In the face of Russian aggression against Ukraine, the enlargement of the European Union ceases to be a technocratic process and becomes a strategic response to the changing geopolitical reality. During a debate organised at the Polish Embassy in Berlin as part of the Polish-German Forum 2025 “Community for Difficult Times”, experts from Poland and Germany discussed the opportunities, challenges and costs associated with the future membership of new states – with particular focus on Ukraine.
The aim of the meeting was to reflect on how to effectively conduct the enlargement of the European Union and the ongoing accession processes. Participants debated the challenges associated with membership negotiations, the EU’s own preparations for admitting new states, and how the current security policy environment affects the enlargement strategy. Particular attention was devoted to the accession process of Ukraine.
The panel featured experts and officials from Poland and Germany: Elżbieta Kaca – analyst, PISM, Agnieszka Kowalska – Director of the European Policy Department at the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gunther Krichbaum – Minister for Europe at the Federal Foreign Office of Germany, Barbara Lippert – Director of Research at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), Kai-Olaf Lang – Senior Fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), Melchior Szczepanik – Director of the PISM Office in Brussels, and Daniel Szeligowski – Coordinator and Senior Analyst at PISM, representing both administrative practice and the research think-tank community.
The panellists’ presentations showed that the topic of European Union enlargement is not a matter of bureaucratic alignment of laws and institutions. In the era of Russian aggression against Ukraine, it has become above all a question about the shape of the geopolitical order in Europe.
Barbara Lippert from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) noted that the accession of new states to the Union is now a matter of security, not just the common market. According to Lippert, the Union should treat the expansion of its membership not as a threat to cohesion, but as an opportunity to strengthen the political and economic significance of Europe.
An important voice in the debate belonged to Agnieszka Kowalska from the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who represented Poland as the country holding the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU. She presented the specific actions taken by Warsaw to accelerate the enlargement process.
– Enlargement was our priority. We organised meetings, engaged partners from the Western Balkans, Ukraine and Moldova. We wanted to break the impasse – she said.
She spoke with pride about the opening of further negotiating clusters with Albania and about strengthening cooperation with countries in the region, but at the same time did not hide her disappointment: – We were hoping to open a key negotiating cluster with Ukraine and Moldova. Unfortunately, that did not happen. We are still blocked by the lack of unanimity in the Council.
The central point of the discussion was Ukraine. Daniel Szeligowski from the Polish Institute of International Affairs presented the situation from Kyiv’s perspective, drawing attention to the enormous societal expectations regarding EU membership.
– Between 70 and 80% of Ukrainians support integration with the EU. This is a civilisational choice, not a momentary reaction to the war – he emphasised. He added, however, that belief in quick success could prove fatal: one in five Ukrainians as recently as 2023 believed that the country would join the Union by the end of 2025. That is unrealistic and could lead to disillusionment.
In the expert’s opinion, the greatest barrier on Ukraine’s path today is not the war, but corruption.
Szeligowski also pointed out that this process will have not only a political but also an economic dimension. Enlargement to include Ukraine would cost member states approximately 0.1% of GDP – seemingly not much, but the costs are unevenly distributed. There will be winners and losers.
Gunther Krichbaum, Minister for Europe at the German Federal Foreign Office, called for a realistic approach to the integration process. He recalled that it is not the calendar that determines readiness for EU accession, but reforms in the candidate country. We must be honest with candidates – the road to membership is not short – he said.
Krichbaum also pointed out that enlargement is not only about aligning legislation, but also about enormous administrative challenges, particularly for smaller states. Germany too must adapt to the changing EU law. Small countries like Montenegro face a much more difficult task.
It was impossible to avoid the topic of Hungary’s veto, which effectively blocks the start of accession negotiations with Ukraine. Although the speakers refrained from directly criticising Budapest, the call for a political breakthrough to break the impasse and for finding mechanisms to exit the deadlock was clearly heard. As Kowalska noted, “without unanimity in the Council, we will not move forward”.
The discussion concluded with a reflection on the role of EU enlargement as a political, but also moral, instrument. Barbara Lippert summed up: – The Union must move from reactivity to a proactive strategy. Enlargement used to be a response to historical changes – today it should be a conscious choice for the future.
Both experts and officials agreed on one thing: how the European Union handles the accession process of Ukraine and other countries in the region will become a test of its cohesion, maturity and credibility.
Text: Aleksandra Bajno