Enlargement has long been a cornerstone of the EU’s strategy, reinforcing stability, democracy, and economic prosperity across Europe. However, recent developments, including the war in Ukraine, shifting transatlantic relations, and internal political debates, have necessitated a reassessment of priorities and the mechanisms of integration. This explainer aims to provide an in-depth analysis of Ukraine’s EU accession process, highlighting the geopolitical, economic, and institutional factors shaping its integration journey. It explores how Ukraine’s candidacy has reshaped the EU’s enlargement policy, the challenges and opportunities it presents for both sides, as well as the implications — not only for Ukraine but for other candidate countries, particularly in the Western Balkans 6.

The future of the European Union's (EU) enlargement policy is shaped by evolving geopolitical challenges, economic considerations, and institutional reforms. One of the primary concerns guiding the future of enlargement is geopolitical stability. The EU has historically expanded to integrate nations that align with its democratic values and economic frameworks, but the current climate requires a more strategic approach. Ukraine's application for membership accelerated in response to Russia’s aggression, has placed enlargement at the forefront of EU policymaking. Granting candidate status to Ukraine, Moldova, and other Eastern European states underscores the bloc’s commitment to securing its eastern borders against external threats. However, the integration of war-torn or politically unstable regions presents significant challenges, particularly regarding security commitments and economic recovery. 

A few other elements are inherently present when shaping enlargement priorities. Economic considerations play a crucial role. Integrating new members requires substantial financial investments, particularly in aligning their economies with EU standards. The experience of previous enlargement waves has demonstrated both the benefits and burdens of expansion. While new member states contribute to the EU’s economic diversity, they also require significant funding through cohesion policies and structural support, in addition to undergoing extensive reforms to ensure compatibility with the EU single market. 

Another critical priority is ensuring that new members uphold EU values, including the rule of law, human rights, and democratic governance. Some existing member states have already posed challenges in this regard, raising concerns about the ability to enforce these principles effectively in an expanded union. Conditionality mechanisms, such as stricter pre-accession criteria and ongoing monitoring post-accession, will likely play a greater role in future enlargements. The EU must strike a balance between maintaining credibility in its enlargement process and avoiding excessive delays that could discourage candidate countries from pursuing reforms.

The future of EU enlargement will also be influenced by external factors, particularly the evolving relationship with global powers such as the United States, China, and Russia. A more assertive EU enlargement policy could strengthen the bloc’s geopolitical standing and reduce external vulnerabilities. However, this approach also risks provoking opposition from countries that view EU expansion as a threat to their own strategic interests. Managing these external pressures while advancing the EU’s long-term vision will require diplomatic finesse and strategic coordination.

EU Enlargement and Ukraine

Traditionally, EU enlargement was framed as an economic and institutional endeavour, requiring candidates to align with governance and legal standards. In the last decade, Ukraine has been aligning itself with EU policies and standards across various sectors, demonstrating a firm commitment to European norms. In 2014, Ukraine signed the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, which included the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), laying the foundation for closer economic integration. Additionally, Ukraine has undertaken substantial reforms in governance, judicial independence, anti-corruption, and human rights to meet EU requirements. 

However, since Russia’s full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, the discussion around Ukraine’s accession has become deeply intertwined with geopolitical strategy and European security architecture. The rapid decision to grant candidate status to Ukraine in June 2022, with formal talks beginning on June 25, 2024, was not just about European values—it was a direct response to the changing security landscape in Eastern Europe. The security-driven nature of Ukraine’s EU bid is also evident in the economic and military assistance it has received. Over the past three years, Europe has allocated EUR 132 billion in financial, humanitarian, and military aid to Ukraine. The EU’s extensive sanctions against Russia, military aid to Ukraine, and financial assistance for rebuilding signal that Ukraine is already functioning as a de facto part of Europe’s security network. This makes its accession less about meeting traditional criteria and more about ensuring that a key strategic partner is fully integrated into the European framework.

According to the latest assessments from the European Commission, Ukraine is making progress in aligning its policies with EU standards, with Ukraine’s overall score at 1.82 out of 4, up from 1.68 in 2023. Key areas for improvement include governance, judicial reforms, economic restructuring, and institutional capacity building. Six out of 33 sectors demonstrated "good progress," and only one policy area—Entrepreneurship and Production—saw an increase of 0.5 points, suggesting that Ukraine still has a long way to go to meet all EU membership criteria. However, negotiation preparations, screening processes, and the Ukraine Facility reform plan (linked to €50 billion in EU aid) indicate that momentum could pick up in 2025, with the EU signalling readiness for accelerated talks.

EU Membership from Ukraine's Perspective

Ukraine's accession to the European Union presents a transformative opportunity, offering substantial benefits across economic, political, and security dimensions. One of the most immediate advantages would be access to the EU’s vast single market, comprising approximately 450 million consumers. This access would facilitate increased trade, allowing Ukrainian businesses to expand their reach and compete on a larger scale. The potential for foreign direct investment in sectors like technology, manufacturing, and infrastructure would also rise significantly, as EU membership is often seen as a mark of economic and political stability. Additionally, Ukraine would become eligible for EU structural funds, providing critical financial resources to support national development projects, enhance public services, and improve regional economic disparities.

Beyond economic benefits, EU membership provides incentives to strengthen Ukraine’s democratic institutions and governance. The accession process requires comprehensive reforms, particularly in the areas of judicial independence, anti-corruption measures, and regulatory alignment with EU standards. As such, it would create the space for the rule of law, the longstanding challenges of corruption, and the promotion of human rights to gain the required spotlight in terms of capacities to address them and increased accountability as they transform. 

However, it’s worth noting that while candidate countries like Ukraine are required to undergo extensive reforms as part of the accession process, existing EU members have, in some cases, regressed in these very areas without facing meaningful consequences. Hungary and Poland, for instance, have been at the center of EU concerns over rule-of-law violations, judicial interference, and restrictions on media freedom, yet EU institutions have struggled to hold them accountable. Hungary has repeatedly obstructed EU decisions, and Poland’s judicial independence was deteriorating just a couple of years ago, despite both countries once being hailed as success stories of EU enlargement. Meanwhile, Bulgaria and Romania, which joined the EU in 2007 under the condition of post-accession monitoring through the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), continue to rank poorly in corruption indexes, with Bulgaria often scoring lower than some candidate countries such as Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

This inconsistency in demanding strict reforms from candidates while failing to enforce them within its own borders highlights the double standards at play—Ukraine and other candidates are required to meet stringent criteria that even some current members are unable or unwilling to uphold. If the EU fails to address these internal governance failures, its insistence on reform as a prerequisite for membership risks losing legitimacy and appearing politically motivated rather than principle-driven. It is important to remember that while reforms may be successfully implemented to meet pre-accession criteria, the absence of strong post-accession enforcement mechanisms can allow backsliding to occur within the Union itself.

From a security and geopolitical perspective, EU accession would mark a significant step in strengthening Ukraine’s position on the global stage. Membership in the EU would provide Ukraine with a stronger political and diplomatic standing, particularly in negotiations with Russia and other major international players. While EU membership does not automatically include security guarantees akin to NATO, it would bring economic and political security within the broader European framework. Furthermore, recent developments in U.S. foreign policy regarding NATO, shifting commitments to European security, and the EU’s own capacity to defend its borders have profound implications for enlargement policy. As the transatlantic alliance undergoes recalibration, questions arise about whether the EU can effectively secure its own eastern flank and provide the necessary security guarantees for potential new members like Ukraine. These factors could either accelerate Ukraine’s accession as a strategic imperative or complicate the process if European defence remains fragmented. 

Despite Ukraine's determination to join the European Union, the country faces substantial obstacles that could slow down or complicate the accession process. Apart from the internal issues within Ukraine and broader structural concerns within the EU, the war with Russia adds another layer of complexity to Ukraine’s EU aspirations.

While progress has been made in tackling corruption, further strengthening of anti-corruption institutions remains crucial to ensure transparency and accountability. Judicial independence is another area that requires significant attention, as Ukraine must guarantee that its courts operate without political interference. 

On the other hand, security concerns loom large, as the EU has never admitted a country actively engaged in an armed conflict. While Ukraine’s accession could strengthen the EU’s geopolitical position, it also raises difficult questions about security commitments and the potential risk of direct confrontation with Russia. Here, the economic impact represents another significant factor. Ukraine’s economy has suffered severe losses due to widespread destruction, reduced industrial output, and a strained labour market. According to the latest Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA4), published by the Government of Ukraine, the World Bank Group, the European Commission, and the United Nations, as of December 31, 2024, the total cost of Ukraine’s reconstruction and recovery over the next decade stands at $524 billion (€506 billion)—equivalent to 2.8 times the country’s projected nominal GDP for 2024.[1] Stabilising the economy and aligning it with EU standards will require long-term efforts and substantial financial assistance. Rebuilding Ukraine’s infrastructure, revitalising its economy, and ensuring social stability will demand extensive investment from both the EU and international partners. The scale of this effort may deter some EU member states from fully supporting Ukraine’s rapid integration. 

Ukraine's membership from the EU's perspective

Ukraine’s accession to the European Union would bring significant benefits to the bloc, strengthening it economically and geopolitically. As one of the largest countries in Europe with vast natural resources, a strong industrial base, and a highly skilled workforce, Ukraine has the potential to become a key driver of economic growth within the EU. Its fertile agricultural lands make it one of the world’s top food producers, and integrating Ukraine into the EU’s single market would enhance Europe’s food security, reduce dependence on external suppliers, and create new trade opportunities for both Ukrainian and European businesses. Ukraine already has strong ties with the EU trade, which broadened after the full-scale invasion, and the expansion of the EU market to include Ukraine would also attract investment, fostering industrial development and innovation in sectors such as technology, manufacturing, and energy.

Energy security is another major advantage of Ukraine’s integration. The country possesses vast renewable energy potential, particularly in wind and solar power, and is a crucial transit hub for natural gas supplies. Strengthening energy cooperation with Ukraine would help the EU diversify its energy sources, reduce its reliance on Russian energy, and accelerate the green transition. Ukraine’s nuclear power capabilities, which already play a significant role in its domestic energy supply, could also contribute to the EU’s broader energy strategy, ensuring a more resilient and self-sufficient energy system.

On a geopolitical level, Ukraine’s accession would reinforce the EU’s position as a global actor and a defender of democracy. By bringing Ukraine into the European fold, the EU would send a strong message of commitment to the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and democratic governance. This would help counter external threats, particularly from Russia, by expanding the EU’s influence in Eastern Europe and stabilising a region that has long been a flashpoint for geopolitical tensions. Ukraine’s membership would also enhance the EU’s security architecture, fostering deeper cooperation in defence, intelligence sharing, and border management. Given Ukraine’s battle-hardened military and growing expertise in cyber defence, its integration could contribute to the EU’s ability to respond to security challenges more effectively.

Culturally and politically, Ukraine’s accession would strengthen the EU’s democratic values and inject new momentum into the European project. Ukraine has demonstrated remarkable resilience and commitment to European ideals, with its citizens overwhelmingly supporting EU membership even in the face of war. Their dedication to reform, transparency, and democratic governance aligns with the EU’s core principles, making Ukraine a valuable addition to the European community. Furthermore, Ukraine’s inclusion could inspire reforms and greater integration efforts in other candidate countries, reinforcing the EU’s appeal as a beacon of stability and prosperity.

Nonetheless, Ukraine’s accession also presents notable challenges for the EU. As mentioned above, the financial burden of integrating Ukraine would be substantial, particularly in light of the country's post-war recovery needs. The EU would have to allocate significant funding for infrastructure rebuilding, economic stabilisation, and institutional reforms. Furthermore, Ukraine's large population and political weight would shift the balance within EU decision-making structures, potentially altering voting dynamics and influencing the direction of European policies. Concerns over labour migration and economic disparities between Ukraine and existing EU member states could create tensions, requiring careful policy adjustments to prevent social and economic disruptions.

Another significant concern surrounding Ukraine’s EU accession is the redistribution of EU Cohesion Funds, which are essential for supporting economic convergence between richer and poorer regions within the Union. Given Ukraine’s large population (around 40 million pre-war) and vast territory, the country would likely become one of the largest beneficiaries of these funds, receiving billions in structural and agricultural subsidies. This prospect will inevitably spark resistance among some EU member states, particularly those in Central and Eastern Europe, which currently rely heavily on these funds for infrastructure projects, rural development, and agricultural subsidies. Countries such as Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria—which have traditionally been major recipients of EU funds—could fear that Ukraine’s entry could significantly reduce their allocations. The EU’s budget for Cohesion Policy is finite, meaning that if Ukraine joins, it would inevitably lead to a redistribution of resources rather than an expansion of funding. This is particularly concerning for agriculture-dependent economies, as Ukraine’s vast agricultural sector could compete directly with EU farmers who have long benefited from subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The entry of Ukraine’s agricultural sector into the EU would intensify competition for subsidies, potentially leading to political pushback from European farmers and agricultural unions.

Finally, Ukraine's relations with neighbouring EU countries present diplomatic challenges. Issues related to the rights of ethnic minorities, particularly Hungarian and Romanian communities, have led to tensions with member states such as Hungary, which has previously threatened to veto Ukraine’s accession over these concerns. In Hungary’s case, Orbán's relationships with leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump have raised concerns about Hungary's alignment within the EU. His opposition to further military aid to Ukraine and calls for direct negotiations with Russia contrast with the broader EU strategy of supporting Kyiv against Russian aggression. Historical grievances, including events from World War II, continue to impact Ukraine’s relations with countries like Poland, requiring diplomatic efforts to address lingering disputes and foster mutual understanding. 

Ukraine’s EU Accession Journey: Broader Implications

Ukraine’s path to European Union accession has been marked by resilience, significant reforms, and geopolitical challenges. While its experience is unique due to its size, geopolitical position, and the ongoing war with Russia, there are valuable lessons for other prospective candidates, particularly those from the Balkans. Countries such as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia can draw both inspiration and caution from Ukraine’s efforts. However, they must also recognise the differences in their contexts and adapt Ukraine’s strategies to their own realities.

One of the most significant takeaways from Ukraine’s EU accession journey is that decisions often depend on political goodwill and a window of opportunity rather than technical or economic considerations. The speed at which Ukraine moved from applying for membership to being granted candidate status—despite being in the middle of a war—shows how EU decision-making can be heavily influenced by external political factors rather than just meeting predefined benchmarks.  The invasion by Russia created a geopolitical imperative for the EU to accelerate Ukraine’s integration, signalling its commitment to defending European values and strengthening its eastern borders. If Ukraine had applied for EU membership before 2022, it is likely that its attempt would have been met with hesitation or outright rejection due to concerns over corruption, governance, and economic challenges. The war dramatically shifted the political landscape, making rapid accession not just desirable but strategically essential. This underscores the importance of timing and external circumstances in EU decision-making, where alignment with broader political goals can sometimes take precedence over strict technical requirements.  

Economic differences also shape the applicability of Ukraine’s experience. Ukraine’s large market and agricultural sector give it economic leverage that some smaller Balkan economies lack. While Ukraine has had to restructure its economy under wartime conditions, it has maintained strategic importance in food security and energy transit, giving the EU additional incentives to integrate it. Balkan economies, while also needing reforms, may not have the same economic bargaining power and must rely more on fulfilling technical accession criteria rather than strategic geopolitical considerations.

Furthermore, Ukraine’s ability to unify its government, civil society, and public around the European project is not easily transferable to all Balkan countries. Some states in the region, particularly Serbia, maintain close ties with Russia and have a divided public opinion on EU integration. Unlike Ukraine, where European integration is largely seen as a necessity for national survival, Balkan states must work to consolidate political and social support for EU membership. Overcoming internal opposition and geopolitical balancing will require a different approach than Ukraine’s more clear-cut European trajectory.

Additionally, political goodwill from EU member states has played a crucial role in shaping Ukraine’s accession trajectory. Some countries, such as the Baltic states, have actively pushed for Ukraine’s rapid integration, recognising the strategic benefits of having a stable, European-oriented Ukraine within the bloc. Others, particularly those with more cautious approaches to enlargement, have had to balance their traditional scepticism with the reality that rejecting Ukraine’s candidacy would weaken the EU’s credibility and geopolitical position. This illustrates how member states’ domestic political priorities, public opinion, and diplomatic relationships can all influence the pace of accession.  

However, all of the above does not diminish the fundamental importance of reforms in candidate countries. While frustrations over prolonged negotiations and shifting EU priorities are understandable, the reform process itself is invaluable, as it fosters the rule of law, economic modernisation, and social cohesion—pillars of sustainable development regardless of immediate membership prospects. Ukraine’s experience highlights that aligning with European standards is not just about fulfilling external requirements but about creating a stronger, more transparent, and more accountable state that can withstand internal and external pressures. The countries that have struggled post-accession, such as Hungary and Bulgaria, serve as cautionary examples—despite meeting pre-accession criteria, weak enforcement mechanisms allowed democratic backsliding and institutional erosion once inside the EU.

By focusing on tangible reforms—such as judicial independence, anti-corruption efforts, and media freedom—and maintaining alignment with EU values and policies—even outside the formal accession framework—positions candidate countries as reliable and valuable partners in a Europe that is deeply interconnected. Given the shared economic and security challenges across the continent, working with the EU on issues like trade, energy security, defence cooperation, and migration strengthens integration in practical ways, even before formal membership. This approach also makes countries more attractive partners to key EU member states, fostering diplomatic alliances that could be crucial in pushing their accession bid forward when the political climate is right.

_______________________________
1. The RDNA4, which assesses damages sustained between February 24, 2022, and December 31, 2024, indicates that Ukraine has suffered direct damages totaling $176 billion (€170 billion)

Re-ACT Lab promotes research and innovation as a means to advance governmental and policy-making reforms in Kosovo and regionally.