Subscribe
Ukraine’s path towards integration into the European Union, officially undertaken in 2022 in parallel with that of the Republic of Moldova, constitutes one of the most significant, complex and symbolically charged challenges in the history of the Union’s enlargement. In a war context marked by the Russian invasion, Kiev’s accession acquires a political, strategic and moral value of extraordinary importance, configuring itself as an institutional and collective response to military aggression and as a concrete reaffirmation of democratic principles, the rule of law and solidarity among the peoples of Europe. However, despite the European Commission’s recognition of the progress made by Ukraine in the reforms required for the start of accession negotiations, the process is currently at a standstill. This blockage is attributable to the veto of Hungary, under the leadership of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who has so far prevented the unanimity needed to proceed, raising doubts about the political, rather than technical, nature of his opposition. This impasse raises profound questions about the internal cohesion of the Union, the credibility of its commitment to the candidate countries and Europe’s ability to respond effectively to the geopolitical challenges of the present. The Danish rotating Presidency of the Council of the European Union, inaugurated on July 1st 2025, is a strategically relevant and potentially decisive opportunity to overcome the current institutional impasse that is hindering the start of accession negotiations between Ukraine and the Union. In a context of growing geopolitical tension and moral pressure on Europe to keep the promises made to the candidate countries, Denmark is in a privileged position to exercise active leadership in relaunching the enlargement project. By virtue of its role as rotating Presidency of the Council, Copenhagen can not only coordinate the political debate among the Member States but also act as a neutral mediator and promoter of constructive compromises, leveraging the institutional tools available, the credibility acquired at European level and a favourable context of solidarity towards Kiev. Furthermore, Denmark has the opportunity to use its influence to articulate a multi-level diplomatic strategy that takes into account Budapest’s resistance, without however formally compromising its right of veto, relying instead on persuasive action, on the collective pressure of European partners and on political incentives that can induce Hungary to reconsider its position. In this way, the Danish Presidency presents itself not only as an operational actor, but as a symbol of the European commitment to greater cohesion, security and capacity to respond to global challenges.
THE INSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT OF ENLARGEMENT
EU accession is a complex multi-level process, requiring unanimity among Member States for each key step, including the start of accession negotiations. This means that any Member State, for political, economic or strategic reasons, can block the entire process, as is happening with Hungary in the Ukrainian case. In June 2022, Ukraine and Moldova obtained candidate status, a historic achievement facilitated by the ongoing war and the growing perception that the EU needs to expand to ensure its own security. However, two years later, despite reforms implemented by Kiev and signs of structural progress, the first negotiating chapter (“Foundations”) has not yet been opened, mainly due to the Hungarian veto. Orbán’s veto is based on considerations that appear more ideological and geopolitical than technical: the Hungarian prime minister has often used the issue of enlargement as a tool to put pressure on Brussels, consolidating his own internal political position through an anti-integration narrative. The national consultation promoted by his government on the issue of Ukrainian accession was then used to justify the block at European level.
THE DANISH PRESIDENCY: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR LEADERSHIP
In this context, the Danish rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU takes on a highly symbolic and practical value. From the beginning of its presidency, Copenhagen announced a strong commitment to relaunching the accession process of Ukraine and Moldova, declaring its intention to exert maximum pressure on Hungary to overcome the veto. The Danish Minister for European Affairs, Marie Bjerre, highlighted the importance of keeping the promises made to the candidate countries, both for ethical-political reasons and for regional security and stability needs. It is not just about supporting a country under attack, but also about consolidating the EU’s resilience and credibility as a geopolitical actor. Denmark’s role could also be important for reasons related to its diplomatic reputation: Copenhagen is perceived as a consistently pro-European and law-abiding member state, which makes it a credible mediator between the different souls of the Council. Furthermore, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s open support for the Ukrainian cause strengthens the country’s political commitment to advancing the enlargement agenda.
TOOLS AND STRATEGIES
Although the formal scope of action of the rotating Presidency is limited, its role in managing the agenda and facilitating political consensus can be decisive. Among the strategies that Denmark could adopt is certainly the start of intense bilateral diplomacy with Budapest, with political, economic or institutional offers aimed at changing the Hungarian position, possibly exploiting the support of other Member States to build collective pressure. There is also the possibility of undertaking joint mediation with the European institutions, especially with the Commission and the European Council, to create a united front that isolates Hungary, reducing the internal political cost for Orbán of a possible change of direction. One of the adoptable perspectives could also be that of bringing the debate to a different field, perhaps with informal initiatives and diplomatic conferences, which can create spaces for dialogue alternative to the formal Council, opening margins for a negotiated solution. Finally – but this would be a rather advanced political decision – we could arrive, together with other partners, to evaluate the use of a political exchange between the Hungarian veto on Ukraine and concessions on other issues dear to Budapest, such as structural funds or migration policies. However, Minister Bjerre has so far avoided specifying concrete strategies, stating that it would still be too early to speculate on the different alternatives. This reticence, more tactical than programmatic, suggests that Copenhagen wants to preserve negotiating flexibility, especially at this level and moment of the negotiation.
RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES: JOINT MANAGEMENT OF CANDIDATURES
A delicate strategic issue concerns the possibility of separating the accession paths of Ukraine and Moldova, if the Hungarian veto remains insurmountable. Orbán, in fact, is not opposed to Moldovan accession, and some diplomats are evaluating the possibility of proceeding with Chisinau, temporarily leaving Kiev behind. However, Denmark has made it clear that it is against this option, arguing that the two candidacies must remain united in order not to undermine the EU’s political coherence. Dividing the dossiers would be tantamount to sending a signal of disengagement towards Ukraine, risking delegitimizing the entire enlargement process. President Zelensky has stated that Kiev would be ready to do anything to continue the accession talks, requiring the unanimous support of European leaders. In this context, Denmark could play a role as a moral and political guarantor of the unity of the process, avoiding divisive concessions and preserving the candidate countries’ trust in the European mechanism.
THE STRATEGIC VALUE OF DANISH LEADERSHIP
The Danish semester of EU Presidency comes at a critical moment for Europe: on the one hand, enlargement is becoming a strategic priority to counter Russian influence and ensure the continent’s security; on the other, internal veto logics threaten the coherence and credibility of the European project. Denmark, with its pro-European tradition, its diplomatic weight and the clarity of its positioning, is ideally placed to try to unblock the Ukrainian accession process. Although it does not have the power to formally bypass the Hungarian veto, Copenhagen can act as a political catalyst, institutional coordinator and promoter of negotiated solutions. The success or failure of the Danish Presidency in this task will have profound implications: not only for Ukraine and Moldova, but for the entire future of the enlargement mechanism, and therefore for the identity and geopolitical function of the European Union. Breaking the deadlock would mean reaffirming that the EU is not a prisoner of national vetoes, but capable of renewing itself in solidarity and strategic vision.