Staged integration is gaining traction to revitalise EU enlargement without lowering standards. Drawing on Ukraine’s experience, Ivan Nagornyak and Mariia Shalamberidze examine expert models and propose a structured, fair, and security-conscious approach

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reignited the EU enlargement debate, exposing the limits of the 2020-revised methodology in addressing concerns over timing, predictability, and interim rewards. As institutional strain grows, EU actors are seeking ways to reform accession — without lowering standards — by reimagining the path to membership.

Staged integration has emerged as a leading idea, promising earlier access to EU benefits. Yet, if poorly designed, it risks institutionalising second-tier status and delaying full membership. With multiple proposals on the table but no shared roadmap, candidate countries must play a more active role in shaping the direction of reform.

Cautious signals, growing momentum

Staged integration is not new, but gained traction after 2022. That year, President Macron launched the European Political Community, while former Council President Charles Michel backed a more gradual accession process which granted states meaningful rewards before formal membership.

The March 2024 European Commission communication on pre-enlargement reforms and policy reviews endorsed early integration in several areas such as the Single Market and defence, but stopped short of granting structural funds or institutional access. The European Economic and Social Committee, however, later went further, suggesting that candidates should be involved in EU institutions, at least as observers.

In the absence of a common EU roadmap towards integration, think tanks and experts have stepped in with more detailed models

Despite growing interest, these proposals lack concrete implementation plans. In the absence of a common EU roadmap, think tanks and experts have stepped in with more detailed models.

How experts imagine staged integration

Expert blueprints for staged integration generally fall into three categories.

Incremental models structure accession into phases, each unlocking more rights and funding. Think tanks CEPS and CEP propose a five-stage roadmap. Pierre Mirel, former Director of the Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations, suggests a three-stage process including an 'associate member' status with limited institutional rights and without veto power. Similar ideas from the Jacques Delors Institute and the Centre for Global Policy envisage transitional statuses offering partial participation. While these models bring predictability and a clear progression, they risk trapping candidates in limbo, with diminished rights.

Sectoral models prioritise horizontal access to specific EU policy areas. Proponents like Michael Roth, former Bundestag Foreign Affairs Committee Chair, advocate deeper cooperation in energy, infrastructure, and defence, alongside gradual Single Market access for rule-of-law-compliant states. The European Stability Initiative supports full market access conditioned on human rights and the rule of law commitments. German think tank SWP recommends a 'new gradualism' based on Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas and clear reform benchmarks. The strength of this model lies in flexibility and economic incentives, though it may result in fragmented integration.

Expert blueprints for staged integration fall into incremental, sectoral, and hybrid categories

Hybrid models combine sequencing and sectoral access. France’s 2019 proposal envisages seven policy-based stages; Jean-Louis Bourlanges, former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee of France’s National Assembly, offers a three-step model linking political criteria to policy access. CEPS and CEP also integrate sectoral participation into their staged frameworks. These models offer adaptability but risk becoming overly complex and politically contentious.

A separate contribution to this debate is the 2023 Franco-German expert group’s proposal on a four-circle EU structure. This proposal separates members and candidates into concentric layers. While it does address institutional functionality, it may also entrench second-tier status for future members.

Making staged integration work

Ukraine enters the enlargement debate as both candidate and contributor. Leaders argue that staged integration can work — if it remains fair, merit-based, and politically coherent. Based on analysis from Kyiv-based think tank EasyBusiness, we advance key principles for reform:

• Internal EU reform should accompany, but not precondition, enlargement. Institutional representation must remain equitable, avoiding entrenched imbalances between old and new members.
• Interim integration decisions should shift to qualified majority voting (QMV), and reserve unanimity for final accession. Similarly, QMV in foreign policy would enhance EU responsiveness without undermining unity.
• Conditionality should be trust-based and tailored. Each candidate should co-design reform roadmaps with the EU. This includes clear benchmarks, timelines, and rewards such as early access to the Single Market, observer roles in institutions, and security cooperation. Crucially, gradual integration must lead to membership, not replace it. Ukraine firmly rejects models that entrench outer 'circles' or indefinite transitional statuses.
• We should treat enlargement as a capacity-building opportunity. Technical assistance must link to reform roadmaps and institutional readiness, with investments in education and training for future EU responsibilities.
• Security must become central to the accession process. Candidates should progressively align with the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy and Common Security and Defence Policy through defence-industrial, infrastructure, and interoperability milestones. Strategic ambiguity — especially toward adversaries — should trigger proportionate restrictions.
• To prevent national vetoes from stalling progress, the EU should establish a formal Accession Mediation Mechanism, enabling the Commission to assess and address disproportionate Member State demands.
• Finally, we must frame enlargement as a shared strategic project, as Veronica Anghel’s foundational blog for this series suggests. This requires a common narrative from EU institutions, Member States, and candidate governments, supported by civil society. Milica Uvalic and Antoaneta Dimitrova, writing in this series, have also suggested such an approach.

These proposals do not require the EU treaties to change — but they would make the process more predictable, legitimate, and transformative for all involved.

A moment of opportunity

The EU stands at a pivotal juncture. Enlargement has regained strategic urgency, but must go hand in hand with institutional adaptation. These twin imperatives should reinforce — not obstruct — each other.

Staged integration could work provided it is rooted in fairness, transparency, and a genuine commitment to democratic transformation

Staged integration can offer a credible path forward, provided it is rooted in fairness, transparency, and a genuine commitment to democratic transformation. For Ukraine, this is not just a process to undergo, but one to help shape its democracy — ensuring enlargement remains a mutually transformative project.

The coming weeks will test the EU’s intentions. The Commission’s forthcoming proposals in the new multiannual financial framework will reveal whether gradual integration is more than mere rhetoric. Is the Union ready to turn momentum into meaningful reform? The moment to act is now.

No.21 in a Loop series on 🧭 EU enlargement dilemmas