Space capabilities are a core element of any modern defence arsenal. In Europe, however, military space capabilities are limited and dependence on the United States remains high. Europe must develop its capabilities in order to reduce dependencies and enhance its capacity to act on its own, thereby fostering European autonomy. To ensure that European space capabilities are developed efficiently, it is necessary to identify which dependencies on the US are particularly critical and which obstacles would hinder the development of such capabilities. Priority should be given to space situational awareness, military reconnaissance, navigation resilience and missile early warning.
The policy brief by Dr. Ioannis Armakolas (Head, South-East Europe Programme – ELIAMEP & Director, think nea – New Narratives of EU Integration) and Ioannis Alexandris (Research Fellow, South-East Europe Programme – ELIAMEP & Researcher, think nea – New Narratives of EU Integration), “Enlargement and the EU Budget: Is the price to pay high? The case against fiscal alarmism”, was prepared in the framework ELIAMEP’s initiative think nea – New Narratives of EU Integration, supported by the Open Society Foundations – Western Balkans.
At a time when EU enlargement is increasingly contested by Eurosceptic and radical-right forces, the policy brief examines one of the most politically sensitive aspects of the debate: the budgetary and fiscal implications of enlargement. Building on think nea’s thematic report on radical-right narratives, the authors analyse how fears about costs to taxpayers, agricultural subsidies, and cohesion funds are mobilised to undermine public support for further EU expansion, particularly in net-contributor Member States.
Drawing on recent EU budget proposals for the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework, as well as economic modelling and lessons from previous enlargements, the brief demonstrates that the actual fiscal cost of enlargement is modest and manageable, especially when phased-in mechanisms and structural reforms are applied. At the same time, it shows that EU transfers are transformational for candidate countries, particularly in the Western Balkans, Moldova and Ukraine, supporting convergence, institutional reform and infrastructure development.
The analysis also highlights the opportunity costs of non-enlargement, emphasising how past rounds of enlargement generated significant economic gains for existing Member States through trade, investment, labour mobility and integrated supply chains. In this light, the brief reframes enlargement not as a fiscal burden but as a strategic investment in Europe’s competitiveness, resilience and long-term stability.
The paper concludes with concrete policy recommendations on how to reframe public debate, embed enlargement within the EU’s new competitiveness and strategic autonomy agenda, and counter fiscal alarmism by presenting enlargement as a win-win process that benefits both current and future Member States.
You can read the policy brief here.
The South-East Europe Programme of ELIAMEP is a member of the IGNITA network, led by Open Society Foundations – Western Balkans.
As climate negotiators gathered in Belém for the 30th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP30), the surrounding rainforest was in the spotlight, with COP30 being dubbed a “forest COP”. As one of its key projects, the Brazilian government launched the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF). The fund for the conservation and restoration of standing rainforests aims to serve as a successful and innovative initiative in multilateral cooperation through blended finance. However, there remains a gap between current forest finance and what is needed to reach the Rio Convention targets. Germany and a few other European states have pledged investments into the fund and could shape its implementation. Additional financing mechanisms for forest restoration play a complementary role and should be enhanced. Still, not all success lies in finance. Forest finance mechanisms must reconcile targets of increasing carbon sequestration and storage in forests along with biodiversity and sustainability targets, while upholding the rights of local populations.
Alessandro Ieranò, Project Research Assistant at the South-East Europe Programme (ELIAMEP), explores the interplay between EU enlargement disputes and minority rights in his new article for Contemporary Southeast Europe.
Drawing from the Beleri case and Hungary’s ongoing veto on Ukraine, he observes how, in the context of bilateral disputes between a member (kin) state and a candidate (home) state, enlargement paralysis is a ‘lose-lose’ outcome for all parties involved. Above all, for national minorities, which risk to find themselves caught in the crossfire of politicisation and securitisation.
As he argues, this stems from the of lack of safeguards and alternative-dispute resolution mechanisms in the current enlargement framework, which has turned veto powers from an atomic option into a default practice. This not only enables the politicisation of kin-minorities in candidate countries—adding further straining bilateral relations—but also jeopardises enlargement at the moment when it is most needed. To address this challenge, he proposes a set of policy recommendations aiming at restoring the credibility of the enlargement promise through mutual guarantees to both ‘gatekeeping’ kin-member states and ‘obstructed’ candidate-home states, while preventing the securitisation of national minorities.
You may read the essay here.