Enlargement of the European Union, which used to be the result of a merit and value based procedure, no longer exists. This is the key takeaway from EU candidate Ukraine’s case. However, not all candidate countries have earned the EU’s top management generous gesture of allowing the skipping of a number of negotiation chapters in the accession procedure. For instance, front-runner in the EU enlargement process, Montenegro has reason to envy Ukraine as despite the huge efforts by the Montenegrin government in Podgorica, Kyiv seems to elegantly (a synonym for effortlessly) overriding this small but important Western Balkan country on its long and rocky way to the EU.
In comparison with Montenegro’s accession negotiations with the EU which started in June 2012, Ukraine’s accession talks began in June 2024. Beside Montenegro, another country of the Western Balkans, Serbia can also be mentioned with its accession negotiations with the EU officially launched in 2014. Results so far: after more than a decade trying to get closer to the EU, they are still outside the EU.
Although with 33 negotiating chapters opened and 7 negotiation chapters closed in its EU accession negotiations, Montenegro has already made huge efforts on its way towards European integration, Brussels still prioritises war-torn Ukraine in the enlargement disregarding the fact that Ukraine is just trying to become fit to open negotiating clasters. (The Ukrainian government announced the completion of the screening of two clasters of negotiation chapters so far, one in November 2024 and another in March 2025. According to the rules, the European Commission submitted its screening reports to the European Council. The screening process will last until autumn 2025.) Any country or organisation that dares to warn of risks of giving such a priviliged status to a country, is accused of viciously trying to derail Ukraine’s integration process.
Accession negotiations with a candidate at war is unprecedented and a challenge for both Ukraine and the EU, experts acknowledge. In practice, this means that both fundamental reforms, including anti-corruption measures, and an active civil society and transparency would be required of Ukraine which has been at full-scale war with Russia since 2022. Is it realistic to expect meaningful results from Ukraine and its society in war time? Not at all, adding that millions of Ukrainians have fled the country due to the war. Those who remain in Ukraine are occupied with defending their fatherland. Ukraine faces staff shortages in both the public administration, responsible for implementing reforms, and in the military, not to mention insufficient funding which is an overwhelming problem across the country. Moreover, recent decisions by the Pentagon have halted U.S. military supplies for Ukraine. In a nutshell, Ukraine is not in a situation to change for the better.
Under the circumstances, it is little surprise that in the case of Ukraine, the quality of the negotiation process is very low. However, from another perspective, it is really surprising why the EU’s political leadership is trying to put Ukraine’s accession on a fast track, considering that Ukraine’s membership would fully reshape the bloc’s budgetary structure as the country would immediately become the largest recipient of EU funds, not to mention the issue of security.
The exceptional accession process, or, in other words, the fast-track EU membership seemingly granted to Kyiv due to Ukraine’s ’strategic importance to European security’ cannot be justified, especially, from the position of Montenegro which is no less important for the security of the Balkans.
Decision-makers in Brussels often speak about a ’win-win’ situation, outlining the benefits of Ukraine’s membership without mentioning the potential security and instability challenges that Europe may face once it admits Ukraine. In fact, top EU officials keep on repeating the security challenges EU may face without Ukraine. After the meeting of the European Council in Brussels 26 June, both António Costa and Ursula von der Leyen highlighted Ukraine’s determination to pursue reforms saying that now is the time to advance on the path towards European Union accession, because ’Ukraine merits moving forward.’
When it comes to image of Ukraine in Europe, it is worth noting that, in recent years, a large number of Ukrainian research fellows have popped up at European policy research institutes, which has resulted in the EU’s research on Ukraine now almost exclusively reflecting the views of these Ukrainian scholars. In addition, Ukraine-based research institutes also enjoy priviliged status in European mainstream platforms which guarantees that their findings surely can find the way to European readers. To confirm this little private observation, here are the closing remarks of a recent study by two Ukrainian research fellows of the Ukrainian Centre for European Policy:
’Ukraine faces a narrow window of opportunity to become a member of the European Union. It will either join the EU and become a key contributor to its security or remain in the waiting room for years. Time is a critical factor. Prolonged negotiations risk undermining internal reforms, accelerating the loss of public servants working under the strain of war, and potentially declining public support for European integration. Ukraine has already made its choice – now it is time for the EU to do the same.’
As it is obvious, Ukraine is not afraid to use pressure and ’soul-searching’ at all levels when it comes to the necessity of its rapid EU accession. This is in the focus of speeches and publications, starting with President Zelenskyy’s addresses to opinion columns by politicians and think tank experts. In unity is strength. A lesson the EU should learn from Ukraine.
The EU should demonstrate the same unified force Kyiv does, and should not capitulate to Ukrainian demands and lower the criteria of the enlargement process. If Brussels does so, the EU will eventually erode itself. Losing credibility both among European citizens and other international actors is a one-way street which leads to nowhere. Overriding the EU’s own set of rules in certain cases, even if only exceptionally, is unacceptable, as it risks creating a precedent for doing so in other important issues. It is better to avoid such cases before they turn into a common practice.
As for Ukraine, European gestures of solidarity and political marketing tactics should not overwrite non-compliance with accession criteria, especially when candidate countries which truly meet the requirements are put on the sidelines, to a humiliating ’stand-by’ position. This is not only incorrect, but also undermines the credibility of the EU, not to mention the risks of a country at war, fully unfit for accession can bring to the bloc. In addition, the fact that the priviliged handling of Ukraine contributes to the rise of Eurosceptism across Europe cannot be ignored. For this reason, the EU’s top leaders should not forget results-based enlargement as an inappropriate handling of this issue may risk their jobs one day.
