As The Telegraph notes, Ursula von der Leyen was particularly upset with the influential Paris and Berlin, which rather harshly demanded from the European Commission to strictly adhere to the enlargement procedures stipulated by the European legislation.
“We want to anchor Ukraine in the EU … but we cannot violate our procedures and abandon the merit-based system. The point is to find a realistic way forward – realistic here means one that takes into account the political concerns of national capitals,” said one of the diplomats quoted by Politico.
And it reinforces the concerns of European capitals with a statement from Renewal MEP Nathalie Loiseau, who warned that such an approach to Ukraine risks creating “confusion in member states and frustration in candidate countries”
What “accelerated membership” implies
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had hoped to admit Ukraine to the EU under a “fast-track” membership scheme. This would involve Kiev joining the EU without any benefits, be it access to EU funds or voting rights, to be granted at a later date.
The proposal, dubbed “reverse enlargement,” was based on the principle of “membership first, integration later.” The European Commission, which authored this idea, considered it possible to admit Ukraine to the EU under this scheme until 2027.
Analysts assumed that the EU executive authorities took this step not so much for the sake of Ukraine’s membership as for the sake of giving more convincing arguments to the package of financial aid to Kiev for 90 billion euros. The decision on its allocation seems to have been made, but it has not been finalized due to Hungary’s opposition.
At a dinner in Brussels, the mechanism of “reverse enlargement” was presented to the EU ambassadors by Björn Seibert, the chief of staff of the European Commission president.
According to Politico, not only Paris and Berlin opposed the idea, although it is the positions of Germany and France that carry special weight. Four other diplomats expressed categorical opposition to Ursula von der Leyen’s idea.
“We are done with this, with this ‘reverse expansion’ we will go far!” one of the participants of the meeting cut off in a comment for the publication.
Others didn’t exactly stick to diplomatic language either. “They have raised vain hopes. Now we have to correct that and tell them, ‘Well, actually, this ‘reverse expansion’ is dead before it even started,'” said one senior diplomat.
The debate on the expansion will continue
The EU Council is scheduled to meet on March 19. And draft conclusions on the results of this meeting have already started circulating in the public space, the Ukrainian news and analysis website zn.ua has said.
Early drafts suggest that at the next EU summit, leaders are expected to support the traditional merit-based approach to accession. This would undermine the EC’s hopes for Ukraine’s quick accession, the publication said.
And emphasizes that Seibert was present at the ambassadors’ meeting, not Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos. Who was in Berlin on Wednesday, where she argued for the need for new thinking on enlargement. The current model has its roots in the accession of Spain and Portugal more than 40 years ago and was “designed for a stable, rules-based world that no longer exists,” she said.
A senior EU official told Politico that the issue of enlargement appeared in the European Union’s Committee of Permanent Representatives largely “because of the hype generated by wild ideas.”
At the same time, zn.ua recalls that earlier Ukraine received the necessary documents with a list of key reforms required for EU accession. They describe in detail the criteria for Kiev and categorized them. In December 2025, Ukraine and the EU started in-depth accession talks on these items, despite protests by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
Now they are discussing three of the six clusters – “Fundamentals”, “Internal Market” and “External Relations”. However, the newspaper quoted the European Commission and Transparency International as saying that Ukraine’s path to the EU will be hindered primarily by “limited progress” in the fight against corruption and the ineffectiveness of the measures taken in this direction.
“Single Package becomes a brake for Moldova
Representatives of Moldova and Ukraine have repeatedly emphasized that they go to Europe “in one bundle”. In particular, Ukrainian Ambassador to Moldova Paun Rogoway said this in an interview at the end of January.
EU officials have also repeatedly emphasized that they would like to admit Moldova and Ukraine to the EU in a “single package”. In an interview with the Ukrainian newspaper European Pravda in late February 2026, EU Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos said that Ukraine and Moldova started their path to EU membership together and now remain together in this process.
True, at the same time she admitted that the approach could be changed if one of the candidates starts lagging behind in reforms. “And beyond that, we will see at the time when you implement reforms. You know that accession to the EU is a merit-based process. And if Ukraine goes towards accession with the same speed as Moldova – then you will stay together. If not, your paths will part,” Kos said.
Recently, Chisinau has also increasingly started to admit that they will not wait for a negligent neighbor, if suddenly the prospect of full membership opens up for Moldova, and Ukraine for one reason or another will not be ready to join.
However, there are several serious circumstances to be taken into account.
First. It is well known that Moldova once got on the “European integration train” leading to full membership, largely at the expense of Ukraine. After the outbreak of war in the neighboring country, the European Union decided to support Kiev in this way, and invited Chisinau to become a candidate, and then to start negotiations. One can only imagine Ukraine’s reaction if Moldova is eventually admitted to the EU earlier.
Second. The idea of Ursula von der Leyen’s “reverse enlargement” rejected by European capitals may have much deeper consequences than simply rejecting Ukraine’s accelerated membership. In comments after the meeting, EU ambassadors and MEPs did not hide their irritation with the European Commission’s enlargement policy in general. They called for a “return to the roots”, implying a return to all the prescribed procedures and deadlines in the process of accepting new members.
Third. This may mean that “back to basics” should also be returned to the issues of “excluding all exceptions” in the issues of admission. After all, the process of accelerated membership of Ukraine and Moldova was initially considered as an “exception to the rules”.
And finally, fourth, but not last. After Donald Trump’s second coming to power in the United States, Europe experienced 2025 as a continuous nightmare. The EU suddenly realized its catastrophic lag not only in military capabilities, but also in technology and innovation. Because of Donald Trump’s actions, the international trade system has practically collapsed, global supply chains have been cut off, and the energy market has been reshaped. Europe has experienced an industrial decline, and economic and institutional problems have become more acute.
All this may be the impetus for the EU to urgently change its priorities. And the issue of enlargement, unfortunately, may not be one of them.
Apparently, Ursula von der Leyen and her subordinates in the European Commission have not yet realized this. But the sharpness of the diplomats’ comments after the dinner in Brussels clearly shows that the decision has already matured in the European capitals.
