The Race to 2030

Moldova and Ukraine believe Europe is running out of time. Much of the EU still acts as though time is abundant

Moldova and Ukraine want to join the EU by 2030… but the EU isn’t so sure. The growing gap in rhetoric highlights the different geopolitical assumptions of the parties and a changing idea of what the EU is and can be.

Since Moldova (and the EU) collectively exhaled following the victory of pro-EU parties in Moldova’s 2025 parliamentary elections, there’s one question I get more than any other, and it goes something like this “Moldova / Maia Sandu keep talking about joining the EU by 2030, do you think they really mean it?” or “that’s not realistic right?” or “what happens if reality doesn’t match this rhetoric?”

To be clear, these questions are not coming from Moldovans but from citizens of EU countries - some diplomats, some journalists, some analysts and some working for INGOs.

Since I get this question many times each week I thought it was time to share my thoughts here. This article is in the “Perspective” section and is therefore best understood as my opinion and analysis of the situation. I believe it is an informed one, but while I may characterize how different parties view the big questions at hand I want to stress that I’m sharing my analysis and not speaking for anyone else.

We’ll first look briefly at a recent letter from Chancellor Merz on a new enlargement mechanism and then dive into how these statements and approaches are driven by very different analysis of the current geopolitical situation.

Merz’s Letter

Last week German Chancellor Friedrich Merz sent a letter to EU leaders advocating for a new approach to EU enlargement with regard to Ukraine, Moldova and the Western Balkans. The letter promptly leaked and brought the debate about EU enlargement into the foreground.

In his letter, Chancellor Merz calls EU enlargement a “geopolitical necessity” and starts from the premise that “We want Ukraine to become a full member of the European Union.” He writes that the process is much too long and that “I am convinced that we need a new dynamic for Ukraine as well as for the Western Balkans and Moldova.”

Justifying the need for a new dynamic he writes:

“It is obvious that we will not be able to complete the accession process shortly, given the countless hurdles as well as the political complexities of ratification processes in various Member States¹. However, with a view to the peace process, we do not have time for further delays. It is now time to boldly move on with Ukraine’s EU integration through innovative solutions as immediate Steps forward.”

In reality, the letter argues for more of an EU-shuffle: some steps forward, a few steps sideways and some backwards. This comes in the form of a new idea called “associate membership” which Merz advocates for Ukraine. Here’s how it would look:

• Immediate opening of all negotiating clusters with Ukraine

• Participation in EU institutions as an observer without voting rights - including the European Council, Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament, etc.

• Full member state commitment to Article 42 security guarantees

• Step by step application of the EU Acquis and EU budget framework

• Snap back mechanism to withdraw privileges in case of backsliding

Chancellor Merz advocates for this political arrangement for 2 primary reasons:

1. Ease of implementation, he writes: “It would not require the ratification of the Accession Treaty according to Article 49 of the Treaty on the European Union nor any Treaty changes, but merely a strong political agreement.”

2. Wartime necessity, he writes that “It will help facilitate the ongoing peace talks as part of a negotiated peace solution.”

What About Moldova?

In this letter Moldova is vaguely lumped in with the other candidate countries, specifically those in the Western Balkans, with a promise for future work to accelerate the accession process. This would de facto separate Moldova and Ukraine by placing Moldova in the traditional slow-lane while creating a new kind of waiting room for Ukraine².

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy immediately rejected the formulation writing on X: “There can be no complete European project without Ukraine, and Ukraine’s place in the European Union must also be complete - full and equal.” He later sent a letter to EU leaders emphasizing that Ukraine is pushing forward on reforms and writing:

“We are defending ​Europe - fully, not partially, and not with half-measures,” (…) “It would be unfair for ​Ukraine to be present in the European Union but remain voiceless,”

Asked about Merz’s letter at the GLOBESEC Conference, President Sandu responded more cautiously saying:

“We see that this is a proposal and we are following the discussion. I am not against gradual integration as long as it does not substitute full membership. At the moment, the Republic of Moldova is following the process for full membership, and our commitment is to prepare the country by 2030. We are ready to discuss these ideas, but the ultimate goal is full membership. We hope that this proposal will not delay the process and will not substitute the concept of full membership,”

“Don’t rush” vs “What are we waiting for!?”

This letter is only the latest attempt by EU leaders to find some shortcut or geopolitical fudge to figure out how enlargement can work. It follows European Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos’ recent “reverse enlargement” idea - basically Moldova and Ukraine join the EU now but gain both rights and responsibilities piecemeal as negotiations conclude and reforms are done. This formula is favored by Ukraine but was rejected by a number of member states.

That fact, as well as the plain language of Merz’s letter show us what the real problem is - some EU members are just not sure whether or not they want Moldova and Ukraine at all (not to mention the other candidates). Diplomatically this is usually hidden behind 3 official “concerns”

1. Security - how can Ukraine join the EU while at war? how can Moldova join without reintegrating Transnistria? etc.

2. Reforms - the process of joining the EU is really long! Moldova and Ukraine simply aren’t ready.

3. Viktor Orban - “we all want enlargement but Orban is blocking it” etc

It has become quite clear that these are just excuses. Not that the concerns aren’t real - but they aren’t the core problem. Chancellor Merz proposes Article 42 security guarantees without membership and before the war ends. Reverse enlargement takes care of worries about reforms not happening. Viktor Orban is gone.

Why are we stuck still? why are no negotiating clusters open?

Meanwhile, Moldova and Ukraine are barreling full speed towards 2030. Moldova’s Deputy Prime Minister for EU Integration Cristina Gherasimov recently announced progress on clusters 4 & 5 in Brussels. Even while negotiations are not officially open, Moldova is working through the process with EU institutions unofficially. Both Moldova and Ukraine are very set on that 2030 timeline.

How can we understand these conflicting approaches?

Check Your Geopolitical Assumptions

Whenever I’m asked about Moldova’s 2030 target date it is usually by someone believes that it is unlikely to be met. They often voice one or all of those concerns listed above, or just vaguely allude the fact that “these things take time.” The idea behind the question is electoral politics in Moldova - basically, if Moldova does not join the EU by 2030 will people lose faith? can PAS or some other pro-EU government keep the candle of hope alive?³

I believe that Moldova’s focus on the 2030 target and political positioning around it are fundamentally based on a set of geopolitical assumptions. While Brussels views a technical process around enlargement, Chisinau is seeing a race against a deteriorating regional and global order. To be clear, this is my own articulation, but I think it encompasses the view from Moldova’s position on the map⁴:

1. When this war ends, there will be no small neutral nations on the periphery of the new Russian imperial project. The Kremlin has been absolutely clear, in word and deed, that it will not tolerate Ukraine or Moldova joining the European Union⁵. It has also been absolutely clear, in word and deed, that it does not recognize Ukraine’s right to exist and plans to reincorporate the territory into Russia. It is as clear that either Moldova would follow or be re-relegated to the status of a puppet state.

2. Europe’s security order is unraveling and EU membership is a security guarantee. NATO’s future is (at best) unclear⁶ and core assumptions about European security are fading or already gone. Iceland will soon hold a referendum on EU membership with the explicit goal of joining the European security bloc - an action that is driven by threats from the United States against Greenland. That a founding member of NATO should seek other security arrangements is its own tell.

3. The world security order is unraveling. The post-1945 liberal world order is crumbling. The United States, Russia and China are all acting like aggressive imperial powers⁷ and in mid-2026 the situation is getting worse by the month. The EU’s role in the world is as yet undefined.

4. The clock is ticking on the EU. The bloc’s current organization and self conception is not prepared for this new geopolitical reality. The US (mostly) isn’t hostile to Europe - it simply no longer cares⁸. The EU has been utterly unable to shape the (now non-existent) Ukraine peace process or to play any meaningful role in wars on its doorstep in Israel / Palestine, Lebanon or the Gulf. At the same time that European security is under serious pressure, AI and economic threats from China are looming as well⁹. Europe’s current configuration has been proven woefully inadequate for these challenges - even as these crises escalate.

These geopolitical assumptions are paired with a decision that has clearly been articulated by Moldova’s leadership - the country will not return to the Russian Empire under any circumstances. Given that imperative, and the fairly bleak picture painted above, Moldova is a small boat looking for safe harbor in a hurricane - and that harbor is the EU.

No Illusions About 2030

A close reading of the public statements put out by Moldova’s leadership - particularly those in English - makes it clear that they understand the challenge. In its current form with the current accession rules, 2030 is the longest of long shots. So why publicly promise that date to the electorate?

The underlying assumption is that the situation will change.

In effect, Moldova’s sprint to 2030 is a train racing down the tracks towards a canyon without a bridge. The hope is that the bridge is built when we get there.

Can the EU Change?

After I explain this logic to my questioner I usually ask them how their country’s leadership view’s the geopolitical landscape. What assumptions they are operating under and what the EU will be in 5 years. In many cases people shake their heads and say some version of “they just want things to go back to normal.”

That’s not going to happen, and while the last year has woken a lot of people up to that fact, many are resisting the clear implication - that Europe must change.

In her remarks in speeches around Europe President Sandu has been one of the voices seeking to shake other leaders awake so that they can respond to the threat. She has not been subtle and has clearly stated that if Moldova does not join the EU and people become disillusioned, then pro-Russian political forces could come to power. In 2010 that might have been a diplomatic inconvenience. In 2026 or 2030 that will mean a troop buildup and a new Kaliningrad in South East Europe.

This also underlies some of her rhetoric on union with Romania and she has clearly stated that this topic will need to be revisited after 2030 if EU accession stalls¹⁰.

The message is clear - Europe must now view the world as more than a common agriculture policy and rules about fishing rights. It needs to make geostrategic choices.

Four Freedoms

Europe primarily functions as a single market and this market is based on 4 freedoms: the free movement of goods, services, capital and people. The implementation of these freedoms has required an “ever closer union” - at least in some areas. These freedoms have so fully shaped the thinking of many politicians in Europe that EU enlargement is fully bound up in their implications.

But what about the other four freedoms?

In January 1941 Franklin D. Roosevelt gave his State of the Union address with an eye to preparing the American people for the coming war. He proposed 4 fundamental freedoms that belong to people "everywhere in the world," namely:

• Freedom of Speech

• Freedom of Worship

• Freedom from Want

• Freedom from Fear

These were meant as an articulation of the values of the United States and the democratic nations that would stand as a clear repudiation of the promises of fascism.

Some parts of Europe have taken these freedoms for granted under the benevolent military and diplomatic umbrella of the United States. Sitting in Moldova in 2026 the EU’s 4 freedoms are a promise of a more prosperous future. But the EU also represents FDR’s 4 freedoms against a power to the East that seeks very explicitly to repeal them all - "everywhere in the world."

I don’t know if Moldova will join the EU by 2030 as a full member, or whether one of the compromises and political fudges will find some way to bring in Moldova and Ukraine under another mechanism or name.

But I do think that a solution will be found. The European Union has always been a peace project that placed values at its core. As the Union faces colossal challenges it will face hard choices about how to protect those values in a changing world.

I have faith in the ability of people and institutions to change - particularly when there is little to no other choice.

1. Emphasis mine.

2. This seems to be an elaborate fudge designed to make everyone feel special. Moldova and other candidates get “acceleration” by an unknown process while Ukraine gets privileges while waiting. Presumably Moldova is meant to feel assured that it will move faster once decoupled from Ukraine while Ukraine feels special in some other way. In reality, Moldova is put in line next to Serbia (not promising) and Ukraine has the (frankly insulting) position of fighting and bleeding for Europe while not having a vote.

3. Unspoken is the “for how long” or an acknowledgement that some countries have spent decades waiting.

4. To be clear - these don’t have to be 100% true. They just need to be plausible explanations for what is happening to require a policy response.

5. Remember - for all the talk about NATO it was the EU association agreement in 2014 that triggered Russian intervention, started Maidan and then the war.

6. Here is what is not unclear - Donald Trump will not go to war to defend a small NATO ally. Anyone who thinks that he will send troops to fight Putin’s Russia on behalf of Lithuania has simply not paid any attention to what he says.

7. Clearly the 3 are NOT in any way equivalent. The point is that all 3 powers are now viewing the global order through a much more imperial lens - all 3 speaking of spheres of influence and the United States and Russia showing a total disregard for international law.

8. …and that is not going to fundamentally change with future US elections.

9. For a deep dive into the whole topic I highly recommend this article:

Europe is under siege

10. President Sandu has been fueling speculation about union with Romania - but only in the English language press. Her message there is quite clear - Moldova will not be reabsorbed into the Russian Empire. The preference is to join the EU through the front door. If that’s not possible, the country may seek to climb through a window. She has clearly indicated that this is not the goal - but that if the country does not enter the EU by 2030 then a national conversation about union is needed.