Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Poland supports Ukraine's EU accession, but not queue-jumping: what's behind Sikorski's position

Warsaw is not blocking Kyiv's European integration, but refuses to support a "fast track" — citing its own experience as an argument. Behind this lies rigid logic: membership is impossible without closed negotiating chapters regardless of political will.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

April 16, 2026 · 3 min read

Poland supports Ukraine's EU accession, but not queue-jumping: what's behind Sikorski's position
Радослав Сікорський (Фото: Pawel Supernak/EPA)

Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski has clearly distanced himself from the idea of accelerated EU membership for Ukraine in a live broadcast on RMF24: "This will not happen." Warsaw supports Kyiv's European integration — but exclusively through fulfilling the conditions that Poland itself once underwent.

An argument from personal history

Poland submitted its EU membership application in 1994, began official negotiations in 1998, and became a member only in May 2004 — ten years after the application. During this time, the country had to harmonize its legislation with acquis communautaire in dozens of areas and pass assessment under the Copenhagen Criteria: democracy, rule of law, market economy, and ability to fulfill membership obligations.

Sikorski uses this precedent as a framework for evaluating Ukraine. According to him, Kyiv has not yet adopted all the laws necessary to advance the accession process — and this, he emphasized, is not criticism but a factual statement from an ally.

"It is not true that Ukraine has adopted all the laws necessary to advance the process of joining the EU. We understand the reasons. You have a war, some deputies have left the country, some have resigned, but the laws are not being adopted."

Radoslaw Sikorski, Polish Foreign Minister

Corruption as the main roadblock

Separately, Sikorski warned: if Ukraine tolerates corruption, it will not join the EU. This is not mere rhetoric: in the summer of 2025, the anti-corruption issue nearly cost Kyiv several months of negotiation progress.

On July 22, the Verkhovna Rada voted for draft law No. 12414, which stripped the NABU and SAP of their independence and transferred new powers to the Prosecutor General. The European Commission called this "a step backward." After protests in dozens of cities, Zelensky submitted and signed a new law No. 13533 within a week, restoring the powers of anti-corruption bodies. However, the episode itself remained in the memory of Brussels officials as a signal of the fragility of reforms.

Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos subsequently publicly listed the minimum steps she expects from Kyiv: the appointment of the head of the Bureau of Economic Security, the return of international experts to the High Qualification Commission of Judges, the appointment of four Constitutional Court judges who passed international selection. None of these points require the end of the war — only political will.

The Visegrád factor and the change in the Hungarian link

Alongside his statement on the EU, Sikorski revealed another diplomatic vector: following parliamentary elections in Hungary, where Peter Madar defeated Orban, the Polish side has already held telephone negotiations with Hungary's expected new foreign minister Anita Orban and invited her to Warsaw. The goal is to restore the functioning of the Visegrád Group (V4), which has been effectively paralyzed since Orban's turnaround.

This is significant: it was Hungary that for years blocked the opening of negotiation chapters with Ukraine in the EU Council. If the new Budapest truly lifts its veto — the technical process could accelerate regardless of any "special tracks."

What the figures say

Analysts at Capital Economics estimate the most realistic date for Ukraine's EU accession as the mid-to-late 2030s. Sikorski named a similar timeframe: the beginning of the next decade. Meanwhile, the reconstruction of the country, according to assessments by the World Bank and the European Commission as of the end of 2025, requires nearly 588 billion dollars — three times Ukraine's projected 2025 GDP. Part of these funds is tied precisely to progress in reforms and accession negotiations: without closed chapters — without tranches.

For the average Ukrainian, this means a simple dependency: each year of delayed reforms is a year without full access to the single market, without investor protection under EU standards, without capital flows that could finance reconstruction. Poland after joining in 2004 received hundreds of billions of euros from structural funds — and transformed from one of the poorest member states into one of the continent's most dynamic economies.

If the Verkhovna Rada adopts all priority laws from Marta Kos's list by the end of 2026 — will Brussels agree to review the pace of closing negotiation chapters without waiting for the active phase of the war to end?

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026