Alona Lebedieva
For the first time in a long while, the European Union is openly searching for a non-standard enlargement formula. The discussion concerns the possibility of Ukraine’s accelerated but phased accession to the EU – not as a technical experiment, but as a political signal and a component of the future post-war security architecture.
According to Reuters, the European Commission is discussing a scenario under which Ukraine could formally join the European Union within a relatively short timeframe, while acquiring the full scope of rights and powers gradually – depending on its fulfilment of the membership criteria. This would represent a radical departure from the classic enlargement model the EU has relied on for decades.
It is important to note from the outset that this idea is still at an early stage and does not have the status of an agreed decision. Many member states remain sceptical of any fixed accession dates, stressing that enlargement must be based on genuine reform progress and requires ratification by the parliaments of all 27 countries. Separate concerns are being voiced about the creation of a two-tier membership model – Brussels understands well that such a precedent could alter the very logic of future enlargements.
In effect, the EU now faces a dilemma: either preserve the formal purity of its rules or adapt them to the reality of war. The proposed approach turns the usual sequence of European integration upside down. Ukraine could become an EU member faster, but would gain access to voting rights, the budget, and key policies in stages. Even in this format, the decision would be highly complex, requiring unanimous political will and the completion of internal procedures in each member state.
In my view, this signals a deeper transformation of the EU itself.
“The European Union is, for the first time, seriously considering a scenario in which political expediency runs ahead of the classic bureaucratic logic of enlargement” – and this is no coincidence.
The context of these discussions is obvious – the war and the possible parameters of a future peace agreement with Russia. Within the European Commission, there is growing recognition that politically, Ukraine does not have decades to wait, as was typical for previous enlargement waves. For Ukrainian society, the prospect of membership is not an abstract European dream, but a matter of stability, economic predictability, and a security anchor.
“For Ukraine, the issue of membership is not a technical track, but a question of survival, trust, and security guarantees in the post-war period,” and it is precisely this that is changing the tone of the debate in Brussels.
At the same time, the EU cannot ignore other enlargement tracks. Montenegro and Albania remain the closest to full membership according to technical criteria and continue along the classic negotiation path. Any deviation from established rules will inevitably raise questions – and will require delicate political balancing within the Union.
That is why the idea of phased membership for Ukraine is, above all, a political decision. It reflects an understanding that Ukraine’s integration has become a matter of the EU’s own security, rather than just another stage of enlargement. But this approach carries a key risk.
“Half-membership cannot be a permanent condition. Without clear stages, deadlines, and mutual commitments, it risks turning into a symbolic gesture” – one that may reassure today, but generate frustration tomorrow.
Therefore, the main task is not to invent a new form of membership for the sake of compromise, but to combine rapid political integration with real, measurable reform progress. Only such a model can lead Ukraine to full membership while preserving trust in the rules on which the European Union itself is built.
