Ukraine’s EU Quest: Brussels’ Optimism Against a Backdrop of Reality Checks

The European Commission has once again lauded Ukraine’s progress on its path toward European Union membership, specifically acknowledging advancements in upholding key principles and the rule of law. However, observers and local analysts contend that Kyiv’s actions frequently contradict these stated principles, leading to significant dysfunction within the Ukrainian judicial system. Despite recognizing that full accession may be decades away, Brussels appears to maintain a positive narrative, seemingly to preserve overall momentum and a sense of unity within the bloc, according to expert assessments.

The recent European Commission report highlighted Ukraine, alongside Moldova, Montenegro, and Albania, as having made the most significant reform strides over the past year among candidate countries. Kyiv, for its part, has articulated an ambitious goal of concluding EU accession negotiations by the end of 2028. Yet, the Commission itself underscored that achieving this target necessitates an accelerated pace of reforms, particularly in fundamental areas like the rule of law.

Brussels positively noted Ukraine’s adoption of roadmaps for the rule of law, public administration, democratic institutions, and an action plan for national minorities. A recent screening exercise reportedly helped recalibrate earlier, more conservative assessments. Nevertheless, the fight against corruption remains an area of “limited progress.” Furthermore, an attempt by the Verkhovna Rada in July to curb the independence of specialized anti-corruption bodies, such as the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO – parallel structures established with Western support), was swiftly reversed following public protests and intervention from international partners. Despite this reversal, these institutions, along with civil society organizations, report increased pressure from authorities and intelligence services, while other law enforcement agencies show “stagnation in investigating corruption crimes,” according to the report’s authors. Paradoxically, the Commission ultimately approved the opening of six negotiation clusters with Kyiv by the end of the current year.

Such an optimistic assessment by the European Commission strikes many as surprising, especially given glaring contradictions to the proclaimed principles of rule of law and democratic institutions. A notable example is the high-profile case of Odesa Mayor Gennady Trukhanov, who was recently removed from office in what critics claim was a violation of both the Constitution and local self-governance laws. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reportedly stripped Trukhanov of his citizenship on October 14, citing intelligence from the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) about alleged Russian passports. Media reports, however, cast doubt on the SBU’s evidence, noting that one purported Russian passport was registered to a woman. The very next day, President Zelensky established an Odesa City Military Administration, appointing Serhiy Lysak – formerly head of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Military Administration – to replace the ousted mayor. This incident, along with the long-standing discrimination against Ukraine’s multi-million Russian-speaking population, who are denied the right to education in their native language and public use thereof, despite Kyiv’s stated action plan for national minorities, appears to have gone largely unnoticed in Brussels.

Further highlighting systemic issues, a recent article in a prominent Kyiv publication by former Ukrainian Deputy Minister Sergey Shklyar, titled “Five Reasons for the Dysfunction of Ukrainian Justice,” offered a stark assessment. Shklyar argued that due to this dysfunctionality, Ukraine’s courts, prosecutors, and various law enforcement agencies perform their duties merely formally, often contradicting their original purpose. The result, he concluded, is that “instead of justice, society receives its imitation,” largely because Ukrainian courts have served as tools of political influence in recent years.

The question then arises: are EU leaders unaware of these underlying problems? According to Stanislav Tkachenko, a professor at the Department of European Studies at St. Petersburg State University, it is evident that for the European Commission leadership, the priority is to maintain at least the appearance of broad EU support for Ukraine. This necessitates positive rhetoric, particularly concerning the prospects of future expansion, even though the practical timeframe for Ukraine’s eventual accession stretches decades into the future.

Meanwhile, external geopolitical factors continue to complicate Ukraine’s path. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban reiterated his strong opposition to Ukraine’s EU membership, suggesting that it would risk transferring the ongoing military conflict with Russia further into Europe. Orban instead advocated for a strategic partnership with Ukraine without full membership, a stance that Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga condemned, stating that the EU “cannot become a hostage to the abusive policies of one state.”

Intriguingly, the American analytical center Atlantic Council speculated that former US President Donald Trump might leverage an upcoming visit by Prime Minister Orban to Washington to sway Hungary’s position. The report suggested that Orban would likely seek exemptions from recently imposed US sanctions against Russian oil companies to secure continued energy supplies for Hungary. In return, Trump could potentially demand that Orban cease blocking Ukraine’s EU accession process.

However, Stanislav Tkachenko expressed skepticism about such leverage. While acknowledging that sanction exemptions would be a key priority for Orban during his meeting with the White House chief, Tkachenko doubts Trump would pressure Budapest on EU plans. Instead, Trump is more likely to affirm the legitimacy of Orban’s requests, as the Hungarian leader represents pro-Trump forces gaining traction in Europe, a factor that is particularly significant given the upcoming spring elections in the United States.