By Katarina Stanojević

28/11/2025

Preview:

The first-ever EU Enlargement Forum, held at the European Commission on 18 November and gathering over twenty speakers across four panels, marked a significant shift in the European Union’s approach to the future of its continent. For years enlargement had been trapped in a slow-moving cycle of technical reforms, political fatigue, and a cautious institutional tone that rarely departed from scripted optimism. What unfolded in Brussels was the opposite. It was a moment of honesty driven by geopolitical urgency, societal frustration, and a rapidly shifting European security environment. The following day, when the European Parliament hosted the European Leadership Conference on Balkan stability, it became clear that the discussions at the Forum were not an isolated institutional exercise. They had opened a door that could no longer be closed.

At the Forum, the opening atmosphere already reflected a sense of realignment. Valbona Zeneli’s introductory remarks were unusually direct. She praised Albania and Montenegro as the most advanced candidates, highlighted North Macedonia’s stagnation, and drew attention to the deterioration in Georgia’s situation, a point that stirred visible discomfort in the audience because there was no Georgian representation in the panel discussions. Her remarks set the tone for what would become a day marked by candid assessments rather than diplomatic euphemisms. The message was clear. Europe is running out of time for illusions.

Ursula von der Leyen’s video message placed enlargement within a narrative of investment rather than charity. She spoke of economic growth, higher employment and even longer life expectancy as measurable outcomes of EU accession, but stressed that these benefits depend on reforms that strengthen the rule of law and democratic institutions. Her reference to her visits in the Eastern neighborhood conveyed optimism but also urgency. She encouraged the youth of candidate countries to seize the opportunities that the European project continues to offer. Although her message was polished, it supported a broader institutional understanding that enlargement is now inseparable from the continent’s security and identity.

That connection between security and enlargement became more explicit in the keynote speech of Marta Kos, the new Commissioner for Enlargement. Kos argued that enlargement must be defended, not merely administered. According to her, geopolitical turbulence, weakening rule of law and disinformation create openings for external actors and organized crime. The gaps produced by hesitation do not stay empty. They are filled by malign influence. She framed enlargement as a matter of timing and insisted that the time is now.

Throughout the thematic discussions that followed, a number of issues resurfaced repeatedly. The first was the understanding of enlargement as a security imperative. Several participants emphasized that the EU can no longer afford grey zones on its borders. The Western Balkans, Moldova and Ukraine are embedded in a geopolitical environment shaped by Russian aggression, hybrid threats, and political fragility. Both Milojko Spajić, Prime Minister of Montenegro, and Alexandru Munteanu, Prime Minister of Moldova, described their national trajectories as anchored in an EU future, while Andrius Kubilius argued that enlargement is essential for Europe’s defense architecture and could be reinforced through new structures such as a European Defense Union. The message resonating across the room was that enlargement is not only about preparing candidate countries for Europe. It is also about preparing Europe for its future strategic environment.

A second recurring theme concerned the political and emotional landscape within EU member states themselves. Speakers acknowledged that enlargement is no longer an elite-driven policy insulated from public opinion. Ministers from Denmark, France and Greece spoke about the fear, uncertainty and political fragility shaping public debate. Benjamin Haddad, French Minister Delegate for European Affairs, noted that both pro-EU and anti-EU groups resist enlargement, though for very different reasons. Others suggested that staged integration could reduce political risk by allowing countries to participate in certain EU benefits before full membership. The Forum’s insistence on bottom-up engagement and transparent communication reflected a recognition that public trust cannot be taken for granted. As David McAllister put it, ‘nobody likes being lectured.’ Neither the citizens of candidate countries nor EU citizens.

A third dimension emerged from the panel on citizens’ perspectives, which highlighted the social and identity challenges linked to enlargement. This conversation gave voice to the everyday realities behind geopolitical rhetoric. Speakers from Serbia, Moldova, Ukraine and the Balkan diaspora described polarization, institutional distrust, knowledge gaps and the complex identities of young people who feel they belong everywhere and nowhere at the same time. The intervention on mosaic identity, by Amila Alidzanović, Young European Ambassador, describing the experience of belonging partially to multiple places but fully to none, struck a particular emotional chord. These perspectives brought human depth to a debate that often focuses on treaties and chapters rather than lived experience.

The tension surrounding Serbia also surfaced repeatedly and intensified during the exchanges. Prime Minister Ana Brnabić insisted that Serbia remains committed to EU accession and expressed sympathy for North Macedonia’s prolonged stagnation. Yet she avoided discussing Serbia’s current political crisis and responded defensively when questioned on Belgrade’s dual narrative. Her dismissive comments about civil society and student protests clashed with other participants’ calls for democratic accountability. The EU’s difficulty in reconciling its geopolitical need for stability with its normative standards on democracy and rule of law became painfully visible in that moment. Observers in the room could sense the discomfort, especially among those who had spoken earlier about transparency and institutional integrity.

European Council President António Costa’s closing remarks summarized both the stakes and the hope that characterized the Forum. He called for continued reforms in democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights, reminded both the EU and candidate countries that enlargement requires partnership, and warned that Europe must not become a museum of past prosperity. His key question lingered in the air. Can we move beyond our history of fragmentation? The Forum suggested that Europe is ready to try, though not without internal contradictions.

If the Enlargement Forum represented a strategic reawakening, the European Leadership Conference, hosted By MEP Lukas Mandl the next day in the Parliament, felt like a direct continuation. It reinforced the themes of the previous day but exchanged the Commission’s more measured tone for blunt political assessments. Former presidents of Albania and Kosovo spoke about unresolved tensions, Russian influence in Serbia, the legacy of war and revealed a structural paradox within the EU. While the Union conditions progress on Serbia-Kosovo reconciliation, five of its own members still do not recognize Kosovo, undermining the very process they expect both parties to complete. Albania’s ambassador to Belgium, Albana Dautllari, highlighted Albania as a pillar of stability, noting its continuous reforms, active participation in the Berlin Process, and strong cooperation with EU partners. She emphasized that Albania’s EU membership by 2030 would set an example for the region. Further on she stressed that the Balkans must focus on peace and prosperity, not past conflicts, and that energy should be directed toward building the future rather than revisiting old battles. Jovan Jovanović, a former Serbian opposition MP, described Serbia as an occupied political space that threatens regional stability. These interventions mirrored the discomfort and concern already visible at the Forum but expressed them with far fewer filters.

The second panel of the Parliamentary event expanded the discussion into the broader European security architecture. Speakers warned that the EU cannot afford a repeat of the Georgian scenario where citizens and government move in opposite directions. North Macedonia’s representative described the deep frustration of having delivered profound reforms while remaining blocked. Others emphasized that security today is hybrid and societal rather than purely military. Perhaps the sharpest remarks came from Tomislav Sokol, member of the Delegation to the EU-Serbia Stabilization & Association Parliamentary Committee, who described the Western Balkans as a fiasco and Serbia as authoritarian, destabilizing and drifting toward internal conflict. His argument aligned closely with the fears expressed at the Forum about grey zones and external influence.

Across both the Enlargement Forum and the Parliamentary conference, one idea surfaced repeatedly and gradually tied the discussions together: the growing embrace of gradual integration as a practical, politically realistic path forward. Instead of treating membership as a simple in-or-out threshold, gradual integration envisions a phased accession into specific EU policies, markets, and programs as soon as candidates meet clearly defined benchmarks. This model preserves conditionality, offers early and tangible benefits and helps rebuild public trust on both sides. For member states it reduces the political risks associated with enlargement fatigue, and for candidate countries it turns reforms into something visible and concrete rather than a distant promise. Nobody framed it as a replacement for full accession. Rather, it was presented as a structured pathway toward it, one that recognizes the countries of the Western Balkans and Eastern Partnership not as outsiders waiting at the door but as European partners whose integration must begin before formal membership is achieved.

Taken together, the two days in Brussels revealed a continent wrestling with its future. Enlargement is no longer a distant horizon that can be postponed without consequence. It has become intertwined with the EU’s own political identity, its security strategy and its capacity to inspire trust. Candidate countries demand clarity. EU citizens expect honesty. And political leaders increasingly acknowledge that the cost of indecision is rising. Europe is being forced to choose whether it will shape its Eastern neighborhood or be shaped by it. The question now is whether the European Union can transform this moment of urgency into a coherent strategy that brings both stability and hope to the continent.