Authors

Thomas Law¹;  ¹ CERES, Munk School, University of Toronto,

Discussion

My research paper will focus on Ukrainian and Georgian frustration at the lack of progress on their journeys to join the EU and NATO, in spite of the positive steps taken to democratise their governments and societies. 

As a Cold War invention, NATO has not always been the strictest when considering the democratic credentials of its members or applicants. Dictatorial Portugal was a founding member, whilst Hungary and Türkiye are partial democracies at best. NATO and the EU have sought to be more stringent in judging the democratic credentials of applicant nations, but despite intensive democratisation efforts, both Ukraine and Georgia remain a long way from membership. 

My paper will look at the extent to which failure by the West to offer a comprehensive roadmap related to democratisation and other prerequisites fuels domestic discontent and strains international relations. Counterproductive false guarantees and a lack of membership roadmap in relation to democratisation betrays strategic indecision by the EU and NATO. 

There are differences in the trajectories currently being experienced by Ukraine and Georgia. President Zelenskyy has been an active, unambiguous cheerleader for NATO and EU membership, whilst there are immense divisions between the presidency and prime ministerial government in Georgia over the extent to which the country should align with the West and Russia. A comparative rather than combined analysis is therefore taken with regards to the Ukrainian and Georgian situations. 

I will also look at the risks that failure by the West to offer more concrete guarantees for reaching certain democratic milestones may have. Georgia’s current standoff demonstrates the risks of collective Western inertia, whilst democratic backsliding by EU and NATO members provides a cautionary tale of what could happen if expectations are not matched and warm words by international partners are not acted upon with concrete progress.

Too often grandiose debates around big geopolitical decisions like joining NATO or the EU have taken on the perspective of the big powers and relations between ‘superpowers’. In trying to see the bigger picture, local perspectives are often dismissed; analysts may also succumb to attribution bias, highlighting only factors that fit into their predetermined narrative as mere supporting evidence.

This paper would seek to place Ukrainian and Georgian perspectives at the centre, highlighting the frustrations at having gone through an extremely difficult post-Soviet democratisation process without sufficient recognition from the West. Democratisation, in times of war and occupation, it has to be part of a wider package of societal changes and international alliance building. Failure to do so only amplifies the risk of democratic backsliding, with associated risks of puppet government and pliable dictators.