Stepanenko: You led NATO's Strategic Foresight Team. How do you assess the West's ability to foresee Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine? Were there signals that were simply not heard, or perhaps deliberately ignored?

Stefanie Babst: There were many warnings that went unheeded. Allow me to explain. In international relations, it is crucial to accurately assess the mindset, capabilities and intentions of another actor. NATO failed to do this with Russia. As the Head of Strategic Foresight at the Alliance, I issued the first serious warning in 2013 - a few months before the annexation of Crimea. I presented an analysis outlining Russia's malicious intentions and its military preparations against Ukraine.

It was reviewed by the Secretary General and discussed with member states, but no action was taken

Some countries - the Baltic States and Poland - took the analysis seriously. Others - notably Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom - preferred to maintain the NATO-Russia partnership. From 2014 onwards, we intensified our analysis, forecasting actions such as the seizure of Mariupol, dominance in the Black Sea and the use of Donbas as a staging ground. These forecasts were presented at the highest levels, including the NATO Council, but were ultimately dismissed.

In 2015 and 2016, we broadened our focus to include China and its ties with Russia, offering future scenarios and forecasting so-called «black swans» - high-impact events that are hard to predict, seem unlikely but could have serious consequences if they occur. Again, many perceived this only as «intellectual exercises». Thus, NATO possessed the tools of foresight - and chose to ignore them. And that comes at a very high cost.

In your work, you call for a review of the West's strategy toward Russia. In your view, what «blind spots» remain in Western approaches - particularly regarding support for Ukraine?

Three years ago, I called for a powerful, multifaceted deterrence strategy to help Ukraine not just freeze the war but win it. I invoked George Kennan's Cold War approach, urging the use of all available instruments - economic, diplomatic and military - to push Russia out of Ukraine. But apart from some Baltic and Northern European countries, no one took this seriously.

NATO and the EU still lack a defined end goal. If Ukraine's victory were the objective, a corresponding strategy would have been developed

Instead, Western leaders underestimated Ukraine's resilience and failed to act decisively even after Russia crossed countless red lines. President Biden, despite his commitment to Ukraine, framed his approach around what the United States would not do: we will not provoke Russia, we will not give Ukrainians long-range weapons, we will not do this or that. This is not a strategy. Now, with Trump’s return, many European governments are passively hoping for a US-Russian agreement that merely freezes the war - something I believe is dangerous both for Ukraine and Europe.

My main criticism is the lack of political will in the West. Too many still see this as Russia's war against Ukrainians. But it is our war too

Stefanie, why do you think Europe failed to prepare effectively for Trump’s presidency?

Planning within NATO and European governments is often difficult, as politicians typically focus on short-term goals, usually only a month ahead. In times of emergency, particularly due to Washington's unpredictability, Europe must abandon crisis management mode and stop reacting to every event, such as a new tweet.

Europe must be firm with the United States, clearly communicating that their actions - including threats to countries like Canada and Denmark, withholding intelligence from Ukraine and halting cyber operations against Russia - are unacceptable. These decisions had deadly consequences, and member states should not be afraid to hold the United States accountable for violating the fundamental principles of the Washington Treaty.

Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary General, recently visited Florida to meet President Trump, hoping to impress him with defence spending figures. He praised Trump’s leadership and even claimed that Trump had «broken the deadlock» in relations with Russia. However, this is detached from the reality of ongoing Russian attacks.

If the NATO Secretary General lacks a clear message, the best approach is silence, focusing on supporting member states and protecting them from any threat. We do not have time for empty words and political games.

Europeans must remain immune to American political theatre, focusing on strengthening defence capability and supporting Ukraine’s defence industry so it can resist Russian aggression
Rutte: NATO wants to make Ukraine a strong state. Photo: Office of the President of Ukraine

Migration and war

Germany is no longer the EU leader in asylum requests from South American and Middle Eastern refugees. At the same time, in the first quarter of 2025, applications from Ukrainians rose by 84 per cent. What does this indicate?

It is entirely understandable that many Ukrainians have chosen to leave their country for personal and professional reasons - this is natural, and no one should be blamed for it. But this migration has political consequences in Germany, particularly when far-right parties exploit it by portraying Ukrainian refugees as a burden on the social system, regardless of their skills or motivation. These sentiments are especially strong in eastern Germany, where parties like AfD and certain left-wing populist movements have gained support.

What concerns me is the lack of strong counteraction from the federal government in Berlin - clearer messaging and political leadership are needed

If more Ukrainians arrive, I hope the next government will take a positive stance, recognising that many of them can significantly contribute to the German workforce. This would mean reducing bureaucracy, accelerating integration and facilitating their employment. Whether this happens remains to be seen.

Continuing on this topic, in recent weeks, some districts in Germany have publicly declared that they can no longer accommodate Ukrainian refugees due to overburdened social systems. How do you assess these sentiments?

It is true that local communities across Germany still face difficulties in accommodating refugees - an issue that arose after Chancellor Merkel’s decision to open the borders, leading to a large influx of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and other countries. Many municipalities remain overwhelmed by demands for housing, language training and integration support. However, Ukrainian refugees do not pose the same challenges.

Ukrainians generally integrate well, bring strong skills and education and do not contribute to social tensions

In contrast, some refugees from the Middle East struggle to adapt to liberal democratic norms, which fuels far-right narratives, particularly in eastern Germany. Parties like AfD and figures such as Sahra Wagenknecht exploit this, promoting anti-Ukrainian, pro-concession rhetoric that ignores the reality of Russian occupation.

Unfortunately, mainstream democratic parties are not doing enough to push them back. With growing support from American right-wing populists, such as those connected to Trump or Musk, this polarisation may deepen further, posing a serious threat to democratic cohesion in Europe.

Europe on the brink of war

Amid full-scale war in Ukraine, initiatives have emerged in Poland and Germany to prepare schoolchildren for emergencies. Does this indicate a deeper shift in Europe's security culture, where defence is no longer solely the army's responsibility, but that of the entire society?

Although some defence-related courses have begun in Germany, they remain insufficient, and the wider public remains largely unprepared - both mentally and physically - to play a defensive role.

Serious debates are now underway about reinstating military conscription, but surveys show that two-thirds of people aged 20 to 30 would refuse to serve, with many saying they would rather emigrate than defend the country.

This reflects a deeper issue: decades of political messaging have conditioned Germans to believe they live in peace, surrounded by allies, and need not prepare for conflict

As a result, Germany also lacks bunkers for emergencies, civil defence training and basic resilience measures for the population. Changing this mindset will require strong political leadership. Without it, the Bundeswehr will remain under-equipped and unable to contribute significantly to efforts such as a potential coalition in Ukraine.

We see civil defence becoming part of public policy, from educating children to testing alarm systems. Is Europe beginning to think seriously about its own resilience in the face of potential escalation beyond Ukraine?

Undoubtedly. Some countries, such as Finland, Sweden, Poland and the Baltic States, have prioritised both military capability and societal resilience in recent years. In cities such as Riga and Warsaw, the Russian threat is well understood. However, countries like Germany, Belgium, Portugal, France and others still view Russia’s war against Ukraine as a regional issue.

Fortunately, leaders such as Kaja Kallas are advocating for a long-term strategy against Russia. Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, I have argued that we must prepare for a protracted conflict, as long as Putin’s regime remains in power, Russia will continue to pose a threat to Ukraine and the whole of Europe.

Strategic vision

Given your views on NATO's evolution and the need for a new coalition, potentially the so-called «coalition of the willing», how do you envisage its structure? What strategic or institutional frameworks will be important to effectively counter Russian aggression, considering internal challenges within NATO, particularly due to the influence of populist leaders, including Trump?

During my time at NATO, I was proud of my team’s ability to anticipate challenges before they emerged, especially regarding NATO’s enlargement. I was actively involved in the admission of new members, including the Baltic States, Slovenia and Slovakia.

One of the moments I had hoped to witness was seeing Ukraine’s flag at NATO headquarters, but I no longer believe that is a realistic goal

Instead, I believe Ukraine should focus on building a new coalition with like-minded countries, rather than pursuing NATO membership. The Alliance, particularly under the influence of destructive politics, is becoming increasingly divided.

If I were advising President Zelensky, I would recommend not wasting energy on NATO accession but rather focusing on strengthening a broader, more flexible alliance to counter Russian aggression. This would allow us to move beyond the status quo and prepare for the future.

Considering the current dynamics within NATO, how long do you think the Alliance can maintain its current structure before significant changes become inevitable? Do you have a timeframe in mind?

When President Trump was elected, I predicted he would undermine the rules-based order, and we are already seeing significant damage done to NATO, especially concerning the US commitments. European countries have started discussing enhancing the European pillar within NATO, planning to prepare for a potential US withdrawal within five to ten years. However, I believe that timeframe is overly optimistic - we may have only five to ten months before we witness new disruptions.

What lies ahead for NATO? Photo: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI

Looking back, it is clear NATO missed the opportunity to prepare for these challenges. In 2016, I prepared a document for the Secretary General outlining potential harm Trump could cause, but it was dismissed at the time. The issues I raised remain relevant today, and NATO's bureaucracy is too risk-averse to plan for unforeseen scenarios.

If the Alliance fails to act, it risks becoming a reactive organisation that merely responds to Trump’s tweets instead of proactively working toward the future

I hope that countries such as France, the United Kingdom and Northern European states will cooperate with Ukraine to create a new joint alliance capable of better confronting future challenges.

Cover photo: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/East News

This project is co-financed by the Polish-American Freedom Foundation under the «Support Ukraine» programme, implemented by the Education for Democracy Foundation

20
хв

Former NATO strategist Stefanie Babst: «We predicted Donbas, Mariupol and the Black Sea - but they would not listen»

Maryna Stepanenko
subway, people, air alarm

<frame>"More knowledge, less fear" is the slogan of our new publication series. Safety is based on facts, verified information, and solid arguments. The more we know, the better we will be prepared for the future. <frame>

Is Poland ready for a crisis? In an era of geopolitical uncertainty, the war in Ukraine, and rising tensions across Europe, education and societal organisation are crucial. By welcoming over a million Ukrainian refugees, Poland has not only gained new residents but also unique knowledge and experience from people who have learned civil protection under the harshest conditions—under bombs and rocket fire. This is capital that must not be wasted. 

The new law on civil protection and civil defence, in force since January 1, is a concrete response to real threats. At the same time, it offers an opportunity for deeper integration, allowing Poles and Ukrainians living in Poland to prepare together for crises. 

Poland has learned from the tragic events of recent years. The new law emphasises three key areas: modernising and constructing shelters and hiding places, improving alarm and notification systems, and launching widespread civic education to ensure every citizen has basic knowledge of how to act during a crisis. The context of the war in Ukraine makes this even more urgent.

Many Ukrainians living in Poland have priceless experience in civil protection - whether as survivors, organisers, or leaders of evacuation and shelter operations.

This is an opportunity Poland must not miss. When war strikes, no system is ever fully ready. What matters then is how effectively we can use what we already have.

What can serve as a shelter? A practical approach to civil protection begins with this question. Knowledge—that is our first "shelter"!

April 19, 2024 - Children entering a bomb shelter at the Perspectiva Gymnasium in Novovasylivka, Zaporizhzhia region, where classes are held in a hybrid format. Photo: Ukrinform/East News/Dmytro Smolienko

According to the new law, every basement, underground garage, or tunnel can serve as a hiding place. It’s worth taking a moment to look around and ask yourself, "What would I do in case of danger?" 

It’s better to know in advance than to scramble during chaos. 

Here, the experience of Ukrainians in Poland becomes invaluable. Those who have survived bomb alerts can share practical knowledge with Poles, including how to organise life in shelters, secure water and food supplies, address the psychological aspects of survival, and utilise mobile alert apps that have become critical tools in Ukraine. This is not theory. These are real-life experiences from people who face the consequences of war every single day.
Their testimony is more valuable than any textbook could be. 

Education in this field is the key to safety. Poland must harness the knowledge of Ukrainians and launch a wide educational campaign as soon as possible. 
According to the new law, local governments and fire services will play a central role in civil protection. However, in practice, the system will only function effectively if hundreds of thousands of people are involved. 

Ukrainians who have faced real threats can become instructors, educators, and leaders of this change. NGOS are already playing a significant role in organising training for both Ukrainians and Poles. 

This will benefit everyone. Polish municipalities urgently need practitioners who understand the realities of crises.

Every citizen on the front lines.

The new law places local governments in charge of implementing the civil protection system, meaning the battle for the effectiveness of this law will be fought where Poles and Ukrainians live nearby. It is essential to acknowledge that women played a vital role in Ukraine’s civil protection efforts, from rescue workers and volunteers to leaders of humanitarian organisations. They ensured survival amid chaos. 

In Poland, too, women can become the driving force behind such changes, joining local governments, NGOS, and educational teams. 

Is Poland ready for a crisis and civil protection?

Poland is better prepared today than it was a few years ago. The new law represents a significant step forward, but infrastructure alone will not be sufficient.

What will truly matter is the genuine engagement of citizens in education and crisis response, the effective application of Ukrainian experience, and practical cooperation among local governments, NGOS, and the central government.

Today, Poland is in a better situation than a few years ago. The new law is an important step, but one infrastructure is not enough. The real involvement of citizens in training and the elimination of the consequences of emergencies, the wise use of Ukrainians' experience and effective cooperation between local governments, organizations and the government will be crucial.

April 1, 2024 – Zaporizhzhia. Two workers in a new modular underground bomb shelter for 100 people, being built in the courtyard of a five-story residential building damaged by a Russian S-300 missile on October 6, 2022, now under repair. Photo: Ukrinform/East News/Dmytro Smolienko 

This isn’t a Hollywood disaster movie scenario. It’s reality—a reality we must understand and prepare for.  In the 21st century, security isn’t just about armies; it’s about conscious, organised societies. And building them starts with education—education based on facts, not fearmongering. 

Security is our shared responsibility.

It’s not just the domain of the state. It’s not something the government can "provide" like a service.  It’s something we build and give to each other.  Of course, institutions, regulations, alarm systems, and shelters are vital. But what truly determines survival during a crisis is people—their relationships, willingness to help, ability to act under stress, and the awareness that, in challenging moments, we are not alone. 
Every one of us is part of the security system—from the teacher who teaches first aid, to the neighbour who knows the nearest shelter location, to the volunteer who helps newly arrived refugees adjust to a new reality. 

The strength of a nation lies in the strength of its society—and society is strong when its members know they can count on one another. 

In the past, those who realised that the best defence wasn’t walls or bunkers, but well-prepared, united people, were the ones who prevailed.  In Ukraine, social mobilisation saved thousands of lives.  In Poland, we have a chance to learn from this experience before a crisis forces us to.

20
хв

Knowledge is our first shelter

Julia Boguslavska

You may be interested in ...

No items found.

Contact the editors

We are here to listen and collaborate with our community. Contact our editors if you have any questions, suggestions, or interesting ideas for articles.

Write to us
Article in progress