OMM Redaksiyası
The European Union’s simultaneous progress in membership talks with Ukraine, Moldova, Montenegro and Albania is regarded as the bloc’s most ambitious enlargement initiative in more than two decades.
The move is underpinned by strategic calculations related to war, security risks and Europe’s long-term geopolitical future. Political analyst Yelena Novakova said Russia’s war against Ukraine and the EU’s desire to preserve stability along its eastern and southeastern borders had played a greater role in accelerating the process than economic factors.
Why is the EU moving faster now?
Novakova said the four countries currently receiving particular attention lie at the intersection of Europe’s security concerns.
According to her, Montenegro is closely aligned with the EU’s foreign policy, has introduced visas for Russian citizens and joined sanctions against Moscow.
Moldova, meanwhile, is viewed in Brussels as vulnerable to Russian interference, particularly during elections. Novakova said EU officials were seeking to prevent “a repeat of the Georgian scenario.” This helps explain the acceleration of Moldova’s membership talks despite continuing difficulties related to reforms.
Ukraine’s situation is different. Its membership process is linked to broader European efforts to strengthen the country’s Western orientation while the war continues. However, Novakova stressed that unresolved territorial disputes remained a major obstacle to membership.
Albania is not considered particularly exposed to Russian influence. Its candidacy is more closely aligned with a strategy to strengthen stability in the Western Balkans.
Will enlargement bring economic benefits to the EU?
In Novakova’s assessment, the short-term economic rationale for enlargement is limited. She said all four countries were significantly less developed than existing EU members and that their accession was not expected to bring direct economic benefits to the bloc.
The main advantage is strategic. Integrating these countries into the EU could reduce Russia’s ability to exert foreign influence and help ease long-standing regional tensions.
Closer integration in the Balkans has long been viewed as a stabilizing factor. Novakova said a successful membership process could reduce the political uncertainty that still persists in parts of the region. In this way, Brussels appears prepared to accept short-term economic costs in exchange for greater geopolitical stability.
Will the membership rules change?
Despite the recent acceleration of the process, Novakova is skeptical that the EU will fundamentally change its membership framework.
Various proposals have been put forward in recent years in France and Germany, as well as proposals associated with Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama and former Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic. However, the analyst said a real change to the membership process would require amendments to the Treaty of Lisbon.
Such a change would require the unanimous agreement of all 27 EU members. Given existing divisions within the bloc over enlargement, this is considered unlikely.
Novakova said there was significant resistance to enlargement within the EU and that future political changes, particularly in key countries such as France, could slow or even halt the process. In other words, although Brussels is moving faster politically, the formal membership criteria remain largely unchanged.
When could the countries join?
Among the four candidates, Novakova considers Montenegro the frontrunner. In her view, the country is close to completing the membership requirements, and joining the EU in 2028 remains a realistic goal. Even if that date is postponed, Montenegro is expected to become a member within several years.
Albania’s path is less certain. The government hopes to join in 2030, but ongoing corruption scandals and concerns about organized crime are causing hesitation in Brussels. Albania’s membership process is therefore expected to take longer than Montenegro’s.
Ukraine and Moldova face more complex problems. Although both countries have strong political support, Ukraine’s unresolved territorial issues and Moldova’s vulnerability to Russian influence complicate their path to membership.
How might other candidate countries react?
One of the main questions surrounding the EU’s approach is whether countries progressing more slowly will feel left behind. Novakova believes most of these countries understand why they have fallen behind.
North Macedonia’s process has been blocked by Bulgaria’s demand that Skopje add a provision recognizing the Bulgarian minority to its constitution. Sofia is expected to continue using its veto until the issue is resolved.
Serbia faces a number of obstacles, including concerns over the rule of law, corruption, human rights, its failure to align with EU policy toward Russia and its unresolved dispute with Kosovo.
Kosovo is not officially recognized by all EU members. Bosnia and Herzegovina has also yet to fulfill many of the commitments requested by Brussels.
For this reason, Novakova does not believe these countries view the progress of the four candidates as a genuine insult. However, she noted that domestic politicians could raise the issue for political purposes, increasing public dissatisfaction with the EU and potentially causing further alienation.
What will the impact on Russia be?
The most significant consequences of enlargement are expected in the geopolitical sphere. Novakova linked the accelerated relations with Ukraine, Moldova and Montenegro to concerns about Russian influence.
Montenegro’s participation in EU sanctions, Moldova’s vulnerability to election interference and Ukraine’s position as the main front in Europe’s confrontation with Russia have placed Moscow at the center of enlargement discussions.
Bringing these countries closer to the EU limits Russia’s ability to exert influence in Europe and demonstrates Brussels’ intention to strengthen its own influence in contested regions.
At the same time, Moscow could view further enlargement as another sign of the EU’s advance into areas Russia considers strategically important, potentially increasing existing tensions.
From Brussels’ perspective, however, delaying integration could create greater risks than accelerating the process. According to Novakova’s analysis, the EU’s current enlargement initiative is driven less by economics than by security, influence and the future political structure of Europe.
