The war in Ukraine has redefined EU enlargement from a predominantly technocratic process into a strategic field shaped by uncertainty, risk management, and long-term geopolitical calculation. Granting Ukraine EU candidate status marked not only an act of political solidarity but a strategic reorientation: enlargement is no longer postponed until stabilization but unfolds as part of a broader strategy of resilience under conditions of war. Within this context, Ukraine’s accession trajectory can be conceptualized through competing strategic scenarios, each entailing distinct trade-offs for the European Union and for democratic governance in Ukraine. An accelerated accession scenario prioritizes geopolitical stabilization and deterrence but risks institutional overstretch and the erosion of conditionality. A staged accession scenario seeks to balance urgency with oversight by sequencing access to EU policies, funding, and decision-making, yet may generate political ambiguity if differentiation becomes prolonged. A prolonged accession scenario emphasizes procedural rigor and internal EU consolidation but risks undermining reform incentives and public trust in the integration process. Together, these scenarios reveal the strategic dilemmas now embedded in EU enlargement: how to reconcile speed with legitimacy, flexibility with coherence, and solidarity with governance capacity. Ukraine’s case illustrates that enlargement has become a co-evolutionary process, reshaping both the Union and the candidate state. The strategic choices made today will shape not only Ukraine’s democratic resilience but also the future logic of EU integration as a security-oriented political project.

The paper examines the evolution of Ukraine’s political regime under the conditions of full-scale war. Challenging the widespread belief that war inevitably leads to democratic regression and requires the suspension of civil liberties and democratic procedures in the name of survival, the Ukrainian case demonstrates that a young democracy can endure, adapt, and, in certain respects, continue to develop despite severe security challenges. The paper unpacks this experience by tracing parallel, competing processes of democratisation and autocratisation that unfold during wartime. Drawing on an analysis of political institutions, governance practices, and patterns of civic engagement, the study characterises Ukraine’s wartime political dynamics as fundamentally ambivalent. On the one hand, the imperative to ensure societal resilience, effective military coordination, and state survival has led to a concentration of executive power, the expansion of emergency governance mechanisms, and the temporary restriction of certain civil rights, liberties, and democratic practices. These developments raise concerns about democratic backsliding, weakened institutional checks and balances, and the long-term consequences of prolonged emergency rule. On the other hand, the war has simultaneously generated dynamics that reinforce democratic resilience. Heightened civic mobilisation, large-scale volunteer movement, and strong societal oversight have played a significant role in sustaining accountability beyond formal institutions. The consolidation of a civic national identity, a broad societal consensus on democratic values, and continued pluralism within public debate have contributed to maintaining democratic legitimacy under wartime conditions. In this sense, Ukraine’s experience illustrates how bottom-up civic forces can partially offset top-down centralisation and help sustain democracy during crises. The paper identifies the key drivers behind these contrasting trends and outlines possible trajectories for Ukraine’s political development. Particular attention is given to how wartime governance practices interact with EU accession requirements, highlighting both areas of convergence and emerging risks that could hinder integration if emergency measures become entrenched. By offering a nuanced analysis of wartime regime dynamics, the paper contributes to broader debates on democracy in crisis, the resilience of political institutions under extreme conditions, and the relationship between war, governance, and democratic development.

This paper presents the findings of a sociological study examining public support for European integration, attitudes toward political reforms in the field of anti-corruption, and perceptions of the key risks shaping Ukraine’s political development. Drawing on newly collected, original survey data as well as an analysis of the dynamics of political attitudes over time, the study provides a comprehensive picture of contemporary public opinion in Ukraine. The results demonstrate that commitment to the European course constitutes a powerful unifying factor for Ukrainian society, bridging regional, generational, and socio-demographic differences. Support for European integration and alignment with European political and institutional standards is consistently high across all regions and age groups, underscoring its role as a cornerstone of national consensus. At the same time, the study reveals greater diversity of views regarding the modalities and timing of ending the war, indicating that while strategic orientation is shared, tactical preferences may vary. The paper offers valuable insights into the factors underpinning social cohesion in Ukraine, as well as into the challenges that citizens perceive as most critical for the success of ongoing reforms and the European integration process. Among the most significant risks identified by respondents are the persistence of corruption, the incomplete nature of judicial reform, concerns about the prospect of an unjust peace, and ongoing security threats. By highlighting these perceptions, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of both the sources of societal unity and the obstacles that may hinder sustainable political reform and European integration in Ukraine.

The report addresses the issue of shortcomings in the legal regulation and practical application of rules governing the termination of Ukrainian judges' status as a result of disciplinary liability. It is argued that the Ukrainian legal basis for the dismissal of judges following disciplinary proceedings does not ensure greater transparency of the judicial system and in fact does not comply with the national constitution, as well as with European Union (EU) and international standards. A prerequisite for formulating a special procedure for dismissal of a judge as a result of disciplinary action is to guarantee the irremovability of a judge. Determination of the model of the procedure for dismissal of a judge is a discretion of the state and serves as an indicator of the degree of ensuring the principle of independence of the judiciary in the person of its holders. However, the disciplinary procedure for removing a judge from the position of a public servant contains potential risks of encroachment on his or her independence. On the other hand, the state authorities and their officials should be provided with proper control over the legality of their actions to prevent abuse of power or use of power contrary to the law. Therefore, the disciplinary procedure for removing a judge from office should be based on a reasonable balance of guarantees of the irremovability and independence of judges and fair control over the legality of their actions. The main prerequisite for disciplinary procedures against judges should be the desire for objectivity in assessing a judge's disciplinary misconduct, as well as ensuring impartiality and excluding discretionary treatment of a judge's misconduct, so that the institution of disciplinary responsibility does not become a mechanism that encroaches on judicial independence. Disciplinary proceedings that pose a risk of affecting a judge's career and violating the constitutional guarantee of the irremovability of a judge (i.e., the imposition of a sanction to dismiss a judge) should be provided with the highest safeguards and standards of proof, in particular those provided for in criminal proceedings, including inadmissible restrictions on access to court in an appeal against a decision of a disciplinary body. In disciplinary proceedings that perform a preventive function and do not pose a significant threat of violation of the guarantee of irremovability of a judge (sanctions not related to dismissal of a judge), for the purposes of procedural economy, the guarantees and standards of proof inherent in civil rights proceedings are permissible. The author substantiates the expediency of introducing the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" in the disciplinary procedure against judges, especially in cases where the issue of their dismissal is raised.