Inter­na­tional conference: “Geopo­litical turning point? Ukraine and the future of the EU”

Two keynote speakers kicked off the further discussion: Anja Wallau, Commis­sioner for Funda­mental Issues of European Policy, EU Coordi­nation and EU External Relations at the Federal Foreign Office, highlighted the struc­tural challenges of an EU accession process in her speech. Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, Member of the Verkhovna Rada and Chair of the Committee on Ukraine’s Integration into the EU, empha­sized the existential impor­tance of Ukraine’s accession to the EU.

Keynote: Anja Wallau

In her contri­bution, Anja Wallau analyzed the current situation in Ukraine and the struc­tural challenges of the EU accession process: For three and a half years, Ukraine has been defending itself against “brutal Russian aggression that violates inter­na­tional law.” More precisely, “for 1358 days,” she empha­sized, thus speci­fying the existential threat. Repeated attacks on energy infra­structure have already led to massive power outages.

In this context, she also spoke about the latest allega­tions of corruption. These had caused great incom­pre­hension among the population, partic­u­larly in the energy sector. According to Wallau, Ukraine has set itself clear reform goals, partic­u­larly in the area of anti-corruption insti­tu­tions. Wallau saw the fact that the attempt to curtail the indepen­dence of these author­ities had been withdrawn following protests by civil society as proof that a vibrant civil society was the “driving force behind the rapprochement process.”

Panel 1: Ukraine’s accession – where do we stand now?

The first panel made it clear that EU enlargement is polit­i­cally desirable but is being slowed down by internal blockages and unresolved reform issues.

Anja Wallau empha­sized that enlargement and internal EU reforms should not be sequential but should proceed “credibly hand in hand.” She under­lined that the accession treaties themselves could be designed to be flexible: “We can look at accession treaties – what is possible there, whether transition periods help or whether flexible cooper­ation can be used more exten­sively.” At the same time, Ukraine should receive tangible benefits at an early stage through gradual integration: “Gradual integration can be seen as a continuum – Erasmus, roaming, scien­tific cooper­ation – things that make it clear that progress is real.”

Anton Hofreiter criti­cized the Hungarian veto as an expression of a “naively formal­istic” EU policy and called for signif­i­cantly more political pressure on the Hungarian government. He also advocated designing future EU accession treaties in such a way that new member states waive or limit their right of veto in order to prevent blackmail and blockades in the enlargement process.

Panel 2: Imple­men­tation of EU reforms in Ukraine and Moldova

The second panel focused on the current status of the imple­men­tation of EU reforms. Repre­sen­ta­tives from diplomacy, politics, and civil society took stock of the situation, highlighting both progress and signif­icant challenges. Despite war, massive Russian influence, and struc­tural weaknesses, signif­icant progress is visible—but at the same time, there are still major shortcomings.

Adrian Pollmann (German Federal Foreign Office) praised Ukraine for its extra­or­dinary reform achieve­ments despite the war and empha­sized that the EU integration process under war condi­tions was “a very special case.” Partic­u­larly in the areas of the rule of law and the fight against corruption, there are still major tasks to be tackled, such as protecting the independent anti-corruption author­ities NABU and SAPO.

Liubov Akulenko (UCEP), on the other hand, warned against an overly optimistic portrayal by the European Commission. An overly positive commu­nicative framing could lead to polit­i­cally painful but necessary reforms being postponed. She advocated for confi­dential, stringent bilateral dialogue between Germany and Ukraine in order to reliably demand the imple­men­tation of reforms. At the same time, civil society is under enormous pressure in a state of war – consistent pressure for reform is therefore essential for the stability of the country.

Panel 3: Civil society in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine

The central and increas­ingly endan­gered role of civil society was the focus of the third panel discussion.

Iryna Krasnoshtan described how Ukrainian activists are providing survival aid, inter­na­tional advocacy, and anti-corruption monitoring under war condi­tions — all while facing constant threats of physical attacks and political pressure.

Sergi Kapanadze painted an alarming picture of systematic repression in Georgia: civil society, the media, the opposition, and univer­sities are under massive pressure, while “agent laws” and criminal prose­cution further restrict democ­ratic space.

Member of the German Bundestag Johannes Volkmann made it clear that a strong, independent civil society in Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia is not a “nice-to-have” but a central pillar of their European future. Without free media, critical NGOs, and political pluralism, there can be no sustainable democracy — and thus no successful EU accession.

The panelists empha­sized that despite these threats, resis­tance, pro-European support among the population, and inter­na­tional cooper­ation remained crucial to securing democ­ratic space for action.

Closing panel

Ukraine’s accession to the EU repre­sents a key geopo­litical challenge for Germany and the EU. This became clear in the closing panel. Lithuanian Ambas­sador Giedrius Puodžiūnas empha­sized: “Ukraine must be our number one priority.”

Jürgen Hardt empha­sized that the enlargement process was also a driver of reform for the EU: “Perhaps we will find a better solution if there is pressure to get serious and concrete at some point.”

Barbara Gessler under­scored that enlargement and internal strength­ening of the EU are inextri­cably linked: “It must be a parallel process: Europe becomes strong through enlargement. Europe must become econom­i­cally strong, it must be able to defend itself — because ultimately, it is also about being capable of enlargement.”

French political scientist Céline Marangé analyzed the security policy impli­ca­tions and concluded: “Ukraine in the EU would have strategic signif­i­cance, as the Kremlin is attacking Ukraine and the rest of Europe.”

Ralf Fücks summed up the strategic perspective in his closing remarks: “The crucial question is that Ukraine maintains its full sover­eignty inter­nally and exter­nally... and that includes joining the European Union.”

Despite differing inputs and perspec­tives, all the contri­bu­tions made one thing clear: Ukraine’s accession to the EU is not only a political integration process, but also a corner­stone of European security policy and an important foundation for the future of the European continent.

Photographs depicting the struggle for freedom of the people of Georgia and Ukraine were exhibited on the sidelines of the conference. We would like to thank Sébastien Canaud and Juda Khatia Psuturi (Georgia) as well as Sofia Bobok (Ukraine).