The urgent concern for Kyiv remains survival under bombardment and the need to militarily deter Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which, since ordering the invasion a little over two years ago, has not wavered from its aim to destroy Ukraine. Yet gestures matter, and there is none with greater political weight the European Union can offer a third country than opening its doors to accession. For Ukraine and Moldova, the decision to grant candidate status and begin accession negotiations marks a pivotal moment in an EU that began as a peace project and has expanded seven times in its history.
The president Volodymyr Zelenskiy signed the accession request on February 28, 2022, just four days after Putin gave the order to invade. Immediately, Ukraine’s ambassador to the EU, Vsevolod Chentsov, formalized the petition with the ambassador of France to the EU, Philippe Léglise-Costa, whose country held the EU presidency at the time. “They are one of us, and we want them inside,” responded Ursula von der Leyen with evident enthusiasm. The European Parliament echoed that sentiment, and its president Roberta Metsola was the first to travel to Kyiv, with the Parliament passing more than 24 resolutions in support during the first year of the war, including calls to accelerate the accession process.
With an energy and speed unusual for Brussels, Kyiv secured candidate status on June 23, 2022, within four months of the war’s onset. For the start of negotiations, Ukraine and Moldova had to wait until December 14, 2023, when, despite repeated objections and veto threats from Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban, the European Council leaders agreed to proceed by consensus. Orban left the meeting briefly to voice his disagreement on social media, calling it a bad decision, but the political signal from Brussels was clear and decisive.
The negotiating framework has faced delays
The next major step, following the unlocking of 50 billion euros in aid to Ukraine in early February, should arrive this March with the European Commission reporting on Kyiv’s progress and presenting the proposed negotiating framework, which will outline the rules guiding the talks. According to recent remarks from President von der Leyen, the framework will not be ready before the upcoming European elections on June 9. That means no intergovernmental conference to formally open talks is expected before the summer.
“We’re on the right track, and we expect the Commission to work in line with the timetable agreed by the Council, which is to present the report and the negotiating framework in March. I don’t see why that would be difficult”, said Ukraine’s ambassador Chentsov in recent days. “If the negotiating framework is postponed until after the elections, there isn’t much time left. We have two parliamentary sessions left. This should not be read as the EU reconsidering its stance. The important thing was to launch the process from the start”, noted Jordi Solé, a member of the European Parliament from ERC, who supports maintaining a firm stance against Russia and backing Ukraine.
The process will not take shortcuts; it will be long and complex, especially for a country at war that must build stable institutions, a viable economy, and a clean record on corruption. For example, Hungary and Poland submitted their applications in 1994 but did not join until 2004. Romania and Bulgaria did so in 1995 and did not join until 2007, and Croatia joined in 2013 after commencing in 2003. “There can be no shortcuts because we cannot jam a piece that does not fit the engine’s operation, or it would jam the machinery”, explains the Spanish socialist Nacho Sánchez Amor, who rules out rapid progress not only because the country is at war but also because adopting European legislation remains a heavy undertaking.
Ukraine, like any other candidate, will have to implement reforms and adopt the entire body of European law (roughly 110,000 pages of the acquis) and negotiate chapter by chapter, each opening and closing with unanimous consent. “Providing an offer to Ukraine does not exempt the standard procedure”, insists a Spanish MEP. Whether faster or slower, the decisions by Ukraine, Moldova, and potentially Georgia, prompted by the war, have forced Europe to rethink its borders and revive the dormant debate on enlargement.
It represents a geostrategic shift in the EU’s perception of its own borders, expanding the family from Lisbon to Lugansk. It is also a moral boost for Ukraine, where many citizens see the decision as a sign that the country is not being abandoned. Analysts from the European Council on Foreign Relations describe it as symbolic momentum that had lain dormant for years in the capitals of Europe prior to Zelenskiy’s leadership more than two years ago.
A future mapped toward 2035
In 2003, the Thessaloniki summit declared that the future of the Western Balkan nations — Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Kosovo — lay within the EU. Yet internal conflicts led Brussels and the Twenty-Seven to slow the pace. No new admissions would happen until those disputes were resolved. This stance changed with Russia’s war. The Twenty-Seven no longer hesitate, opening doors with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Some countries of the Western Balkans could advance sooner. Before stepping onto that path, which could take membership from 27 to 35, the EU must undertake a substantial internal reform to accommodate a larger Europe with deeper changes in decision-making and European funding. Some leaders, like Charles Michel, have even dared to set a target year: 2030.
The piece underscores that the enlargement path remains contingent on resolving border issues and implementing a wide adoption of EU law. It remains unlikely that all new members will join at the same pace or on the same timetable, but the signal is clear: Europe is ready to rethink its architectural framework to operate as a wider, more integrated bloc.