EU Integration: the “Von der Leyen Dictatorship” and Ever-Distant Membership

Semyon ALBU, RTA: The electoral defeat of the ruling Fidesz party in Hungary has instilled hope in many of our citizens who, for one reason or another, favor Moldova’s rapid accession to the European Union. Indeed, formally it was the Hungarian veto under Viktor Orban that represented the barrier preventing the opening of full-scale membership negotiations. Over the past months, these have been replaced by various technical consultations, compliance with cluster requirements, and other routine processes that clearly have not provided the public with the sense of momentum and progress that prevailed in 2022-2024. Formally, Budapest was not opposed to Moldova’s application, but because we are being considered exclusively as part of a single package with Ukraine, and PAS has either failed or chosen not to change this, our progress toward a “bright European future” has clearly stalled as well. Now, however, Orban is no longer in power, and the EU expects fundamentally different decisions from his successor: both the unblocking of a €90 billion loan for Kyiv and the lifting of the “padlock” on the start of accession negotiations. However, many experts have rightly argued that the situation is far from simple or one-dimensional, and that it is quite convenient for many European politicians to attribute all responsibility for the slowdown in the enlargement process solely to a dissenting Hungary, while maintaining a facade of unanimous agreement among the others. It is clear that, for example, in Eastern Europe and the Baltic states there are indeed many supporters of pushing the EU’s border further east. However, in the so-called “core” states of the European Union, not in the nuclear sense, the position on this issue has always been more contradictory than their leaders admit at lavish press conferences. And should it really be surprising that now, when the troublesome Orban is almost gone from the scene, the question of admitting new members is once again meeting strong resistance and pushback? Western media are currently reporting that, contrary to expectations, the issue will not be placed on the agenda of the upcoming summit in Nicosia at the end of this month, allegedly due to the “ambivalent stance of the leaders”. Among the countries opposing enlargement are France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy. In other words, this is not a matter of “extras”, but of the most influential members of the EU, who also finance this so-called “blooming garden”. And, inevitably, European institutions such as the European Commission are forced to take their position into account, a position shaped by fairly obvious reasons. The main one is the extreme unpopularity of the idea of absorbing new states in a period marked by multiple crises: energy, economic, migration, military, and others. At a time when Europeans are already having to pay hundreds of billions due to rising defense spending, expensive energy imports, the tariff deal with the United States, support for Ukraine, and so on, no one is eager to take on the burden of bringing new “members” up to acceptable standards. Therefore, the official rhetoric is rapidly drifting back toward the narratives that prevailed before the events of 2022. Above all, this concerns the idea that EU accession must be a “merit-based” process, without any geopolitical exceptions. In other words, countries must first bring themselves into compliance with all the requirements set for candidates, and only then proceed to accession. At the same time, it is quite obvious that, over the next 10-20 years at least, neither Chisinau nor Kyiv will come anywhere close to meeting European standards. This is why, prior to the war, European integration was an almost unattainable dream for both countries, and the process was effectively frozen so that even constructs such as the Association Trio had to be invented. Now, as we can see, things are returning to their previous course. But this, of course, does not mean that the authorities will in any way adjust their policy. No, ritualistic performances around European integration will continue, and the public will be fed slogans such as “EU-2029”, then “EU-2034”, and so on, until this rhetoric ceases to have any effect on citizens whatsoever. In addition, it is impossible to avoid to what the European Union itself has been mutating into in recent years. Take Hungary as an example. It would seem that a politician came to power who is willing to restore normal relations with European institutions. Yet Brussels immediately presented what is effectively an ultimatum consisting of nearly thirty demands. Relatively straightforward steps for the new authorities, such as unblocking a loan for Ukraine, are combined with requirements like refugee quotas and LGBT rights, which Orban consistently resisted. Incidentally, for the first issue alone, Budapest has been fined one million euros per day, with the total amount already approaching one billion euros. Hungary will also be required to fully refuse from Russian energy resources. The new prime minister, Peter Magyar, has already stated that he does not intend to immediately end energy cooperation with Russia, and in the current geopolitical context such a move would indeed appear highly unwise. How successfully he will be able to defend this position remains to be seen, as pressure from Ursula von der Leyen and others is expected to be considerable. What we are seeing, then, is the following: either you are a compliant and controllable politician who, disregarding the opinion of your own population, implements policies defined in Brussels’ offices, or you will be punished with the full force of “Brussels law”. The center has significant instruments of pressure, primarily the manipulation of funding. For instance, Hungary has not received approximately €35 billion in subsidies, and these funds will only become available once the new government fulfills the EU’s ultimatum. This is, in practice, a form of dictatorship under the rhetoric of democracy, pluralism, and other high-minded values. In reality, by embarking on the path toward EU accession, countries such as Moldova are expected to be inherently ready to forgo the ability to conduct both foreign and even domestic policy independently. Moreover, such a limitation of sovereignty has been effectively imposed on us since 2022, while any significant benefits, apart from occasional financial assistance and high-level visits, are scarcely visible.