Conclusion: A Moveable East and the EU’s Unfulfilled Potential

Abstract

This concluding chapter draws together the analyses from Chaps. 4–6 to highlight their variously cumulative and contradictory effects on identities and orders in Central and Eastern Europe. This synthesis directly addresses the puzzles that motivated my research and answers the research questions that were posed to explore them. The conclusion highlights the positive aspects of the EU’s bordering, thus providing a corrective to much of the (overly) critical literature on the topic. However, the conclusion also identifies the ways in which EU bordering has hindered the protection, promotion and pursuit of the Union’s own values and interests, as well as negatively impacting the lives of many Ukrainians and other Europeans. Overall, I argue that had the EU stuck more confidently to the methods that drove its one internal success in creating and spreading peace and prosperity as well as upholding its proclaimed values and principles, then it would have been more successful in extending its mode of governance to its neighbours. This would have benefitted both Ukrainians and EU citizens alike. Despite the Union’s failure to do so, the way that it ‘moved’ its ‘East’ (including in response to pressure from people and politicians in states that became the EU-8) shows the latent potential to challenge and change the borderings that hindered the EU and Ukraine. This chapter also uses the synthetic analysis to show how EU bordering has long exhibited tendencies that contributed to its neighbourhood and migration crises. Based on these conclusions, the chapter provides suggestions for further research that could extend the scope of the analysis—and also offers recommendations to improve EU border policy, practice and discourse.