The Swedish Post

The European Parliament is preparing to move Ukraine and Moldova’s accession dossiers forward this week, with the Foreign Affairs Committee set to vote on reports assessing the two countries’ progress toward European Union membership and the political conditions attached to the next stage of negotiations.

The votes are part of Parliament’s annual response to the European Commission’s enlargement reporting cycle. They do not constitute a legal decision to admit either country, nor do they open negotiating chapters. Those steps remain the prerogative of EU governments in the Council, where unanimity is required. But the committee decisions will establish the Parliament’s detailed position on two of the most geopolitically sensitive accession files now before the Union.

The Ukraine file is being handled under the Parliament procedure for the 2025 Commission report on Ukraine, with the Committee on Foreign Affairs listed as the responsible committee and German MEP Michael Gahler of the European People’s Party serving as rapporteur. Parliament’s legislative observatory lists the procedure as an own-initiative annual report on a candidate country and records its status as awaiting committee decision. An indicative plenary sitting date is listed for early July, meaning the committee vote is expected to shape the text that will later be put before all MEPs.

The Moldova file follows the same procedural track. The Parliament’s legislative observatory lists the 2025 Commission report on Moldova as an own-initiative procedure under the Foreign Affairs Committee, with Estonian MEP Sven Mikser of the Socialists and Democrats as rapporteur. That file is also marked as awaiting committee decision, with an indicative July plenary timetable. The two procedures are separate, reflecting Parliament’s insistence that enlargement remain merit-based and that candidate countries not be treated as a political package, even when their accession paths are closely linked.

The committee votes come after the Parliament’s latest Foreign Affairs Committee documents showed draft agendas for early June and after amendments were tabled in committee on both country reports during April. The Ukraine report drew hundreds of amendments, indicating a substantial negotiation among parliamentary groups on the wording of the final text. The Moldova report also attracted extensive amendment activity, reflecting the importance of governance, security and reform language in the final committee position.

For Ukraine, the parliamentary report is expected to balance strong political support for accession with renewed scrutiny of rule-of-law, anti-corruption and institutional reform requirements. EU institutions have repeatedly acknowledged the scale of Ukraine’s reform effort under wartime conditions, but they have also stressed that membership talks must remain anchored in the fundamentals of democracy, judicial independence, anti-corruption enforcement and protection of civil society.

Ukraine applied to join the EU shortly after Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. It received candidate status in June 2022, and EU leaders decided in December 2023 to open accession negotiations. The first intergovernmental conference formally launching negotiations with Ukraine took place in Luxembourg on 25 June 2024, after member states approved the negotiating framework. Since then, Kyiv has pushed for a faster transition from screening and technical preparation to the formal opening of negotiating clusters.

The Commission’s country page for Ukraine notes that accession negotiations were formally opened in June 2024 and that the process has since been followed by bilateral screening meetings. Screening is the detailed exercise through which the EU presents its body of law, known as the acquis, and assesses the candidate country’s readiness to align with it. The next politically visible step is the opening of clusters, beginning with the fundamentals cluster, which covers core rule-of-law and democratic governance issues.

For Moldova, the timeline has been similarly compressed by the geopolitical shock of Russia’s war against Ukraine and by Brussels’ broader effort to stabilise the EU’s eastern neighbourhood. Moldova applied for EU membership in March 2022, received candidate status in June 2022 and formally opened accession negotiations in June 2024. The Commission’s Moldova accession page records the first intergovernmental conference on 25 June 2024 and notes that Moldova later completed the screening process, an important technical milestone before the opening of clusters.

Chișinău has presented accession as the central strategic project of the Moldovan state. The government of President Maia Sandu has argued that EU membership is essential to democratic consolidation, economic modernisation and resilience against Russian pressure. At the same time, Moldova faces persistent vulnerabilities, including energy exposure, disinformation, political polarisation and the unresolved status of Transdniestria. EU officials have said that the separatist region should not be allowed to block Moldova’s accession trajectory, while still requiring Moldova to meet the full body of membership conditions.

The parliamentary votes therefore sit at the intersection of technical enlargement assessment and high politics. Parliament’s reports typically welcome reform progress, identify deficiencies and urge the Council and Commission to act. They can also sharpen political language on security, foreign interference, minority rights, judicial independence, public administration, media freedom and anti-corruption agencies. Although non-binding, such reports are closely read by candidate governments, EU capitals and Commission officials because they indicate the level of cross-party support in the only directly elected EU institution.

The timing is particularly important because EU discussions on the possible opening of the first negotiating cluster with Ukraine and Moldova are expected in June. Recent reporting from Brussels has indicated that the Commission is preparing to propose further movement on the first cluster for both countries around mid-June, with EU affairs ministers and leaders then expected to consider the issue. Such a step would still require unanimity among the 27 member states.

That unanimity requirement remains the central political constraint. Ukraine’s accession path has repeatedly been complicated by opposition from Hungary under former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, whose government resisted rapid movement on Kyiv’s EU bid. The political environment has shifted following Hungary’s change of government, but EU diplomats continue to treat enlargement decisions as vulnerable to national vetoes, bilateral disputes and domestic political bargaining inside member states.

The Parliament’s committee votes may therefore increase political pressure on the Council but cannot substitute for Council agreement. This distinction matters because the accession process is often described publicly as a linear sequence, while in practice it is a combination of technical readiness, institutional bargaining and national political consent. A favourable committee vote can strengthen the case for opening clusters, but it cannot remove the requirement that all member states agree.

Ukraine’s accession debate also carries a larger question about how the EU would function with a large wartime candidate eventually inside the Union. Some European policymakers have floated staged integration or associate-style arrangements as interim steps. Kyiv has rejected any formula that would leave Ukraine permanently or indefinitely without equal membership rights. Ukrainian officials argue that the country has paid an extraordinary price for defending European security and should not be offered a second-tier destination.

Within Parliament, support for Ukraine’s European future remains broad, but the likely committee text is expected to preserve conditionality language. The central message is likely to be that Ukraine’s wartime circumstances justify strong support and accelerated technical assistance, but not shortcuts on the foundations of EU membership. That includes the independence and capacity of anti-corruption institutions, the judiciary, public administration, media pluralism, rights protections and alignment with EU foreign and security policy.

For Moldova, Parliament’s message is expected to combine praise for reform momentum with warnings over democratic resilience. Moldova has been one of the strongest performers among eastern candidate countries in terms of political commitment to EU integration, but its institutions operate under sustained pressure from external interference and internal fragility. The Foreign Affairs Committee’s report is likely to underline the need for continued reforms in justice, anti-corruption, electoral integrity, media freedom, public administration and economic convergence.

The two reports also reflect a wider Parliament position that enlargement has become a strategic security policy. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine altered the EU’s calculations about candidate countries in the east and the Western Balkans. Enlargement is now framed not only as a technocratic accession process but also as a way to reduce grey zones vulnerable to hostile influence. Parliament has previously argued that the cost of non-enlargement may be higher than the cost of enlargement, provided the process remains credible and reform-based.

At the same time, the debate exposes tensions inside the EU about institutional capacity. Several member states and EU officials have called for internal reforms before or alongside enlargement, including changes to budget policy, agricultural funding, cohesion spending and decision-making rules. The possibility of limiting or conditioning veto powers for future members has also entered the debate, reflecting concern that a larger Union could become harder to govern if unanimity remains unchanged in sensitive policy areas.

For Ukraine and Moldova, the immediate issue is narrower: whether the EU can move from formal opening of negotiations to the substantive opening of clusters. The fundamentals cluster is usually opened first and closed last. It sets the pace for the rest of accession talks because it contains chapters on judiciary and fundamental rights, justice, freedom and security, public procurement, statistics and financial control. Progress in this cluster is used as a benchmark for the credibility of the overall accession track.

If the Foreign Affairs Committee adopts strong reports this week, Parliament will send a clear signal ahead of Council-level deliberations that Ukraine and Moldova should continue moving forward, subject to reform conditions. If the reports are weakened by amendments or sharp political divisions, that could complicate the message to EU governments, even if it would not formally block the process. The size of the committee majorities will therefore be watched as closely as the wording of the adopted texts.

The committee process is also relevant for domestic politics in Kyiv and Chișinău. Candidate governments often use favourable EU institutional assessments to sustain reform coalitions at home, demonstrate progress to voters and counter narratives that accession is symbolic rather than practical. Conversely, criticism from Brussels can become ammunition for opposition forces or reform advocates, depending on the political context. The Parliament reports are likely to be read in both capitals as a measure of confidence and as a checklist of unresolved obligations.

The expected committee votes also come against a backdrop of continuing Russian pressure. Ukraine remains under full-scale attack, while Moldova faces a security environment shaped by the war next door, Russian disinformation and unresolved separatism. EU institutions have increasingly linked enlargement policy to resilience against coercion, arguing that credible accession pathways help stabilise candidate countries and align them with the Union’s legal, economic and security architecture.

Still, accession remains a long-term process. Even if member states agree in June to open the first negotiating cluster, Ukraine and Moldova would still need to work through a demanding sequence of benchmarks, chapter assessments, reform implementation and final accession treaty negotiations. Full membership would require ratification by all existing member states and by the candidate country. The Parliament committee votes are therefore an important step, but not a decisive endpoint.

The immediate consequence of the Foreign Affairs Committee votes will be to prepare the Parliament’s plenary position. Once adopted in committee, the reports are expected to move toward a full parliamentary vote, currently indicated for July in the legislative timetable. A plenary endorsement would give Parliament a formal position ahead of subsequent Council and Commission decisions, reinforcing the political case for continued accession momentum while maintaining the EU’s standard conditionality framework.

For Brussels, the broader challenge is to keep the accession promise credible. Ukraine and Moldova have both formally entered negotiations, but credibility depends on visible progress as well as rigorous standards. If the process stalls for political reasons despite technical preparation, EU influence may weaken. If it advances without adequate reform safeguards, member states may lose confidence in enlargement. The Parliament reports are designed to navigate that balance: political support, institutional pressure and strict conditions in a single text.

The committee votes will therefore be watched as an early June marker of the EU’s enlargement direction. They will not settle the most difficult questions over unanimity, institutional reform, financing or wartime accession. But they will show whether Parliament is prepared to give Ukraine and Moldova another clear political endorsement as both countries seek to move from formal candidate negotiations toward the opening of substantive negotiating clusters.