Ukraine’s EU membership: Now comes the hard part

This summer marks a year since Ukraine became an official candidate for European Union (EU) membership under an accelerated process following Russia’s invasion. Kyiv currently sits at the doorstep of the negotiations stage, which could start this year according to EU officials. Historically, this stage is the longest, most technical, and bureaucratic part of the process, requiring extensive reforms under the “Copenhagen criteria” – a set of political, legal, and economic membership conditions.

In June 2022, the European Commission recommended granting Ukraine candidate status with an “understanding” that Kyiv must implement seven steps to strengthen anti-corruption and rule of law standards. Kyiv recently stated that it has complied with each of these conditions. The decision now lies with the EU, who must determine if Ukraine fulfilled basic requirements before the rigid negotiation process can start.

While Ukraine’s progress from applicant to candidate status was rapid, advocates should temper expectations for subsequent steps toward membership; they will not be as swift or simple. Kyiv could be caught in pre-negotiation limbo akin to current Western Balkan EU hopefuls. For reference, it took Belgrade and Podgorica about two years to start negotiations after reaching candidate status. Tirana waited six years to open formal negotiations after becoming a candidate in 2014, while Skopje sat idle for 15 years before opening talks with Brussels. Each nation had a particular set of challenges prohibiting their progress, but these roadblocks were nowhere near Ukraine’s predicament of fending off an invading military prior to starting negotiations.

The EU’s new accessions methodology, revised in 2020, is intended to “make enlargement a more credible, predictable, and dynamic.” But this modified approach likely won’t yield faster results for Ukraine or current candidates. EU accession is grounded in “fundamentals,” such as technical, legal, and bureaucratic reforms including rule of law, functioning democratic institutions, and public administration reform. Chapters covering fundamentals are opened first, closed last, and a challenge for current EU candidates with systemic corruption and political inefficiencies.

Moreover, Ukraine’s accelerated process to candidate status was – in part – a product of existing circumstances surrounding Russia’s invasion. This fact does not diminish Ukraine’s achievement, its political resolve to join the EU, or the progress made toward strengthening ties with the EU prior to and during the invasion. It merely underscores that aspiring EU nations with better political and economic conditions waited much longer to reach candidate status. It also leads to another question for many observers: Will the EU accelerate Ukraine’s membership in similar fashion to its candidacy given the existing geopolitical challenge?

Geopolitical Considerations and Technical Realities

EU leaders cautioned that Ukraine’s accession process will take time, implying that technical criteria is the key to membership. However, one cannot ignore the geopolitical undercurrents or the EU’s political will to shepherd Ukraine’s application. This is not a question of whether Ukraine deserves to join the EU – rather, it’s a series of questions regarding its readiness to join, and whether the EU will overlook required reforms in the light of geopolitical challenges. Moreover, how will the Western Balkans – who have been in various stages of the accessions process for over a decade – interpret Brussels’ decisions if Ukraine jumps the line?

The technical nature of accession negotiations, comprehensive reforms, and the bloc’s prior enlargement fatigue has led some Western Balkan nations to ponder if membership is a distant – or even likely – reality. The pace has contributed to noticeable declines in popular support for the EU in some candidate countries. With this context in mind, how will the EU balance geopolitical considerations and candidates’ capacities for reform?

Accelerating Ukraine’s negotiations by placing greater importance on geopolitical circumstances, rather than technical reforms, could further alienate other EU hopefuls. Given the Balkan candidate’s experience with negotiations, one can question whether technical criteria or geopolitical considerations take precedence in membership talks. For example, Bulgaria’s and Romania’s capacity to join was greatly scrutinized, but their eventual membership also brought a “stable political and economic anchor in a region surrounded by unstable neighbors” while closing “geographic divisions left over from the Cold War.” Despite serious issues related to crime, rule of law, and corruption, both nations entered the EU, albeit with special cooperation and verification requirements. This exemplifies the interplay of readiness, based on technical criteria, balanced with the strategic considerations involved with integration.

Geopolitical Monitor