Testing European Unity: Denmark Steps Up
Uncertainty and conflict are no longer distant echoes on Europe’s eastern border. They are the defining realities for an entire continent grappling with its post-Cold War identity. Into this fray steps Denmark, assuming the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union on July 1, 2025, armed with a direct mission: make real progress on a merit-based enlargement process—with Ukraine’s EU membership squarely at its heart.
Denmark’s commitment is more than a bureaucratic handover. Under the banner, “A strong Europe in a changing world,” Danish European Affairs Minister Marie Bjerre insists that European enlargement is a geopolitical necessity. “This is the only way for Europe to remain resilient against outside influence,” she has emphasized in interviews with European media, echoing a wider sense within the bloc that the time for equivocation is over.
Contrast this with the obdurate stance of Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán. He continues to block both military aid and EU membership talks with Ukraine, arguing that the latter would spell disaster for Hungarian farmers and threaten the country’s slice of EU development funding. His government’s opposition has forced the EU into an extraordinary balancing act: either risk splintering consensus, or risk its security and credibility by stalling Ukraine’s future.
For many progressives, Denmark’s assertiveness is both inspiring and overdue. Across the continent, it’s clear that solidarity, not dithering, is what this moment demands—not just for Ukraine’s sake, but for Europe’s collective well-being.
Bypassing Blockades: The Debate Over EU Rules
As Hungary digs in, EU officials are openly searching for procedural workarounds. European enlargement decisions traditionally require unanimous consent—giving each member state, even one as small as Hungary, effective veto power. This mechanism is both a democratic backstop and, increasingly, an Achilles heel.
Fidesz party MEP Csaba Dömötör, echoing Orbán’s rhetoric, recently sounded the alarm that the European Commission is considering ways to bypass the unanimity requirement in crucial enlargement votes. Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos has openly acknowledged work behind the scenes to make progress when consensus is deliberately withheld. The optics are combustible: Can the EU act decisively, or will it be permanently sidelined by national obstruction?
“This process is about Europe’s soul,” says Daniel Kelemen, a professor of political science at Rutgers who studies EU governance. “Does unity mean giving a single member the power to hold the entire continent hostage—or is collective action possible in an age of urgent crises?”
“If the EU fails to support Ukraine now, we not only betray a nation fighting for democracy but hobble our own credibility as a force for positive change.”
— Jana Puglierin, European Council on Foreign Relations
Critics of the fast track, mostly within nationalist and conservative camps, warn of dire economic consequences. Dömötör claims current members could see cohesion funds slashed by up to 24% and agricultural subsidies by 15% if Ukraine joins. Yet these doomsday predictions rarely acknowledge the immense benefits that follow from fostering stability and democratic reforms on the EU’s doorstep. The alternative—leaving Ukraine and Moldova exposed to external interference—is costlier still, both morally and strategically.
Beyond that, the suspected attempt to “separate” Moldova’s application from Ukraine’s circles frequently in diplomatic whispers; yet the European Commission has flatly opposed such moves, signaling that enlargement negotiations must advance on substance, not expediency.
Climate Ambition, Security, and the Continent’s Next Chapter
Denmark’s presidency isn’t focused solely on Ukraine. At its core is a vision for a EU that is robust, climate-resilient, and geopolitically relevant. In July, the European Commission will propose a legally binding 2040 target for a 90% reduction in emissions compared to 1990 levels—a historic undertaking that faces fierce resistance from several EU governments.
According to a 2023 Pew Research study, 76% of Europeans believe acting on climate change will benefit their economies. Yet the journey from target to action is fraught, as industry lobbies and domestic political forces push for lower targets or creative accounting (such as the use of international carbon credits). Denmark’s programme sees forging consensus here as not just environmental stewardship, but as a vital aspect of returning Europe to a path of innovation leadership against global competitors like China and the United States.
A closer look reveals how interconnected these threads are. Denmark, championing both an ambitious climate agenda and a security-driven enlargement policy, recognizes that the threats facing Europe—be it Vladimir Putin’s aggression or the climate crisis—do not respect borders.
Building a just, strategically sound, and sustainable future depends on broad coalitions and shared sacrifice, not self-serving vetoes.
Harvard economist Dani Rodrik underscores the stakes: “A resilient Europe is one that invests in both internal reforms and an outward-facing strategy. Enlargement and climate leadership aren’t competing priorities; they are the foundation of future prosperity.”
As Europe stands at another decisive crossroads, history offers a clue. The EU’s most successful enlargements—post-1989 expansion to Central and Eastern Europe—were undertaken with bold, sometimes risky choices. Those choices paid off by anchoring democracy and propelling economic growth across the region. Will Denmark’s leadership help spark a similar leap forward in 2025?
Pushing Past Paralysis: The Stakes for Liberal Democracy
The drama over Ukraine’s EU path is about far more than bureaucratic wrangling or budget recalculations. It is a test of whether Europe still has the courage to match its values with action. As the war in Ukraine grinds on and anti-democratic forces press harder inside the Union, the Danish presidency offers a rallying point for those unwilling to yield to cynicism or inertia.
No one can claim that Ukrainian accession—and broader enlargement—will be pain-free. But the alternative is a Europe weaker, less secure, and far less able to live up to its own founding promises. The months ahead will define not just who sits at the European table, but whether that table is still open to those yearning for freedom and dignity. For progressives and pragmatists alike, that’s a cause worth fighting for.
