Disagreements in Brussels exposed deep doubts about feasibility and timing. Negotiators now face tough choices over procedures, finance, and conditional pathways.
After the meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels, there are varying positions on the possibility of Ukraine’s faster accession to the European Union. Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski expressed skepticism about the advisability of such a step, while supporters of reverse membership believe that Ukraine could anchor a date of 2027 in a peace agreement. Alongside this, Ursula von der Leyen, head of the European Commission, supports the idea of the so-called “reverse membership” for Ukraine.
I always value creative thinking. The actual accession of Ukraine will be a major challenge for both Ukraine itself and the European Union, as it is a large country, but not very prosperous. At the same time, let us remember that Ukraine has not yet fully implemented the Association Agreement. So creative thinking is one thing, and political decisions are another.
After Sikorski’s remarks, journalists drew attention to his note about procedural nuances. According to him, a decision on accelerated accession would require clear calculations and prudent steps, since Ukraine is a large country by size, but economically not always stable. He emphasized: “creative thinking is one thing, and political decisions are another” – that is, not everything that sounds creative can become reality without carefully thought-out mechanisms.
“Reverse membership” would mean that Ukraine would first become a member state of the EU, and only then, as reforms are implemented, would join specific areas of cooperation within the Union, in particular the Cohesion Policy or the Common Agricultural Policy.
Such ideas emphasize a possible phased path of integration: from formal participation to progressively full use of European cooperation instruments. In this context they mention not only the prospect of membership but also new mechanisms of cooperation that could strengthen reforms in Ukraine and ensure more predictable interaction with the EU.
Key Issues for Discussion
Sikorski’s comments cover not only political ambitions but also real procedural challenges and financial aspects. Accelerated accession of Ukraine to the EU will require a long process of adaptation, well-coordinated reforms, and a clear roadmap. At the same time, supporters of “reverse membership” argue that such a mechanism could provide flexibility in integration and reduce risks for both sides.
The central focus also remains on the pace of reforms, the effective implementation of the Association Agreement, and how Ukraine will be able to fully utilize the instruments within the EU, in particular those related to cohesion policy and the Common Agricultural Policy. Brussels’ reaction to these proposals remains open for now, but clearly: any decision will require significant effort from Ukraine and a long dialogue with Europe as a whole.
For her part, Ursula von der Leyen, as participants note, supports the idea that Ukraine will first become a participant in cooperation in certain areas, and then – according to reforms – will expand its interaction. This approach emphasizes the importance of thoughtful steps and the mutual benefits of integration mechanisms.
In conclusion, the discussion about the possibility of Ukraine’s rapid accession to the EU remains multifaceted and requires consideration of political, economic and legal aspects. A clear vision of the roadmap, realistic reforms and an open dialogue between Kyiv and Brussels will be decisive factors for Ukraine’s future path in the EU.