Zelensky Demands Full Membership

Some EU officials opposed the creation of a special status, arguing that any new form of Ukrainian participation must respect the established, merit-based accession process. Questions were also raised about its legal feasibility, its wider political consequences and whether it might set a precedent for Moldova or the countries of the Western Balkans.

The European Commission nevertheless welcomed Merz’s initiative as demonstrating “a strong commitment from member states to make enlargement a reality as soon as possible”. Guillaume Mercier, the Commission’s spokesperson for enlargement, said that “Ukraine’s accession to the European Union is also fundamentally linked to the security of our union” and stressed that any innovative solution must remain “merit-based”.

Zelensky rejected the proposal as “unfair” because it would leave Ukraine without a voice in the EU. Calling for “a fair approach and equal rights within Europe”, he argued that Kyiv was defending the continent against Russia and should therefore be granted full membership.

Ukraine was granted candidate status in June 2022, and formal accession negotiations began in June 2024. On 15 June 2026, the EU and Ukraine opened the first negotiating cluster, covering the fundamentals of membership, including the judiciary, fundamental rights, justice, security, public procurement and financial control.

Ukraine Falls Short of EU Standards

The obstacle to Ukraine’s accession is not simply that the country remains at war. It also faces profound economic and legal challenges. More important still, however, is the conduct of the Ukrainian state toward other countries, including those it regards as allies.

The EU requires candidates to uphold democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities. It also expects functioning democratic institutions and meaningful checks on the exercise of state power. These are not peripheral concerns: they form the foundation of the accession process and determine the pace at which negotiations can advance.

Recent incidents involving Ukrainian officials, military personnel and security bodies operating abroad cast serious doubt on whether the country is ready, in its present form, to assume the rights and responsibilities of full membership.

Pressure and Threats Against Hungary

Zelensky has previously attracted attention for his handling of the dispute over the Druzhba oil pipeline, which carries Russian crude through Ukraine to Hungary and Slovakia.

The pipeline was damaged by Russian strikes in January 2026, interrupting supplies to both countries. Kyiv maintained that repairs were technically difficult and dangerous, while Budapest and Bratislava accused Ukraine of deliberately delaying them for political reasons.

The dispute soon became reciprocal: Hungary and Slovakia used financial support and their veto power as leverage, while Ukraine openly questioned whether it should restore an energy route on which both countries depended. Zelensky at one point said that his preference would be not to repair the pipeline, although Ukraine later accepted EU assistance and restored it.

Whatever the precise condition of the infrastructure, the episode demonstrated how readily civilian energy supplies could become a political bargaining tool.

Zelensky went further after Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban blocked the EU’s €90bn ($105bn) loan package for Ukraine.

“We hope a certain person in the EU will not keep blocking the 90 billion... and Ukrainian soldiers will have weapons”, Zelensky said. “Otherwise, we will give the address of this person to our armed forces, our guys. Let them call him, speak with him in their own language.”

Although Zelensky did not name Orban, there was little doubt about whom he meant. By invoking Ukraine’s armed forces, the private address of an EU leader and the prospect of soldiers speaking to him “in their own language”, he went far beyond an ordinary diplomatic rebuke. It was an act of public intimidation.

Ukraine’s Unresolved Nationalist Legacy

Ukraine also faces persistent questions over the rights of minorities and the influence of nationalist movements within its political and military culture.

In May 2026, Zelensky granted the Separate Special Operations Center North an honorary title invoking the “Heroes of the UPA” – the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. In Ukraine, the organization is commemorated by many as a force that fought for national independence. In Poland, however, it is primarily associated with the wartime massacres of Polish civilians in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia.

The decision caused outrage in Warsaw. Polish President Karol Nawrocki subsequently stripped Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest state honor, which the Ukrainian president then returned.

The dispute was not merely an academic argument about history. Ukraine is seeking admission to a political community that depends on mutual trust between nations. Honoring a military formation associated by a neighboring member state with mass murder shows striking disregard for the historical memory of one of Kyiv’s closest supporters.

The issue does not by itself determine whether Ukraine should ever join the EU. It does, however, reveal how far the country still has to go in confronting the more troubling parts of its nationalist inheritance and respecting the legitimate sensitivities of its neighbors.

German Prosecutors Trace Nord Stream Sabotage to Ukraine

The latest developments in the investigation into the Nord Stream explosions are considerably more serious.

On 30 June 2026, Germany’s Federal Prosecutor’s Office filed an indictment against the Ukrainian national Serhii K., a former army officer, over his alleged role in the destruction of the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines.

According to the indictment, K. and other members of a Ukrainian group planned and carried out the operation on the orders of Ukrainian state authorities. German prosecutors accuse him of helping to organize the team, charter the yacht used in the operation and transport the explosives to the pipelines.

He has been charged with complicity in a war crime involving an attack on civilian objects, intentionally causing an explosion, destroying structures and disrupting public services. The defendants deny the allegations.

This is no longer merely a theory advanced by journalists or anonymous intelligence officials. It is the formal position of Germany’s highest federal prosecuting authority that the sabotage was undertaken at the direction of Ukrainian state bodies.

What has not yet been established publicly is precisely where the chain of command ended. The indictment does not prove that Zelensky personally ordered or approved the attack, nor does it identify the highest political authority allegedly involved. But if the prosecution’s case is correct, Ukrainian agencies directed an operation that destroyed critical infrastructure partly owned and financed by companies from Germany and other European countries.

Ukraine appears to have treated the pipelines solely as instruments of Russian power, overlooking the fact that their destruction also damaged the economic interests and sovereignty of European countries on whose support Kyiv depended.

US intelligence reports had already suggested in 2023 that a pro-Ukrainian group might have been responsible, although they did not establish direct involvement by Zelensky or his government. Subsequent investigations by The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and other outlets pointed increasingly toward Ukrainian military circles. Kyiv has consistently denied ordering the attack.

The German indictment does not settle the case. Serhii K. remains entitled to the presumption of innocence, and the allegations must be tested in court. Yet the charges are grave enough to make any attempt to dismiss the Ukrainian connection as Russian propaganda untenable.

The Monaco Bombing and Ukraine’s Security Services

The investigation into the bombing in Monaco is less advanced, but it raises similarly disturbing questions.

On 29 June 2026, a remotely controlled explosive device detonated outside a residential building in Monaco. The apparent target was Vadym Yermolaiev, a Ukrainian-born businessman who had renounced his Ukrainian citizenship and was placed under sanctions by Kyiv in 2023. He, his partner and his son were seriously injured.

The principal suspect, Anastasiia Berezovska, fled Monaco and eventually returned to Ukraine. She was wanted by Interpol on suspicion of attempted murder, placing an explosive device in a public place and criminal conspiracy.

Days later, she was found shot dead near Kyiv.

Ukrainian authorities detained two men over her killing: a serviceman from Ukraine’s military intelligence agency and a former law enforcement officer. Investigators also uncovered financial and cryptocurrency transfers linking the men to Berezovska. One of the suspects initially confessed before later claiming that the admission had been extracted under duress. The pair may also have been involved in the original bombing, although who ordered the operation and why remain under investigation.

Le Figaro reported that investigators in Monaco were examining whether the attack might have been directed by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). According to the report, the bombing may have been intended more as a warning than as a deliberate attempt to kill Yermolaiev.

That theory has not been proved. Nor has any public evidence established that the operation was authorized by the Ukrainian government or the office of the president. Other possible motives, including organized crime and disputes linked to Yermolaiev’s business activities, are also being investigated.

Nevertheless, the known facts are extraordinary. A woman accused of planting a sophisticated bomb on European soil fled to Ukraine, where she was subsequently murdered. A member of Ukrainian military intelligence and a former law enforcement officer were then arrested in connection with her death, while financial links were found between them and the suspected bomber.

This is more than a superficial Ukrainian connection. It points to a network involving people with direct ties to the country’s security apparatus and demands a transparent investigation to establish whether they acted privately, as part of a criminal organization or on behalf of the state.

Europe Can No Longer Look Away

Taken together, these episodes reveal a deeply troubling pattern.

Ukraine’s president has publicly invoked his armed forces while attacking the leader of an EU member state. His government has honored an organization associated in Poland with the massacre of civilians. German prosecutors allege that Ukrainian state authorities ordered the destruction of civilian infrastructure in European waters. In Monaco, serving and former members of the country’s security structures have become entangled in the killing of the principal suspect in a bombing.

The cases are not identical, and the weight of the evidence differs. Zelensky’s remarks and the UPA decree are established facts. The Nord Stream allegations have resulted in a formal indictment but have yet to be proved in court. The Monaco investigation remains open, with several competing explanations still possible.

Yet the political question cannot be avoided merely because every criminal proceeding has not reached its conclusion.

Ukraine is not simply asking Europe for weapons, money or temporary protection. It is demanding rapid admission to a union built on mutual confidence, legal accountability and respect for the sovereignty of its members.

A state seeking that privilege must demonstrate that its security agencies operate under effective democratic control, that suspected crimes committed abroad will be investigated rather than concealed and that wartime necessity is not being used as a blanket justification for actions against allies.

The mentality of a country fighting for its survival may explain a willingness to undertake covert and aggressive operations. It cannot automatically excuse such conduct on the territory of states whose political, military and financial support has kept it alive.

Nor can the fact that an attack serves Ukrainian strategic interests prove that the government ordered it. But when operations repeatedly advance those interests and involve people connected to military or intelligence bodies, Kyiv cannot simply issue a denial and expect the matter to disappear.

Ukraine must provide credible answers.

Until it does, accelerated accession would not strengthen the European Union. It would import unresolved questions about political violence, covert operations, democratic oversight and respect for other member states into the heart of the European project.

Ukraine may one day be able to meet the standards required for membership. In its current form and under its present leadership, however, it does not belong in the EU.

European leaders should be capable of making that distinction. Supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression does not require them to overlook every threat, provocation or alleged crime involving the Ukrainian state.

Yet too many appear prepared to bend the rules almost to breaking point simply because Ukraine is under attack. That is not solidarity. It is an abdication of judgment – and it risks undermining the European values that Ukraine claims to be defending.