• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "authors": [
    "Thomas de Waal"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Russia",
    "Eastern Europe",
    "Ukraine"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary
Carnegie Europe

Ukraine: Could It Have Been Different?

In the run-up to the Vilnius summit, the EU could have played its hand better and could have gone the extra mile with Moscow to demonstrate to Russia and the world its good intentions.

Link Copied
By Thomas de Waal
Published on Nov 27, 2013

This week’s European Union’s Vilnius summit will have a big Ukraine-sized hole in it and lingering regrets of what might have been. The Ukrainians will be there, but they will not initial an Association Agreement with the EU.

There is much anguish in both Brussels and Kiev about what went wrong and it is worth asking, “Could it have been otherwise?”

On the Ukrainian side, the answer is a definite yes. Viktor Yanukovych tried to play a balancing game with Moscow and Brussels in order to bargain a better deal out of both. But last week, he evidently made a pure economic calculation: his own monopolistic system could survive without a European deal but could not withstand Russian pressure.

A different leader with different priorities would surely have made a different decision.

Could Brussels have played its hand better? The EU had certainly upped its game with the Eastern Partnership, strengthening what had initially been a rather weak project.

The new differentiated approach of “more for more” which made clear distinctions between what was on offer for the different six countries, clearly incentivized Georgia and Moldova in particular into moving ahead.

On offer were “three Ms” of “money, markets, and mobility” if they agreed to Europeanizing reforms. The flaw in the Eastern Partnership is of course that it does not contain any promise of a fourth “M,” prospective membership, the carrot that worked wonders with the post-Communist countries of Central Europe and the Balkans. But it seems that some major EU powers, notably France, balk at giving six new neighbors that perspective.

The biggest “what if” is if Brussels could have played it any differently with Moscow. Not in the sense of accommodating any of Russia’s demands or watering down the deal on offer, but in doing better diplomacy with Moscow.

Last week’s events were chiefly, of course, a power-play by Vladimir Putin. But Russians also had genuine anxieties about how an EU free trade deal with Kiev would impact their own trading relationship with Ukraine, as well as more visceral feelings that their closest Slavic cousin was being taken from them.

Unfortunately, Brussels is better at writing trade agreements than at deft political diplomacy. But it would surely have been better if they had gone the extra mile with Moscow to demonstrate to Russia and the world their good intentions. So, as Charles Grant suggested last week, they could have commissioned a “joint impact assessment” on how a trade deal would affect Russia. A European official could have given a speech in Kiev, saying that closer European integration in no way affected Kiev’s status as the cradle of Orthodox civilization.

This would quite probably not have affected the outcome, but it might have reduced the anger in the air between Brussels and Moscow—an anger which is likely to hurt the six countries of the Eastern Partnership.

About the Author

Thomas de Waal

Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe

Thomas de Waal is a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe, specializing in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    A Black Sea Truce Is About Global Food Security, Too

      Thomas de Waal

  • Article
    Managing Montreux: Turkey and the Russia-Ukraine War in the Black Sea

      Thomas de Waal

Thomas de Waal
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Thomas de Waal
Foreign PolicyRussiaEastern EuropeUkraine

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Paper
    Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with China

    After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.

      Saheb Singh Chadha

  • Article
    Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026

    This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • Article
    India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible Pathways

    A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.

      Rajiv Bhatia

  • Commentary
    Emerging From the “Zombie State” of Trade Agreements: The India-EU FTA

    The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead

      Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki

  • India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era
    Research
    India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era

    Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.

      • Sameer Lalwani
      • +6

      Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.