Rumors about a possible acceleration of Ukraine’s accession to the European Union are becoming increasingly frequent. Across the bloc, they trigger mixed reactions – ranging from enthusiasm to outright resistance. Among political leaders, the most vocal critic remains Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. In a recent sensational post targeting both Ukraine and the EU, he spoke of a supposed “secret plan” involving €800 billion ($949 billion) for Ukraine and an accession date as early as 2027.
Hungary’s opposition leader, Anita Orbán (no relation to the prime minister), recently suggested that Budapest’s policy toward Ukraine could change significantly after the upcoming elections. Many admit privately that a number of EU member states could impose very high requirements on Ukraine or remain politically reluctant to support rapid accession. The EU treaties themselves may also pose obstacles, as any amendments would require unanimous approval from all member states.
There is also the broader political context of other aspiring countries – particularly the Western Balkans – which have spent years trying to meet demanding EU criteria. Moldova is also on the accession path, for which EU membership, like for Ukraine, represents a strategic choice. In this regard, Kyiv and Chișinău are acting in close coordination.
For the moment, however, let us set aside the obstacles and skeptical voices, and focus on the tangible benefits of Ukraine’s integration with the European Union.
Yes to Ukraine in the EU
Poland is often incorrectly portrayed as a brake on Ukraine’s EU aspirations. Yet on Jan. 25, during a meeting in Vilnius with the presidents of Lithuania and Ukraine, Polish President Karol Nawrocki clearly stated that Ukraine’s future lies in the West. This should be understood as support for Ukraine’s European course.
Some skeptical statements made by Polish politicians should be viewed in context. They largely concerned unresolved historical disputes between Poland and Ukraine and were voiced during an election campaign, which naturally follows its own political logic. On Jan. 26, Warsaw hosted Moldovan President Maia Sandu. Together with President Nawrocki, she emphasized that EU enlargement “is not an act of generosity,” adding: “It is an investment in Europe’s security. Enlarging the European Union means enlarging its area of peace, stability, and shared rules.”
What matters most is Ukraine’s continued commitment to reform.
Why Ukraine’s EU membership is beneficial
Ukraine’s EU membership would serve both the strategic interests of the Union and the needs of Ukrainian society itself. The key benefits include:
- Stability: Compliance with EU law, adherence to treaties, and oversight by European institutions significantly increase the predictability of political, economic, and social decision-making. Transparent and enforceable legal frameworks, combined with steady economic growth, also foster social stability.
- Integration: Legal harmonization, meeting EU standards, including environmental norms, access to European funds, and integration into the single market all raise living standards and stimulate economic growth. These effects benefit not only Ukraine but the entire EU.
- Institutional anchoring: EU institutional frameworks provide political and institutional stability without limiting democratic processes, public protests, or changes of government. Without alliances such as the EU and NATO, some states would be more vulnerable to internal or external revisionism – and Russia would undoubtedly exploit that. Concerns about Ukraine’s postwar political stability are understandable, but EU membership would significantly reduce such risks by structurally anchoring the country in the Western system.
- A sense of success: After the war, Ukrainians will need a tangible sense of victory. The same is true for EU citizens after years of supporting Ukraine amid growing uncertainty. Ukraine’s EU membership – seen as the symbolic completion of the Euromaidan process that launched the country’s westward trajectory – could be perceived as a civilizational breakthrough. Even an initially incomplete form of membership, such as limited voting rights or exclusion from the Schengen Area, would help build positive social momentum, particularly among veterans, their families, and those who lost their livelihoods due to the war. This would be a far stronger emotional foundation than narratives focused solely on defending sovereignty.
Contrary to Viktor Orbán’s rhetoric – driven largely by domestic politics and upcoming elections – it is difficult to imagine Ukraine’s full EU accession in the short term. A more realistic scenario involves gradual convergence: a form of hybrid or partial membership (for example, without voting rights in the EU Council), or participation in the European Economic Area, as in the case of Norway. Such arrangements would not require treaty changes or unanimous approval by all member states.
Difficult times call for out-of-the-box thinking – both in Kyiv and in European capitals. The accession process and negotiations will undoubtedly be complex, especially where sectoral disputes and market protection are concerned, such as agriculture in Poland or transport in Lithuania. These concerns are understandable and should not automatically be interpreted as attempts to block accession.
What matters most is Ukraine’s continued commitment to reform: strengthening the rule of law, ensuring effective enforcement, reinforcing state institutions, and aligning its economy and infrastructure with European standards, while actively seeking and seizing windows of opportunity.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.