The EU’s Expansion Paradox
Why Brussels struggles to govern and expand effectively.
The European Union (EU) has long prided itself on being a model of economic and political integration. However, its expansionist ambitions and governing model have increasingly revealed serious structural flaws. With a decision-making process that relies on unanimous agreement and a growing roster of member states with diverging interests, Brussels finds itself mired in inefficiency and gridlock. Now, with Ukraine seeking membership, the EU faces a defining moment that could either push it toward significant reform or expose the limits of its ability to govern and expand. While expansion offers geopolitical and economic benefits, the EU’s current structure risks undermining its ability to act decisively in an increasingly competitive world.
The Concept of European Overstretch
European overstretch refers to the EU’s struggle to balance expansion with effective governance. As the bloc grows, so too does the complexity of aligning the interests of all its members. What worked in the early days with six founding members becomes unwieldy with 27, and the potential inclusion of Ukraine (alongside Moldova and the Western Balkans) exacerbates this challenge. Expansion strengthens the EU’s geopolitical influence and economic reach, but it also tests the limits of its bureaucratic and political mechanisms. The question is not whether the EU should expand, but whether it can do so without compromising its ability to function effectively.
The Governance Dilemma: Unanimity as a Bottleneck
One of the most glaring structural weaknesses of the EU is its reliance on unanimity for critical decisions, particularly in foreign policy, security, and enlargement. This requirement effectively grants veto power to every member state, making decisive action difficult. Recent events have illustrated this problem vividly:
Hungary and Poland have repeatedly blocked key EU initiatives, including sanctions on Russia and judicial reforms. Both countries have clashed with Brussels over issues related to media freedom, judicial independence, and the rule of law, exposing deep ideological divides that make consensus nearly impossible. For example, Hungary’s veto of an €50 billion aid package for Ukraine in December 2023 highlighted how a single member state can disrupt EU solidarity.1
Attempts to implement a coherent migration policy have been stymied by Eastern European states resisting Brussels’ mandates. The 2015 migration crisis, which saw over 1 million refugees enter the EU, revealed deep divisions between member states, with countries like Hungary and Poland refusing to accept EU-mandated refugee quotas.2
Efforts to respond to external crises, such as Brexit and the war in Ukraine, have often been delayed due to internal disagreements. For instance, the EU’s initial response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was hampered by Hungary’s reluctance to support energy sanctions.
This governance model, designed to ensure consensus, has instead paralyzed the EU’s ability to act efficiently, especially when addressing urgent geopolitical challenges. While unanimity protects smaller states from being overruled by larger ones, it also creates a system where a single member can hold the entire bloc hostage.
The Challenge of Integrating Ukraine
Ukraine’s potential accession underscores the fundamental dilemma of European overstretch. While there is political will to integrate Ukraine as a counterweight to Russian aggression, the practical realities are daunting:
Economic Disparities: Ukraine’s GDP per capita is less than one-third of the EU average, and its infrastructure lags far behind.3 Integrating Ukraine would require massive financial support, estimated at tens of billions of euros annually, to bring it up to EU standards. For context, Poland, the largest beneficiary of EU cohesion funds, received €12 billion in 2021 alone.
Corruption and Rule of Law: The EU demands strict adherence to democratic norms and anti-corruption measures, yet Ukraine still ranks 116th out of 180 countries on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (2023).4 While progress has been made—such as the establishment of anti-corruption courts—significant reforms are still needed. For example, the EU has repeatedly criticized Ukraine’s oligarchic influence over politics and media.
Institutional Strain: Adding a country with a population of over 40 million would shift the balance of power within the EU, potentially exacerbating tensions between member states. For example, Ukraine’s agricultural sector, which accounts for 10% of its GDP, could compete with those of existing members like Poland and France, creating new economic frictions.
Despite these challenges, integrating Ukraine offers significant geopolitical benefits. It would signal the EU’s commitment to defending democracy and countering Russian influence in Eastern Europe. However, doing so under the current governance model risks further straining the bloc’s already fragile unity.
Idealism vs. Pragmatism: The Case of Georgia and Armenia
The EU’s expansionist ambitions are not limited to Ukraine. In recent years, there has been growing discussion in Brussels about the possibility of integrating Georgia and Armenia. While this idea reflects the EU’s idealistic vision of a united and inclusive continent, it also highlights the need for greater pragmatism in its approach to expansion.
Georgia and Armenia present unique challenges that underscore the limits of the EU’s current model:
Geopolitical Complexities: Both countries are located in a region rife with unresolved conflicts. Georgia’s territorial disputes with Russia over Abkhazia and South Ossetia5 remain unresolved, while Armenia faces ongoing tensions with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.6 Integrating these countries would require the EU to navigate a minefield of regional rivalries and security risks.
Economic and Institutional Gaps: Georgia and Armenia have made progress in recent years, but their economies remain small and underdeveloped. Georgia’s GDP in 2022 was 18 billion, while Armenia’s was 14 billion—far below the EU average. Both countries also struggle with corruption and weak institutions, ranking 41st and 58th, respectively, on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (2023).7
Logistical Challenges: Integrating Georgia and Armenia would require either the inclusion of Turkey (which is politically unfeasible given its strained relations with the EU) or the creation of new trade and transport corridors through unstable regions. For example, the proposed “Middle Corridor” linking Europe to Central Asia via the South Caucasus faces significant infrastructure and security hurdles.
While the EU’s interest in Georgia and Armenia reflects its commitment to promoting democracy and stability, it also risks overextending the bloc’s resources and attention. Without a realistic strategy, such ambitions could further expose the gap between Brussels’ idealism and the practical realities of expansion.
Historical Precedents: Lessons from Past Expansions
Previous EU enlargements have already highlighted the difficulties of incorporating new members. The 2004 “Big Bang” expansion, which saw 10 countries join at once, stretched Brussels’ administrative capacity to its limits. While the expansion was initially hailed as a success, it also revealed underlying tensions. For example:
Poland and Hungary, once seen as success stories, have since clashed with Brussels over democratic backsliding and judicial independence. Poland’s defiance of EU rulings on judicial reforms led to the withholding of €36 billion in pandemic recovery funds in 2022 that has only recently been resolved.8
The ongoing struggles with integrating the Western Balkans further illustrate that expansion without deep institutional reform risks weakening the EU from within. For example, North Macedonia’s accession has been delayed for over a decade due to disputes with Greece and Bulgaria.9
These precedents suggest that the EU must address its governance challenges before pursuing further expansion.
The Need for Federalization and Real Leadership
If Brussels is to govern effectively while continuing to expand, institutional reform is necessary. The EU cannot continue as a loose confederation of squabbling states unable to act decisively in a world increasingly defined by geopolitical competition. The current system of consensus-driven decision-making is unsustainable. To meet these challenges, the EU must embrace a more federalized structure with a central authority that has real power to act in times of crisis.
Key areas for change include:
Abolishing the Unanimity Rule – Moving toward qualified majority voting in areas like foreign policy and enlargement would prevent individual states from derailing EU action.
A Strong Executive Leader – The EU needs a leader (live player) with real authority to navigate crises and set a coherent strategic direction, rather than a rotating cast of weak leadership in the form of commissions.
Streamlining Bureaucracy – The EU’s decision-making process must become more agile to handle expansion without excessive red tape.
Differentiated Integration – A two-tier system where new members initially join only specific parts of the EU (e.g., the single market but not Schengen) could ease the burden of expansion.
However, reforming the EU is itself a herculean task, as any fundamental change requires agreement from all existing members—ironically, reinforcing the very paralysis that necessitates reform in the first place.
Conclusion
The European Union stands at a crossroads. Its ambition to expand and integrate new members, particularly Ukraine, clashes with its outdated and inefficient governance model. While expansion offers geopolitical and economic benefits, it also risks exacerbating the EU’s internal divisions and rendering it incapable of decisive action. Without significant changes to its decision-making processes and institutional framework, the EU risks becoming a victim of its own success, unable to reconcile its ideals with the practical realities of governance. Abolishing unanimity, streamlining bureaucracy, and embracing a more federalized structure are essential steps to ensure the EU can govern effectively while continuing to grow. However, achieving these reforms requires overcoming the very gridlock they seek to address. In an era of geopolitical competition and shifting global power dynamics, the stakes could not be higher.