Yesterday, as on every 4 November, Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos presented to the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) (progress) the reports on the 10 countries aiming for membership in the European Union and a summary assessment of the situation in each country; she completed the assessment after discussions and questions from MEPs.

The following conclusions can be drawn from this session:

1-Montenegro joins in 2028?

According to the Commission, the candidate country with realistic chances for membership is Montenegro. Ms. Kos referred to June 2028 as a reasonable deadline for signing the EU Accession Treaty, while she saw the conclusion of negotiations at the end of this year.
The above confirms the opinion we expressed earlier about the real chances of Montenegro becoming the 28th EU member state. But it would be hasty to take membership for granted as ratification by the 27 current member states, including France, is not guaranteed.

2-Albania and eight other countries "instead of counting"?
Albania and Moldova have an ambition to close the negotiation chapters by the end of 2027/beginning of 2028, which according to Ms. Kos can be achieved if the necessary steps are taken. The same applies to Ukraine, whose deadlines are a few months later than those above. But unlike Montenegro, there is no indication of when the Treaty can be signed; even the word “membership” seems to have been avoided. Due to internal problems or external obstacles, the other 6 candidates (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey and Georgia) have not made any progress and have no deadlines for further steps.

3- “Phase-wise membership” as the only alternative?
Ms. Kos explained that, following the conceptual elaboration in Brussels of "phased membership", a dialogue would be initiated with candidate countries at the beginning of 2027 on how they viewed the possibility of gradual inclusion in EU institutions and programs, until now reserved for member states.
We have often written about “phased membership” for three years now, stating that it is the only realistic path to de facto integration into the EU. The possible membership of Montenegro is just an exception that confirms this new rule for all other candidates. Especially in the case of Albania, it would be positive if the conditionality for each integration step were treated with seriousness and rigor by the European Union. We say “especially” because not infrequently in the last decade the concrete conditions adopted have been watered down, especially by the European Commission.
In the case of Albania, "expansion for geopolitical reasons" is also relativized as an additional motive mentioned in these four years since the Russian aggression began. In our case, where the European and Euro-Atlantic orientation is supported by a broad political-social consensus, this motive loses more or less meaning.

4-Reduction of the prostheses as an extension of the Potemkin Facade
Commissioner Kos (Social Democrat, Slovenia) supported by parliamentary rapporteur for Albania Schieder (Social Democrat, Austria) stated that the months-long protests in Albania were about environmental standards and that they expected the government to make relevant amendments to the laws on the environment and on strategic investors; they also expected dialogue on these issues between the government and the protesters.
This statement is a softened avatar of the Commission's embellished propaganda over the last decade against the authoritarian and kleptocratic narco-regime of Edi Rama. The Commissioner and the Rapporteur know full well that the protesters are unwaveringly demanding Rama's resignation and a one-year caretaker government to prepare for normal parliamentary elections. But they prefer to fabricate parallel realities. Likewise, Commission President von der Leyen, who a few weeks ago in Tirana began her speech with a cynical "Dear Edi" (until recently she began it with "Dear Aleksandar" in Belgrade). Likewise, a year ago in Tirana, Ms. Kos called the 2025 parliamentary elections "free and fair", opposing the report of her own Commission and that of the OSCE. And so on, there are plenty of examples. The minimalist improvements in (progress) reports in the last three years through more realistic nuances in describing the problems of the rule of law and democracy cannot balance the propaganda in front of TV cameras; those reports are read by few and forgotten more quickly.

The reasons for this propaganda may be naivety or cynicism; the motives may be benign or not. But it seems clear that the Commission's approach so far is a calcifying factor for the current crisis and unfortunately oxygen for the regime. Fortunately, the European Parliament and the Council (member states) have time and again demonstrated a realistic and principled approach.