Reading time: 6 minutes
The Center for European Studies, in partnership with Modul University Vienna, convened leading policymakers, academics, and experts to explore the evolving prospects of European Union enlargement. Centering on the Western Balkans and Ukraine, the event examined how political will, strategic vision, and social cohesion will determine whether the EU can sustain its role as a credible geopolitical actor. Through a series of candid discussions and debates, participants assessed the state of enlargement fatigue, the political and institutional barriers within the EU, and the shifting geopolitical realities brought about by the war in Ukraine. The event ultimately posed a central question: can the EU adapt and expand in a world defined by a new political order?
The event commenced with remarks from Mr. Karl Wöber, President of Modul University Vienna, who highlighted the significant presence of students from the Western Balkans at Modul University and underlined the importance of building stronger ties between national and international institutions. He emphasized that the future of Europe depends on how the EU responds to current challenges, stressing the need for shared responsibility and purpose among member and candidate countries.
In his opening remarks, Mr. Rodrigo Ballester, Head of the Center for European Studies, offered a critical assessment of the EU's inconsistent approach to enlargement. He noted that European leaders who once hesitated on the Western Balkans are now eager to push forward Ukraine's accession, exposing contradictions within the EU's enlargement agenda. Mr. Ballester recalled that former Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker effectively froze enlargement at the start of his term, and that even pro-European leaders such as Emmanuel Macron blocked progress with North Macedonia and Montenegro. He questioned whether France's 2022 creation of the European Political Community (EPC) was truly designed to advance enlargement or merely to delay it. According to Mr. Ballester, the EU has fallen into a "comfortable stalemate," where it continuously adds new conditions and loses sight of its strategic purpose. He challenged the audience to ask whether enlargement is reserved for Ukraine and Moldova, whether the EU can realistically absorb Ukraine, and whether it still acts as a credible geopolitical power or merely as a bureaucratic actor awakening from a long "dolce vita."
The first panel, titled "Waiting for Godot: European Enlargement in the Western Balkans," explored how prolonged delays in EU accession have affected public opinion and political attitudes in the region. Dr. Marija Risteska, founder and Executive Directress of the Centre for Research and Policy Making (CPRM), from North Macedonia described widespread frustration and fatigue among citizens, who still see no alternative future other than EU membership. She argued that the accession process has lost its original meritocratic basis and become increasingly politicized and unpredictable. Despite making the greatest sacrifices - such as changing the country's name and constitution - North Macedonia continues to wait without clear progress. She attributed much of this stagnation to internal political fatigue within the EU itself, as Member States turn inward to deal with domestic crises such as migration, debt, and the war in Ukraine.
His Excellency, Mr. Filip Ivanovic, Deputy Prime Minister for Foreign and European Affairs of Montenegro, confirmed that public support for EU membership remains consistently high, with recent polls showing around 85% in favor. However, he warned that unmet promises by the EU erode public trust. Montenegro, he noted, has made significant progress on reforms, particularly in the rule of law and economic modernization, but the slow pace of negotiations has created "waiting room fatigue." He also pointed to economic reforms at home, such as increases in wages and employment, as evidence that EU-driven reforms can bring tangible benefits. Mr. Miroslav Gačević, Assistant Minister at the Ministry of European Integration for the Republic of Serbia, shared similar frustrations, describing a divided Serbian society where enthusiasm for the EU was at its highest in 2008, at around 80%, after the abolition of the visa system. He emphasized that Serbia needs reassurance from Brussels that it is still wanted as a member, noting that the current system no longer feels like a level playing field.
Mr. Misa Djurkovic, Head of the MCC-MKI Center for Geopolitics, added that geopolitics increasingly dictates the pace and nature of enlargement. He observed that while the EU remains mired in hesitation, other powers such as China and Turkey are delivering concrete infrastructure projects in the region, increasing their influence. He argued that demographic decline, emigration, and immigration are creating long-term security risks for Europe, and that integration must occur soon if the EU wishes to preserve its influence. The speakers agreed that the Western Balkans cannot wait indefinitely, as demographic and geopolitical shifts are rapidly changing the region's outlook.
The second panel, “Too Big to Digest: Can the EU Swallow Ukraine?” turned to the challenges of Ukraine's potential accession. Dr. Sándor Seremet, Senior Researcher at the Hungarian Institute of International Affairs (HIIA) compared the process to deploying a parachute - too early and it may fail, too late and it could be fatal - stressing that timing is critical. Mr. Ruslan Bortnik, President of the Ukrainian Institute for Politics and Research Fellow at HIIA, argued that enlargement decisions are always political rather than procedural, and that the EU must determine whether Ukraine's membership serves its strategic interests. He suggested that Western Balkan countries are currently not perceived as valuable enough to the EU and that the transatlantic dialogue between the United States and Europe will shape future decisions. Mr. Alexander Dubowy, Political Analyst and Eastern Europe Researcher, added that full accession for Ukraine cannot take place while the war continues, identifying three main challenges: the security threat posed by Russia, the agricultural implications of integration, and the institutional restructuring that would be required within the EU. He described Ukraine's potential accession not as a moral gesture but as a strategic project.
Mr. Doug Stokes, Head of the School of International Relations at Modul University, raised broader questions about the EU's role as a geopolitical actor. He argued that the Union's postwar structure - once built to manage Germany's power and ensure peace - now faces a crisis of purpose amid declining demographics and economic strain. With the United States increasingly disengaged from European security, the EU must reconcile its idealistic ambitions with the hard realities of sovereignty and power. He warned that the technocratic "supra-nationalization" of Europe is reaching its limits and that the EU must ground its enlargement strategy in security and strategic thinking rather than utopian ideals.
The discussion concluded with reflections on how the EU might manage both the Ukrainian and Western Balkan enlargement tracks while redefining its relationship with Russia. Some panelists argued that Ukraine's accession could even serve Russian interests by overextending the EU, while others saw the war as an opportunity to reshape Europe's security architecture and eventually re-engage Russia in a new geopolitical bargain. The debate revealed deep divisions over how Europe should balance values, pragmatism, and strategic stability in its neighborhood.
In closing, participants agreed that the EU in its current form may be too small and outdated to absorb large new members without serious internal reform. The event concluded with a clear message: unless the EU revitalizes its enlargement policy, restores credibility in the Western Balkans, and develops a coherent geopolitical vision, it risks losing both influence and identity in its immediate neighborhood.
