Ukraine and Moldova start accession negotiations with the European Union on Tuesday. The first intergovernmental conferences in Luxembourg will mark the official start of the two countries’ path towards the Community, though the path is long, with years, if not decades, of work ahead.
“We can be happy because this is a really important step and there were many fears that it might not happen at all,” Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis commented to LRT.lt.
However, he sees two problems.
“The first is that a lot of compromises and concessions have already been made to certain member states that demanded them,” he says referring primarily to Hungary. “This means that the very start is a bit more difficult, the very first steps include conditions that will cause problems in the future.
“The second challenge is that there are a lot of steps to be taken before membership. And if we are already facing such big problems, it is reasonable to be concerned that there will be even more obstruction as we move ahead,” says Landsbergis.
Rikard Jozwiak, a journalist with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty who focuses on the Eastern European region, also acknowledges that Tuesday’s intergovernmental conferences are an important, but more symbolic, step ahead of a challenging path. However, he says, symbolism is not unimportant.
“Ukraine and Moldova live on that symbolism, it’s a big deal for them. It always amazes me how many Ukrainians care about it, how they follow the EU’s every move, even when they are fighting a brutal war at the same time. It is their light at the end of the tunnel. So while we may be a bit dismissive in Brussels, Prague or Vilnius, saying that this is just a symbolic start, we should not underestimate the emotional significance of this event,” he says.
Linas Kojala, head of the Vilnius-based think tank Centre for East European Studies, points out that only three or four years ago even starting such talks seemed a fantasy.
“But now it is becoming a reality, and this is happening at a really difficult time, when there is little good news in Ukraine. We’re unlikely to hear any good news from the NATO summit either, because the process towards NATO membership is even more complicated,” says Kojala.
So while the start of the talks is very important for Ukrainians, they should check their expectations, he adds: “We can hardly expect Ukraine to join in the next few years, and it is important not to create exaggerated expectations for Ukrainians.”
Hungary’s objections
EU leaders gave Ukraine and Moldova the go-ahead to start formal accession talks last December. However, the European Commission made recommendations on reforms that both countries needed to implement before the talks could actually launch.
On June 7, the EC welcomed the progress made by both countries. The Commission stated that Kyiv had met the remaining requirements on efforts to curb the power of the oligarchs and to better ensure the rights of ethnic minorities.
“Ukraine has fulfilled all the actions we set out and we believe that the EU should start accession negotiations with Ukraine already at the end of this month,” said Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
But not all countries agreed with this assessment. While Moldova’s progress has not been questioned, Ukraine’s progress has not convinced one country, Hungary, which was the only one to block Kyiv’s bid to open negotiations in December.
Budapest continued to insist that Ukraine had not done enough to guarantee the rights of ethnic Hungarians living in the country, even though Kyiv amended its legislation on ethnic minority education in December.
“The essence of this education law, which is so patriotic, so to speak, is to promote the use of the Ukrainian language in public institutions such as schools. The Hungarians did not like this because it meant that more subjects would be taught in Ukrainian. [...] So Hungary wanted clearer references to the Hungarian minority in the negotiating framework with the EU and to the protection of minority rights in general. In fact, in recent weeks and months, this is what the debate has been all about, what should be mentioned in that negotiating framework. In the end, Kyiv and Budapest reached a compromise,” says Jozwiak.
Although some concessions have been made, it was in the interest of both Ukraine and the rest of the EU countries to start formal negotiations as early as possible, as Hungary takes over the EU Presidency on July 1, which is expected to slow down any progress even more.
“But the bottom line is that the issue is still not settled and I think Hungary will start to take advantage of this at every turn in the enlargement process,” says Jozwiak.
Seventy votes to go
Although Budapest has finally relented and today Ukraine and Moldova can start their formal accession negotiations, this means that the most difficult and lengthy phase has begun. The screening phase usually lasts about a year and is intended to examine a candidate country’s legislation against the 35 criteria laid down by the EU. This will result in a roadmap of what reforms and legislative changes are needed to bring national law into line with EU law in each area.
The 35 points – also known as articles, chapters or acquis – cover areas ranging from ensuring the free movement of goods to compulsory changes in education. Each “opening” of an article – when the country can start implementing the necessary reforms – again requires unanimous agreement by all EU countries.
The EC assesses progress on a five-point system and only if the highest score of five is awarded does the Commission recommend “closing” the article. Again, this requires the agreement of all the member states – so they all have to agree with the Commission’s positive assessment and accept that the acceding country has done everything it needed to do in this area, this particular chapter, and can move on to other chapters/articles.
Put simply, it will take over 70 votes by EU member states, all of which must be unanimous, before a country can be declared suitable for EU membership. If there is even one objecting country, the accession process stalls.
“At the moment it seems that only Hungary can delay [the process], but it could also be any other EU member state that might be unhappy with Ukraine or just want to use these negotiations to get something in return from the EU. This is a very extraordinary process and it would be foolish to speculate how long it will take. But I’ll be a fool and say it will take a decade or more,” says Jozwiak.
He adds that it cannot be ruled out that other countries may be increasingly obstructionist during accession.
“I fear that in the future, perhaps more than Hungary, Poland, which of course is a big supporter of Ukraine, will start to pose challenges, especially on the agricultural side. Poland will want to secure concessions that help its farmers and not Ukraine’s, and this could become a major obstacle in Ukraine’s accession process,” he says.
Kojala says he sees more obstacles that could hold back the process.
“Many would agree that there is no possibility to admit Ukraine to the EU today, because the EU itself is not ready institutionally, in terms of its budgeting procedures. This means that the Community itself will have to change internally in parallel, rethink itself, its functioning model and its long-term perspective. We know that internal reforms, which will also require the agreement of all the member states, are quite complex and could take a very long time.
“Another challenge is the political cycles within individual EU countries. The most immediate example is the French parliamentary elections, which may not have a direct impact on these processes, but there will be presidential elections in 2027. The rise of Marine Le Pen’s popularity, as well as the Alternative for Germany party [in Germany], suggests that even countries that are firmly on Ukraine’s side may become less enthusiastic. So it will be a bumpy road, and there will be ups and downs,” he says.
The fundamental challenge is war
Another key question the EU will have to answer is whether a country can become a member if there is a war on its territory.
“In fact, I doubt very much that there are EU leaders who would want to admit a country to the EU when there is an open war. It has simply never happened before. Some say that Cyprus is an example, which is known to be divided. Only the southern, and therefore the Greek, part was admitted to the EU in 2004, along with Lithuania. But there is a big difference because there has not been a hot war there since 1974. Technically, the country was at war with Turkey, which was also a candidate for accession and got along quite well with the EU at the time,” points out Jozwiak.
Kojala says that if the war is fought with the intensity it is waged today, it will indeed be a serious setback.
“While the EU is not bound by collective defence agreements, it does have a treaty obligation to help a member state under threat. This could be an important argument for those who would say that Ukraine should not become a member today because the intensity of the war is too high and there is no certainty about when it will end,” he says.
However, Kojala points out that given the length of the accession process, by the time it reaches final stages the intensity of fighting will likely have abated.
Newsletter
Every Friday morning.
