EU enlargement returns to big politics: why for Ukraine this is both a chance and a risk
In Brussels, the topic of European Union enlargement has again become one of the main issues. Just a few years ago, it interested mostly individual diplomats, European Commission officials and countries that traditionally supported the EU’s eastern direction. Now the situation has changed.
Ukraine and Moldova are expected to move to accession negotiations. Montenegro wants to complete its negotiations already this year. Iceland plans to hold a referendum in August on resuming the negotiation process. The Western Balkans also remain in the line for membership. In other words, the EU has again faced a question it had long postponed how to enlarge without breaking its own system from within. Time for Action examined that the current discussion in Brussels is not only about when Ukraine or Moldova will become EU members. It is about a much broader issue whether the European Union itself is ready for a new major enlargement and whether it will try to replace full membership with intermediate formats.
France and Germany are looking for a new formula
France and Germany prepared a joint document titled “A New Impulse for Enlargement.” It speaks about the need to “complete the formation of the Union as a truly European Union.” This is an important wording because it acknowledges that the current EU still does not cover the entire political Europe that some European capitals want to see. The document proposes making the accession process more dynamic and practical. The idea is that candidate countries should not simply wait for years for negotiations to end, but should gradually enter separate EU mechanisms even before full membership. This is called gradual integration. At first glance, this approach looks logical. If a country carries out reforms, moves closer to EU standards and fulfills requirements, it can receive concrete benefits even before official accession. Not sometime in the distant future, but already during the process.
What gradual integration means
Gradual integration is not an entirely new idea. Candidate countries can already participate in certain European programs and mechanisms. This may include access to the market, participation in the Erasmus program, connection to the no-roaming zone, joining SEPA, meaning the Single Euro Payments Area. For citizens, this can have very practical meaning. It is not about abstract diplomacy, but about education, business, transfers, communication, mobility, administrative procedures, access to European rules and standards. In this form, gradual integration can be useful. It allows a country not to stand at the EU’s door for decades, but to gradually enter separate parts of the European system. This can give candidates more tangible results and reduce the frustration of societies that have been waiting for accession for years. But this is exactly where the main risk begins.
The risk of a “waiting room”
The biggest fear of candidate countries is that gradual integration may become not a road to membership, but a more convenient way of postponing that membership. One official from a candidate country called it a “more comfortable waiting room.” This is a very precise wording. A country may receive some benefits, access to certain programs, the opportunity to be present at meetings, participate in discussions, but not have the main thing full voting rights, a seat at the decision-making table and the status of a full EU member. That is why the Franco-German document separately emphasizes that full membership remains the final goal.
“Full EU membership remains unchanged, our intention is not to replace full membership with it or delay the path toward it, but on the contrary: we want to create incentives that will contribute to faster progress along this path.”
This is a reassuring phrase for candidates. But the very need to write it down shows that the concerns really exist.
Why the EU does not want to rush
The European Union is facing a difficult choice. On the one hand, after Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine, enlargement became not just a bureaucratic process. It turned into a matter of security, Europe’s political weight and its ability to respond to threats. On the other hand, rapid enlargement means major costs and difficult internal changes New members will need funding, access to funds, participation in agricultural policy, regional support, representation in institutions. This may change the balance of power inside the EU. Donor countries are not very eager for a sharp increase in contributions to the common budget. And the European Union itself must agree on internal reforms, which is traditionally very difficult. That is why Brussels is looking for an intermediate formula to give candidates more than just a promise, but not yet full membership.
Ukraine is in a special category
Interestingly, the new joint Franco-German document is directly addressed to Moldova and five Western Balkan countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Serbia. Montenegro likely did not make this list because its accession is seen as closer. Ukraine is not mentioned in the document. This is telling. Earlier, Germany proposed a separate model of “associated membership” for Ukraine for the period of waiting for full accession. Under this idea, Kyiv could receive a presence in EU institutions: associated commissioners without portfolio, associated members of the European Parliament, participation in council meetings without voting rights. For Moldova and the Balkan countries, the current Franco-German proposal looks more restrained. It provides for joint meetings of the European Commission and members of the European Parliament with representatives of candidate countries twice a year, more frequent parliamentary committees, participation in informal summits and council meetings as observers without voting rights. This means Ukraine may be considered separately because of the country’s scale, the war, economic weight, security issues and the political sensitivity of accession.
What this means for Kyiv
For Ukraine, there are two pieces of news one good and one difficult. The good one is that the EU enlargement process has truly come back to life. Ukraine is no longer in a situation where the membership perspective looks merely symbolic. Accession negotiations, participation in future integration formats, the possibility of deeper involvement in European mechanisms all of this creates additional space for Kyiv. The difficult news is that rapid full membership is most likely not coming. Even if negotiations begin, this does not yet mean quick accession. Most Brussels officials unofficially admit that a new major enlargement is unlikely before the second half of the 2030s. Hungarian politician Péter Magyar also suggested that Ukraine’s path to membership could take 10–15 years. For Kyiv, this is a painful assessment, because Ukraine is counting on an accelerated path. But for many in the EU, these are the timelines that look realistic.
Why an intermediate status can be both a chance and a trap
If gradual integration works honestly, it can be useful for Ukraine. Kyiv will be able to enter certain EU policies earlier, receive practical benefits, strengthen economic integration, participate in discussions and gradually adapt the state system to European rules. This can help Ukrainian business, students, citizens and state institutions. Intermediate stages can make the road to the EU less empty and more tangible for people. But if gradual integration becomes a substitute for full membership, then it will be a different story. Ukraine may find itself in a situation where it is given access to some opportunities, but is not allowed into decision-making. Then the risk of “second-class membership” will arise: many obligations, many reforms, some benefits, but without full political equality. That is why it is important for Kyiv that any intermediate model be clearly tied to the final goal full accession.
The EU also has to change
Enlargement is not only homework for Ukraine, Moldova or the Balkans. It is also homework for the European Union itself. The EU must decide how it will function with a larger number of members, how it will make decisions, how it will finance new participants, how agricultural policy, the budget, voting rights and representation in institutions will change. Without these changes, new enlargement may become too difficult for the bloc itself. That is why Brussels is looking for cautious formulas. It wants to preserve the political signal for candidates, but is not ready to immediately take on all the consequences of a new major enlargement.
The current discussion about EU enlargement shows that the doors for Ukraine and other candidates are not closed. On the contrary, the topic has again become alive and politically important. But these doors will not open quickly and automatically. The Franco-German idea of gradual integration can become a useful tool if it truly accelerates the path to membership. It can give candidate countries more practical opportunities already now. But it can also turn into a long waiting zone if the EU is not ready to name a clear political final point. For Ukraine, the main thing is not to reject intermediate opportunities, but also not to allow them to become a substitute for full membership. Gradual integration must be stairs to the EU, not a soft form of postponing accession for an indefinite period.
About the Author
Related posts:
“Associated Membership” for Ukraine: Why Merz’s Proposal Became Painful 
Conflict over money, oil and politics: what lies behind the incident between Ukraine and Hungary 
Ukraine Returns to Lending: What the Growth in Credit Demand Means and What to Expect Next 
The EU Between Financial Support for Ukraine and Political Blockages
