Brussels – “It ain’t over till it’s over.” One of the most enduring sports adagios has increasingly been invoked by EU diplomats when referring to the so-called “package approach” linking the EU accession paths of Ukraine and Moldova. Yet it is becoming ever more difficult to understand the limits of an informal practice that has neither clear rules nor a transparent logic, despite having a significant impact on what is commonly referred to as a “merit-based” enlargement process.
“It will happen when, de facto, it becomes clear that it has happened – when one moves faster and the other more slowly,” an EU diplomat explains to The New Union Post, summing up the “decoupling issue” surrounding Ukraine’s and Moldova’s EU accession negotiations.
Although the opening of Cluster 1 – ‘Fundamentals’ was expected to mark a turning point, with each candidate finally assessed strictly on its own merits, “in practice, that is not the case,” another source confirms. At the political level, “there is a link – until there is no longer one.”
All clear? Well, probably not.
A complex EU accession context
The concept of “coupling” is a political construct devised by the member states in the Council. It has neither a legal basis nor a predictable operating mechanism, simply because it is an informal practice that follows only the political will, calculations and broader understanding of the enlargement process among EU governments. “It is entirely a political matter and an artificial construct,” another senior EU official says.
The origins of the “package approach” are equally blurred, and its evolution shows that everything depends on the specific political context and the interests of the EU member states.
In the 1990s, it emerged as a loose form of linkage among the Baltic states, helping to foster regional cooperation, accelerate reforms and reduce the EU’s institutional burden during Treaty change. In one of the final waves of enlargement, the EU used this procedural binding to create constructive competition between Bulgaria and Romania, which ultimately joined the Union together.
But then something changed. Following the complete standstill in the enlargement process under the Juncker Commission, the EU hardened the practice, transforming it into a prolonged and rigid procedural dependency in which candidate countries are held back by tightly linked partners facing political blockages and vetoes. This was the case for Albania and North Macedonia until 2024, and it is now the case for Ukraine and Moldova.
In practice, the package approach has become a tool for slowing down the accession path of multiple candidates, including those unaffected by bilateral disputes.
It is also worth noting that the “decoupling” of two or more candidates can take place at different stages of the process. All the EU diplomats reached by The New Union Post agree that, “in the end, it is a decision for the leaders, they can do whatever they want.” There is no predetermined point at which the countries’ paths must diverge and, for that reason, it is difficult to predict what will happen next.
After years of political deadlock, the opening of Cluster 1 – ‘Fundamentals’ in September 2024 marked the moment of “decoupling” for Albania and North Macedonia – the former moved ahead with the negotiations, while the latter was left behind. “We expected the same” to happen with Ukraine and Moldova on 15 June, three sources note. “In the end, however, reality has proved otherwise.”
It should not be forgotten that, until June 2024, the “package approach” for Ukraine and Moldova also included Georgia, which had applied for and was granted candidate status alongside the other two members of the so-called Trio. However, it was left behind when Kyiv and Chișinău held their first intergovernmental conferences, due to the democratic backsliding in Tbilisi. This was, in fact, a decoupling of the package, even though it was never referred to as such.
The Hungarian government is the one explicitly slowing down – though no longer outright opposing – the accession path of both Ukraine and Moldova, justifying its “scrutiny reserve” on the grounds that it does not want to “bypass the Western Balkan countries, which have been negotiating for years.” However, one diplomat confirms that “several” member states are still hiding behind Hungary’s hesitation.
Indignation is mounting among diplomats over the outspoken stance taken by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, after she clearly suggested that the “package approach” for Ukraine and Moldova had come to an end with the opening of Cluster 1. “The Commission is trying to exert pressure by overstepping its remit,” one source says. Another echoes this view, bluntly adding: “They have less say on enlargement. Yet they pretend they do.”
The very definition of a “merit-based process” can be questioned. As one diplomat argues, “this is a very academic definition, while in reality it can be used to justify any position or form of resistance.” Although procedural steps are the backbone of the enlargement process, the process itself is highly politically driven, and a candidate’s “merit” in aligning with the EU acquis is only one of the factors in a very complex equation.
“It ain’t over till it’s over.” Well, when it comes to the package approach in the EU accession process, it might be more accurate to say: “It ain’t over till all 27 say so.”
