“We need to look faster and more capable, and less bureaucratic. If it does not respond, we will lose ground to third parties, who are waiting to take our place”. The statement belongs to the Austrian Minister of European Affairs and Integration Claudia Plakolm and was made on the Politico website, a few 24 hours before the next European Council Meeting and its , which will take place on October 23. And it describes, in the most eloquent way, the intention of some governments to promote, in the most decisive way, the cause of the enlargement of the Union, at the mercy of the developments on its front.
About… inclusion
The same instrument, in fact, according to three diplomatic sources, which he did not name, refers to the proposal that is being discussed, already at an early stage and is being promoted with greater persistence, by countries such as Sweden and Austria. This allows new members to join the EU, without full voting rights, in a move that could immediately pave the way for Ukraine, Moldova and Montenegro. Details of the specific proposal, which the Commission and specific political leaders strongly support, have not been made known, but the logic behind it is that this kind of “half-membership” will allow the member states to enjoy the benefits of the European family, until institutional reforms are made and without being able to exercise a veto.
However, the reference to the countries in question is not accidental, since all three of them are at the forefront of the confrontation between Brussels and Moscow.
Moldova recently emerged from an electoral contest in which pro-European forces emerged victorious, but denounced heavy Russian interference.
Similarly, the president of Montenegro, Jakov Milatovic, in a recent interview, spoke of the need for the EU to contribute to countering “malign influence from third countries”, implicitly, but not explicitly, photographing Moscow.
As for war-torn and defensive Ukraine against Russian aggression, it is developing into a real catalyst for developments. And this is because the declared intention of the United States of Donald Trump to disengage from the European theater, passing on its costs to the allies of the “collective” West, creates dichotomies as to which method is the appropriate one for dealing with Russia on the one hand and the (multi-legendary) strategic autonomy of the Old Continent.
Objections
It is noted that the idea to change the EU accession rules is at an early stage and should be approved by all existing member states. Until then, however, the resistance of specific members, who for their own reasons appear negative towards such a development, will have to be overcome.
Hungary and Slovakia, because they consider that the integration of these countries, on the one hand, will take away resources from them and on the other hand, because they have made it clear in the most emphatic way, that they seek the normalization of relations with Russia. France and the Netherlands, because they consider that an enlargement, whose conditions are not met, does injustice to countries that have been “flirting” with membership for a long time (Albania, North Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina). But also why they see the possibility of bypassing the right of veto for existing EU members, a dangerous precedent of degrading their capabilities.
In addition to the divisions that persist and are directly linked to the outcome of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, it is worth highlighting the fact that Politico’s article comes a few hours before the convergence of the Berlin Process, where the accession perspective of the countries of the Western Balkans (Albania, North Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina) and follows the decision of the “27” energy ministers to completely stop the import of natural gas from January 1, 2028.
At the same time, it precedes another meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, as well as a European Council, which is expected to focus on issues such as the housing crisis and the revitalization of the European economy. The fact that the second part is linked to the steep increase in military spending demonstrates that the cold war situation in which Europe and Russia find themselves, reserves collateral, but at the same time, not inconsiderable benefits for a series of large-scale economic activities, with the risk that unilateral overinvestment in them will give more arguments to Eurosceptic voices.
