On March 24, 2015 the Center for EU Enlargement Studies organized a panel discussion entitled “Strenghtening European Bonds: Ukraine towards the European Union” with the support of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Budapest. The event was part of the ’Frontiers of Democracy’ series, discussing Ukraine’s ongoing reforms and possible ways to secure this renewed drive from. In his opening remarks, Prof. Péter Balázs, director of CENS, emphasized the importance of Ukraine as the test case of the post-Cold war era, and highlighted that it is fundamental for the EU to have a common strategy towards Ukraine. 

Daniyil Pasko, advisor to Prime Minister of Ukraine, and a permanent member of the National Reform Council of Ukraine, gave an insight into what has been already done and what further actions are needed in order to successfully reform the economic sector. The instrument of coordiantign reforms, the National Reform Council, is very effective as contains representatives of civil society as well those of the public sector, Pasko argued. He distinguished five sectors of the economy (monetary policy, banking sector, budget, energy sector and business) where some elements of the reforms have already been implemented. However, bankruns, the unsuccessful tax reform [C2] and the deficit of Naftogaz [C3] cause serious concerns both inside and outside of Ukraine. Pasko argued that the deficit of the Ukrainian national gas company can be solved only by increasing the gas prices for the population. One of the most important reforms in Pasko’s view, is deregulation which has already been introduced in the agricultural and telecom industry after prioritizing them based on their economic effectiveness[C4] . Concluding his presentation the advisor acknowledged that the way forward is promising, but a lot remains to be done to address all the challenges Ukraine faces today. 

Adrzej Szeptyicki, associate professor at the Institute of International Relations of the University of Warsaw, took a closer look on how and in what spheres the Visegrad countries can share their transition experience with Ukraine. However, the expert underlined that the V4 should be aware of its limits as the transformation experience of Central European countries cannot be directly replicated in Eastern Europe. On the political level the assistance to Ukraine should focus not only on decentralization, the fight with corruption, judicial reform, but also on the decoupling of politics and economics, i.e. the de-oligarchization of Ukraine. In the economic field the V4 should support the reorientation of Ukraine towards the West. When it comes to security two areas are worth attention: border cooperation and the Ukrainian military-industrial sector. On the social level the V4 has to take into account the growing presence of Ukrainian migrants in the four countries. These people should become agents of change in Ukraine in the near future, Szeptyicki argued. In the field of culture the experience of the V4 on how to manage national culture in the period of transformation may be valuable for post-revolutionary Ukraine. Calling attention to the weaknesses of the V4-Ukraine comparison, Professor Szeptyicki mentioned, among others the different behaviour of the four countries towards Russia especially concerning the Ukrainian crisis. 

Kálmán Mizsei, Head of European Union Advisory Mission on Civilian Security Sector Reform in Ukraine, pointed out that the success of Ukraine means the success of the Ukrainian reforms, thus in a time of external aggression and internal problems the support of the European Union is essential. Mizsei outlined two areas and solutions that are key to further reforms. One is the problem of corruption which in Ukraine is not part of the system but is the system itself. Therefore, the biggest tap of corruption (within the energy sector) should be closed. The second problem is the disfunctionality of the state, in Mizsei’s view, possible solution is to shrink the state. While there are ongoing reforms of the judiciary, Ukraine has a long way ahead in these particular fields as well. The most important lesson learnt from the Georgian reforms, Mizsei noted, was to give the appropriate salary for the civil servants, not only implementing the reforms.