A “Light Membership” Plan for Ukraine’s EU Accession Is Raising Concern in European Capitals

In Brussels, proposals are circulating to revise the EU’s enlargement framework in place since the Cold War. They center on a controversial two-tier model that could accelerate Ukraine’s entry as part of any peace agreement to halt Russia’s invasion.

The reform plan, now at an early stage of discussion within the European Commission, is already causing unease across EU capitals. Seven senior officials involved in the talks speak of concern over an “abridged enlargement” approach that could carry far-reaching consequences for the bloc.

Ukraine, which was granted EU candidate status shortly after Russia’s full-scale invasion began in February 2022, views membership as the cornerstone of its postwar future and the definitive affirmation of its pro-Western choice.

Drafts of a US 20-point peace plan, currently under negotiation, already reference the possibility of Kyiv joining the EU in 2027—despite assessments by European officials themselves that Ukraine may need around a decade of reforms to meet the bloc’s stringent accession criteria.

At the same time, the European Commission understands that Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, would be able to accept other elements of a potential peace settlement—including a possible renunciation of territory in Russia’s favor—only if he can present EU membership as the central positive outcome.

Under a preliminary concept, Ukraine could join the bloc but with sharply curtailed influence over decision-making. At the initial stage, it would not be granted full voting rights at leaders’ summits or ministerial meetings.

As proposals continue to be developed, Kyiv would gain phased access to selected sectors of the EU’s single market, agricultural subsidies, and internal development funds—after meeting specific post-accession commitments.

This would represent a radical departure from the enlargement rules adopted in 1993, which require full compliance with the EU’s extensive body of law across all policy areas prior to accession.

“Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures… We are not undermining enlargement; we are expanding the very concept of enlargement,” said one senior EU diplomat familiar with the proposal. The rules, he argued, were written more than 30 years ago and require greater flexibility: “This is a once-in-a-generation moment, and we must rise to it.”

However, diplomats from EU member states and other candidate countries who took part in informal consultations with the Commission speak of deep unease. Their concerns center on the risk of undermining the bloc’s stability, diluting the value of membership, and upsetting the balance of interests among other candidates.

“This is a trap laid by Putin and Trump—and we are walking straight into it,” another EU diplomat said, pointing to the risks for the bloc’s unity.

“The EU has once again found itself caught between a rock and a hard place,” said Mujtaba Rahman, managing director for Europe at Eurasia Group. “It has no choice but to accelerate Ukraine’s accession, but doing so will open Pandora’s box of political and institutional risks that Brussels does not fully grasp.”

Ukraine’s progress under the existing enlargement procedure is being hampered by Hungary’s position, which is blocking the unanimous decisions required to open and close each of the 35 negotiating chapters.

In the EU and in Kyiv, there is a belief that if the US becomes a signatory to a final peace agreement, this would force Budapest and its close ally—President Donald Trump—to soften their stance.

The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, this week directly linked Ukraine’s accession to the peace talks. “Membership is not only a key security guarantee for Ukraine, but also the main driver of future growth and prosperity,” she said.

At the same time, a sizable group of EU member states, while politically supportive of Ukraine, is firmly opposed to any steps that would create loopholes in the rules or introduce a two-tier system of membership, according to four bloc diplomats.

“You cannot claim the process is merit-based if the end date is fixed in advance,” one of them said.

“Trying to force this through would lead member states simply to reject such changes,” a senior EU official warned, pointing to the risk of a deep rift between Brussels and national capitals.

Other interlocutors note that adjusting the enlargement procedure would also affect the ambitions of other candidates and raise a broader question about the format of the EU’s relations with neighboring countries.

Montenegro and Albania, which are the furthest along in the negotiations, may view the new model as a less attractive proposition, three sources said.

The question also arises whether similar terms would be offered to countries that have made little progress toward membership in recent years—such as Bosnia and Turkey.

It is also unclear how such a scheme would align with the status of countries in the European Economic Area, including Norway, which participate in the single market without voting rights, or with close EU partners that are not candidates—for example, the United Kingdom.

“These ideas generate vast and exceptionally complex questions,” another senior EU diplomat noted. “There are simply too many potential unintended consequences.”