Sebastian Schäffer for AlQahera News on the EU Foreign Affairs Council: Unity in Support for Ukraine Remains Crucial

/in , , /by
123

At the meeting of the EU Foreign Affairs Council, continued support for Ukraine was once again at the top of the agenda. In light of ongoing Russian aggression and the broader implications for Europe’s security architecture, it remains critical that the European Union acts with unity and resolve. 

A key point of discussion was the implementation and potential expansion of sanctions against Russia. Disagreements among member states have slowed progress in recent months. “Especially given potential geopolitical shifts in the United States, EU unity on Ukraine is more important than ever,” IDM Director Sebastian Schäffer noted during the interview for the Cairo based news platform. 

According to EU figures, two-thirds of the pledged two million rounds of artillery ammunition have already been delivered. Additional contributions from France and Norway are reinforcing military aid. However, the diplomatic dimension remains essential: “We urgently need a path toward a just peace – though such a prospect remains distant at the moment.” 

Schäffer also emphasized the EU’s potential role in de-escalating tensions around the Iranian nuclear program. “The EU can – and should – act as a bridge to help prevent further escalation.” 

Concerns were raised about growing divisions within EU foreign policy, particularly regarding issues such as the recognition of Kosovo and Palestine. “Diverging positions on such matters hinder a truly unified foreign policy,” the IDM Director observed. 

The humanitarian aspect was also underscored: “In times of global uncertainty, it is vital that the EU continues to be seen as a credible and reliable force for international law and humanitarian assistance – regardless of political developments elsewhere, including in the United States.” 

Webinars on Ukraine’s Path towards EU Accession for the Research Service of the Verkhovna Rada

/in , /by
123456

 

In the framework of the memorandum of understanding between the IDM and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, three webinars were held between November 2024 and January 2025. In total more than 250 participants have listened to the input provided by IDM director Sebastian Schäffer, and engaged in a stimulating exchange on the history, challenges and the future of EU Enlargement.

In the first webinar, we looked back to 1973, when the first round of enlargement of the European Community (the precursor to the EU) took place, with the UK, Denmark, and Ireland joining. Afterward, 19 more countries joined the EU (and one left again). However, after the last enlargement, which was Croatia’s accession in 2013, the process of EU enlargement stalled. While the average duration of negotiations in past enlargements had been 3.5 years, Montenegro had been negotiating for over 11 years without membership in sight—a stark contrast. The reasons for this stagnation were varied, including the lengthy accession process, which often required the unanimous agreement of all EU countries.

The second webinar, the history of EU enlargement was explored, and the reasons for the halt in this process were discussed further. EU enlargement and the expansion of the single market had benefitted not only the new EU countries but also the older EU member states. However, EU enlargement had always come with many challenges—both in the past and at the time. During the major Eastern enlargement of the EU in 2004, fears of the „Polish plumber“ had emerged in France. In 2024, Polish farmers had protested against Ukrainian agricultural imports. In this webinar, the challenges that Ukraine’s EU accession presented were examined. Questions were raised, such as whether an accelerated accession was possible for the country, whether Ukraine could join while still in a state of war, and how EU and NATO membership were connected.

In the third and final webinar, we looked ahead to the next legislative period of the EU, which will be crucial for advancing enlargement. The prolonged and stalled EU enlargement processes had highlighted the need for a more effective and reformed strategy to give candidate countries a real opportunity for accession. Various approaches to revitalizing the EU enlargement process have been proposed, ranging from gradual integration through a staged accession model to primarily economic integration under a proposed European Economic Community II. Another idea is the creation of a Greater European Council, which, unlike the European Political Community, could act as a real decision-making body and helped facilitate the accession process. At the same time, the Eastern Partnership requires rethinking. Potential futures for European integration were explored and also a new model for European governance was proposed. Each session ended with a lively Q&A on the topics but also on how to foster cooperation between the Research Service and the IDM.

The cooperation will be continued with more expert input especially regarding the different chapters of the acquis communautaire. A personal exchange will also take place in Kyiv in April.

Sebastian Schäffer Signs Open Letter Urging Biden to Support Ukraine

/in , , /by

IDM Director Sebastian Schäffer joined over 500 signatories in an open letter urging President Biden to use his remaining months in office to bolster arms supplies to Ukraine and work towards expanding NATO. This letter, published by The Kyiv Independent, Le Temps, and Linkiesta, calls on President Biden to solidify his legacy by supporting Ukraine during this crucial time.

“Regionale Perspektiven auf den Krieg in der Ukraine”: Beitrag von Sebastian Schäffer veröffentlicht

/in , /by

Sebastian Schäffers Buchbeitrag “Regionale Perspektiven auf den Krieg in der Ukraine” wurde im Sammelband “Krieg, Konflikt und Soziale Arbeit. Herausforderungen, Visionen und Praxen zur Friedensgestaltung” (hrsg. von Caroline Schmitt, Karsten Kiewitt, Tanja KLeibl und Ronald Lutz im Beltz Juventa Verlag) veröffentlicht. In seinem Beitrag beleuchtet Sebastian Schäffer die unterschiedlichen Perspektiven der Nachbarländer der Ukraine auf den Krieg, plädiert für ein Neudenken der östlichen Partnerschaft und den Erweiterten Europäischen Rat.  

Mehr zum Buch finden Sie hier. 

Péter Techet for Napunk (Denník N) on the “Patriots for Europe”

/in , , , , , , /by

In the Hungarian-language edition of the Slovak daily newspaper “Denník N”; Péter Techet analyzed the new group “Patriots for Europe”, which was founded in the European Parliament with far-right parties, including those from Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Austria. Techet thinks that the new faction is essentially a rebranding of the former “Identity and Democracy” (ID) faction, as most member parties come from this group. However, the rebranding allows Viktor Orbán and Andrej Babiš, who were not part of ID, to present the new faction as their success. Techet interprets Marine Le Pen’s decision to remain in this group as a choice against the moderate path taken by Giorgia Meloni and her “European Conservatives and Reformists” (ERC) faction. Although the new “Patriots” faction will become the third strongest force in the new European Parliament, Techet does not expect it to significantly influence European politics, as the informal coalition between the European People’s Party (EPP), the Socialists (S&D), and the Liberals (Renew) still holds a majority. Additionally, the far-right parties are still divided on issues such as the war in Ukraine.

The article (in Hungarian) can be read here.

IDM signs Memorandum of Understanding with Verkhovna Rada

/in , /by

The IDM has recently deepened its relations with Ukrainian civil society by commencing a cooperation with the Ukrainian parliament. 

On 4 July 2024, IDM Director Sebastian Schäffer welcomed representatives from the Secretariat of the Verkhovna Rada and the USAID RADA Next Generation Program (RANG) to the Institute’s offices in Vienna. The delegation was led by Viacheslav Shtuchnyi, Secretary General of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.  

During the meeting, Schäffer presented the activities of the IDM, focusing on the Institute’s role in facilitating working and cultural relations between the Ukrainian government, NGOs and universities. The delegation then engaged in a roundtable discussion to explore possibilities of further collaboration with the IDM, including the possibility of continuing the successful cooperation with the Austrian Parliament in implementing Democracy Workshops in the region. Secretary General Shtuchnyi kindly presented Schäffer with a set of three commemorative coins. 

Later in the day, a Letter of Intent between the Austrian Parliament and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine regarding the aforementioned Democracy Workshops was signed by Wolfgang Sobotka, Speaker of the National Council of the Austrian Parliament, Harald Dossi, Secretary General of the Austrian Parliament, and Viacheslav Shtuchnyi. The IDM is mentioned as an implementing partner in the agreement.  

© Parlamentsdirektion/Johannes Zinner

Finally, the delegation visited the Europa Experience Vienna of the European Parliament, where Secretary General Shtuchnyi and Schäffer signed a Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the Verkhovna Rada and the IDM. During the next five years, the memorandum foresees that both Parties organise conferences, assist each other in establishing cooperation in areas of mutual interest and coordinate the implementation of joint projects based on grants, competitions and other forms of involvement of international technical assistance. Furthermore, the memorandum mentions the possibility of creating joint educational and scientific programmes, of organising and conducting internships, consultations and professional development (on a contractual basis) as well as assisting in the establishment and development of relations with international organisations and foundations. 

“I am honoured and it is certainly one of the highlights of my career to have been able to sign this memorandum. It is our task now to fill this with concrete actions and continue our efforts to deepen the mutual cooperation with Ukraine,”

said Schäffer. The IDM highly values its collaborations with the Verkhovna Rada as well as the Austrian Parliament, where we are especially thankful to Katharina Stourzh and her team for the long-standing good cooperation. We are looking forward to engaging in continued work together! 

US Authorizes Ukraine to Strike Russian Targets: Expert Analysis on Moscow’s Response

/in , , /by

ED News contacted IDM Director Sebastian Schäffer regarding the US permission to Ukraine to attack Russian territory with its weapons. Schäffer’s response was used in the article above, here is his full answer:

First of all it is not only a good idea, but a necessity to protect the people in Ukraine from the unjustified aggression of the Russian Federation. International law is also crystal clear, Kyiv can strike targets anywhere in Russia to prevent further attacks. That does of course not justify destroying civilian infrastructure like power plants, something that Moscow has been doing for 830 days and counting in whole Ukraine, especially intensifying these heinous war crimes recently. I have personally witnessed what just a few weeks of Russian occupation mean and I unconditionally would enable Ukraine to defend itself. Why the US and also European states like Germany have not allowed this until now eludes me. The decision comes late, has cost a lot of lives and caused immense damage and suffering, but better than never. I do not understand why it has taken so much time and I also do not see any particular reason for this change in policy, however, I do not believe that the fear of becoming a belligerent and/or the reaction from Russia was the primary reasoning behind it. Putin and his cronies have constantly threatened with consequences, nuclear strikes on Western cities are discussed on television, but we must not let us be intimidated by the regime in Moscow. The nuclear doctrine of the Russian Federation is quite clear, so is the retaliation should NATO territory be targeted, and as for Ukraine, I wonder what severe consequences should they fear? Sure there is always a possibility to further escalate, but the people in Ukraine are fighting for their survival, as Putin aims to annihilate the Ukrainian state.

How Can South Balkan Countries assist Ukraine in Obtaining Ammunition?

/in , , /by
Print

Ukraine needs weapons to effectively counter the Russian invasion. In the latest article on the IDM Blog, Rigels Lenja explores whether and how South Balkan countries could support Ukraine with ammunition, and why their stockpiles would be particularly valuable to Ukraine.

On 27 February 2024, the Ukrainian President landed in Tirana to hold a summit with the countries of Southeastern Europe (SEE) at the initiative of Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama. The SEE-Ukraine summit was tended to increase the public support regionally and internationally for the Ukraine, and boost the regional weaponry production. Attendees at the summit were remarkably diverse. They ranged from the most outspoken supporters of Ukraine in SEE – Albania, Kosovo, North Macedonia, and Croatia all the way to the only European countries that did not adopt sanctions against Russia: Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (henceforth BiH). Followed by Moldova which is the second country in Europe with Russian troops on its territory.

The summit ended with a 12-point statement, considering the Russian attack against Ukraine as the biggest continental and regional security threat, flagrant violation of the UN Charter, and full support for Ukraine to join NATO and the EU. This was followed by the Ukrainian proposal to set up a Ukrainian-Balkans defense forum in Kyiv to boost weaponry production in the same style as the Kyiv-London, and Kyiv-Washington DC defense forum format. The summit fell short of mentioning sanctions or countermeasures to Russian propaganda, and malign actions in the region, due to the Serbian President Vucic’s request. Serbia and BiH are the only SEE countries who had not put any sanctions against Russia.

Win-Win Situation

The summit could have achieved a more favourable outcome if Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and Turkey had attended. Global Firepower reported that Turkey possesses 1,747 artillery pieces (compare to USA with roughly 1,300), followed by Greece with 729 and Romania with 720.

The crucial issue is: can SEE countries provide Ukraine with any type of much needed assistance in its war against Russia? In financial terms, virtually all of these countries are unable to provide serious aid. The region has been confronted for quite some time confronted with a wave of Russian disinformation propaganda, and malign actions, as in the case of the coup d’état in Montenegro in 2016 to prevent the country’s accession to NATO, or Moscow’s ambassador in Sarajevo, who frequently inflames domestic disputes, as in March 2022 when he suggested that Russia would intervene if BiH joined NATO. The exchange between Kyiv and the Balkan capitals will not only benefit Ukraine but can also provide useful insight on how to confront Russian propaganda and malign actions or indeed track fighters joining Russia in eastern Ukraine.

Tracking Ammunition

Due to the redeployment of the Russian army and the shortage of ammunition reaching the Ukrainian front as a result of the West’s failure to deliver, Russia was able to stabilize the front and advance further.

However, the Balkan countries can provide the much-needed ammunition for Ukraine more effectively and quickly than the West. Bulgaria, one of the poorest EU countries, was reported to have delivered a third of the ammunition used by the Ukrainian armed forces and 40% of the diesel used by the Ukrainian military until March 2023. Since the beginning of the war, Bulgaria has allocated roughly $245 million of aid, followed by Croatia with $190 million. Bulgaria’s assistance played the most important part in preventing the Russian advance on Kyiv. The Czech initiative has raised enough money to buy or produce 800,000 pieces of 122 mm and 155 mm calibre artillery shells, displayed that also small countries can help Ukraine to obtain much needed weapon.

The SEE states were all either part of the Warsaw Pact (with the exception of Albania, which withdrew in 1968) or Yugoslavia, and were heavily militarized, producing and manufacturing a huge amount of armaments. Successor states of Yugoslavia were left with vast numbers of weapons after its collapse in the 90s, which was followed by a devastating civil war with more than 200,000 victims. In terms of civilian-owned weapons, Serbia and Montenegro are joint third place with 39.1 firearms per 100 inhabitants, topped only by the USA and Yemen. BiH, North Macedonia and Kosovo are in 10th, 12th and 13th place respectively.

The former members of the Warsaw Pact still have a significant amount of Soviet-era ammunition, which is being used extensively by Ukraine. In addition, Ukrainian soldiers are better prepared to use and deploy Soviet ammunition rather than hi-tech weaponry systems, which considering the limited time for training and usage by non-professional soldiers require too much time to learn how to use them. From this perspective, it would be beneficial for SEE offer their remaining Soviet ammunition to Kyiv, since these stockpiles are no longer needed. None of the countries in the area have military plans to invade or attack any of their neighbours, apart from Serbia’s attitude towards Kosovo. Sending this ammunition to Ukraine would reduce the defence budget spent on maintaining and safeguarding the stockpile.

How many artillery shells do the Balkan countries possess? The last report is from 2011, there is no new publication in the additional none of the SEE countries has an open public register of the weaponry they possess. In the last Small Arms Survey report from December 2011, Albania had around 2,500 tonnes of type 122-152 mm artillery shells, North Macedonia declared 16,000 units of 100 mm shells and 9,000 units of 128 mm shells. Serbia reported more than 30,000 units of 105 mm and 15,000 of 130 mm artillery shells. The leading arms and ammunition manufacturers in the region are Serbia, followed by Bulgaria and Turkey. Serbia is even reported to have supplied weapons and ammunition worth 14 million euros to Israel following the terrorist attack by Hamas on 7 October 2023.

The second step the region can take to provide support to Ukraine is to redeploy the armaments factories still in full operation. As this conflict has turned into a war of tranches, intensive artillery shelling which were elements that prevailed under Soviet military guidance, the Balkan countries possess expertise that could be of benefit to Kyiv. Albania, North Macedonia, and Bulgaria have old, outdated manufacturing facilities with few investments can return to operation. Even though Turkey has delivered Bayraktar drones, there is potential for more. Bulgaria is reported to have sold weapons to friendly, currently pro-Western states such as Algeria, Angola and Mozambique. In 1989, Bulgaria profited from selling weapons and ammunition for roughly $1 billion. Yugoslavia, the biggest arms producer in the region during the Cold War, is reported to have exported weapons to 67 countries worldwide, allegedly with an average profit of $ 400 million in the 1980s. The key is to track the countries that purchase these weapons and to rebuy them at a lower price.

The third step in supporting Ukraine is to track down Soviet munitions in third countries. Throughout the Cold War, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania and Romania were either exporting or donating huge volumes of Soviet or Yugoslavian-made weapons to African and Middle Eastern countries fighting anti-colonial wars at the time. In the period from 1955 to 1976 alone, the USSR and the communist states of Eastern Europe transferred arms and ammunition worth around $20 billion dollars through donations or arms deals, of which 77% went to the countries of the Middle East and 13% to African countries. SEE can now rebuy these weapons via regional or NATO mechanisms. The key is to track the countries that purchase these weapons and to rebuy them at a lower price.

While the Balkan countries may lack the capacity to expand their arms production, the West can assist in expanding Soviet-style weapons manufacturing, which the Ukrainian armed forces are able to use effectively, and quickly. It is also an obvious route for the USA or major European countries to avoid long-term domestic debates about the extent to which they can back Ukraine.

 

Dr. des. Rigels Lenja successfully defended his Ph.D. thesis in April 2024 at the Institute of Eastern and Southeastern European History at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. His research is primarily focused on dictatorship, modern warfare, religion and democracy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FO° Talks: Where Is Ukraine Headed Now? What Does Europe Think?

/in , , /by

IDM Director Sebastian Schäffer returned for another edition of FO Talks with Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief of Fair Observer, Atul Singh. This time they tackled the ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine, the current situation in the country as well as the different threat perceptions in the Danube Region. Having just returned from Uzhhorod and Lviv, Schäffer talked about his experiences also in comparison to his trip to Kyiv around the same time last year. While his stay in the capital was physically more dangerous, as there have been direct missile attacks, he felt the second trip to be much more psychologically draining. Having only been there for a couple of days each, one can only imagine how the constant attacks on the civilian infrastructure must be for the brave people living under these conditions in Ukraine. Schäffer also gave an assessment on the varying perspectives of countries in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe on the war. According to him they fall into three categories:

(1) governments in countries like Poland, Czechia, and the Baltics that have warned about the possible aggression coming from the Russian Federation,

(2) governments in countries that have to come to terms with this new reality, even if it is a painful and slow process, which would include France, Germany, and also Austria

(3) governments in countries that try to gain benefits for themselves like Hungary, Slovakia, and Serbia, which hopefully will at a certain point realize that they are at the wrong side of history.

 

Read the article here.