The debate over Ukraine’s potential accession to the European Union has gained intensity in recent years, fueled by solidarity in the face of Russia’s ongoing war. Yet, according to two Danish professors, the consequences of such a step could be catastrophic for the very institutions that hold the Union together.
Morten Heiberg, professor and expert in Spanish history and international relations at the University of Copenhagen, and Rasmus Mariager, professor of contemporary history at the same university, argue in an op-ed in Altinget that the EU may be heading down a dangerous path. “The use of hard power in Europe has once again become a reality, and fence posts are being moved faster than expected,” they write, warning that enlargement without a clear plan risks destabilizing the bloc.
Heiberg and Mariager place the Ukraine debate in the broader context of what they call a “multidimensional European crisis” marked by the loss of digital sovereignty, Donald Trump’s return to the U.S. presidency, and Europe’s fragile position between autocratic powers and technological giants. They emphasize that Denmark, like the rest of Europe, faces urgent questions about its place in a shifting world order.
Central to their critique is the lack of practical consideration behind enlargement rhetoric. “Now Danish politicians are claiming, over and over, that Ukraine should join the EU, and that is understandable, because the country is in a terrible situation. … But no one can suggest a meaningful way for this to happen,” they say, warning that, “In the worst case, membership would cause the EU institutions to collapse. Perhaps that is why Putin no longer sees any obstacle to Ukrainian membership.”
This warning echoes that of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who has consistently cautioned against Ukraine accession, saying it would become a “permanent and uncontrollable burden” for member states. Speaking on the Hungarian public Kossuth Radio, he criticized the European Commission’s draft budget for lacking a coherent vision, pointing out that nearly one-third of the proposed budget would be consumed by debt repayments and aid to Ukraine. “That’s why everyone’s up in arms,” he remarked.
For Orbán, the issue goes beyond economics. He warned that “once inside… Ukraine’s problems would become the EU’s problems—and for decades.” The Danish professors and Orbán converge on a central point: Ukraine’s EU membership, far from being a symbol of solidarity, could be a destabilizing force. While Heiberg and Mariager stress the institutional strain and lack of strategic clarity, Orbán also underscores the financial, agricultural, and human rights burdens that would fall on the Union.
A study conducted by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) within Ukraine and 14 EU countries also showed little support for Ukrainian EU membership. While 25-30% of those surveyed felt like Ukraine is culturally part of Europe, only 10-15% felt their EU membership would strengthen the bloc’s global position. Furthermore, a mere 8-9% thought the membership would benefit the EU economically and only 4-5% on average said it would benefit their own country specifically. It is apparent that the nationals from across Europe echo the same sentiment: Kyiv is not ready to become part of the Union and would be an additional burden on the already struggling EU economy.
