The European Union’s Enlargement Dilemma: Is “Nihilistic Responsibility” the New Normal?

When discussing enlargement, the European Union rarely hesitates to emphasize values. Democracy, human rights, rule of law - these words echo through EU policy documents, speeches, and summits. But in recent years, something has felt increasingly off-key. There’s a growing dissonance between the EU’s enthusiastic rhetoric about enlargement and the much more cautious reality on the ground, particularly towards the Western Balkans and Turkey. Why does this disparity exist, and what does it reveal about the EU’s current state?

We address precisely this question by introducing the concept of nihilistic responsibility - a notion we borrow and adapt from philosopher Calvin Warren’s critical reflections on ethics and responsibility. In its EU adaptation, it captures how the EU publicly professes moral obligations while subtly avoiding transformative actions.

Enlargement as a Moral Project?

Traditionally, EU enlargement has always been framed as a normative mission rather than just a geopolitical expansion. From Romano Prodi to Ursula von der Leyen, leaders have reiterated a narrative in which enlargement isn't simply strategic, but ethical - a commitment to spreading peace, democracy, and stability across Europe’s neighborhood. Yet, paradoxically, over the past two decades, this very rhetoric has grown more aspirational and less actionable.

Take, for instance, Jean-Claude Juncker’s warning in 2018 that losing the European perspective might ignite old conflicts in the Western Balkans. This strong, moral language appeared clear and urgent. Yet, he quickly placed the responsibility squarely on Balkan states themselves, insisting they must first resolve border disputes internally. A powerful moral appeal became, paradoxically, a way of shifting the burden.

Similarly, Ursula von der Leyen’s 2022 speech warmly described the Western Balkans as “part of our European family” but then quickly turned to blame external actors, particularly Russia, for blocking democratic progress in the region. Despite highlighting shared culture and interests, tangible support from Brussels remained vague, cautious, and elusive.

Technocratic Neutrality vs. Transformative Action

The mismatch between rhetoric and reality becomes even more evident when we delve into the annual country reports prepared by the European Commission. These documents - dense, bureaucratic, and meticulously detailed - detail the democratic standards in candidate countries. Yet the problem isn't the diagnosis, it is the prescription: or rather, the conspicuous absence of it.

In Turkey’s 2022 report, the Commission notes with great detail restrictions on free speech, judicial independence, and media freedom. Yet the report remains firmly neutral, avoiding broader geopolitical discussions or any reflection on actionable solutions. Why does the EU avoid confronting structural realities, such as the migration agreement of 2016, which deeply shaped Turkey’s democratic landscape?

The same pattern appears in Western Balkans reports. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s 2021 report, for instance, is blunt regarding lack of progress on judicial reform. Serbia and Montenegro’s reports highlight continued media censorship and political polarization. However, the EU rarely goes beyond diagnosing these issues, leaving local political elites - and their voters - without a clear roadmap or meaningful pressure to transform.

Why "Nihilistic Responsibility"?

So why use such a strong term - nihilistic - to describe the EU’s strategy? We chose it precisely because it captures the performative nature of the EU’s commitment to enlargement. Rather than reflecting incompetence or simple hypocrisy, nihilistic responsibility reflects a deliberate performance of moral engagement that carefully avoids deep structural interventions.

This approach isn't accidental. It serves a critical psychological function. By publicly projecting an ethical stance - however symbolically - the EU maintains a self-image as a “normative power.” Even if actual policy shifts remain minimal, the performance acts as a stabilizing mechanism, protecting the EU’s identity amid internal doubts, enlargement fatigue, and external geopolitical pressures.

In other words, nihilistic responsibility isn’t a fault; it is a feature. It stabilizes the EU’s sense of self and biographical continuity precisely by avoiding the transformative risks that genuine responsibility demands.

What Does Genuine Responsibility Look Like?

The EU isn’t doomed to this path. It could assume genuine responsibility by linking symbolic language to real mechanisms of change. For the Western Balkans, this could involve clearer timelines for reforms, making substantial financial investments contingent on progress, and engaging diplomatically in ways that go beyond mere symbolism. While for Turkey, it might require re-opening stalled accession chapters, challenging transactional politics, especially linked to migration deals, and concretely supporting civil society groups to uphold democratic standards.

Of course, the EU operates in a complex reality of internal politics, budget constraints, and geopolitical pressures. Yet recognizing nihilistic responsibility as a real and deliberate strategy allows for a clearer conversation about what genuine ethical responsibility might require.

The Way Forward

As Europe continues navigating multiple simultaneous crises—from migration pressures and democratic backsliding to geopolitical tensions with Russia—its enlargement policy stands at a critical juncture. The question remains: will the EU transcend symbolic commitments and align its ideals with the realities of transformative action?

Our discussion of nihilistic responsibility isn’t merely an academic inquiry - it is a call to rethink what authentic European leadership should look like in these challenging times. Whether the EU chooses to respond meaningfully or retreats into safe, symbolic minimalism will shape not only the future of enlargement but the Union’s entire identity as a global normative actor.

 Ultimately, the EU’s credibility hinges on its willingness to confront its own contradictions. As enlargement remains high on the political agenda, the distinction between symbolic solidarity and real responsibility has never been more crucial - or clearer.

Erman Ermihan is a postdoctoral researcher at Bilkent University. Ermihan completed his PhD in International Relations at Kadir Has University in 2025, after earning his bachelor's degree in the same department at Istanbul Bilgi University and his master's degree in Political Science at Sabancı University. His research interests include Turkey-European Union relations, Turkish foreign policy, ontological security, and identity and emotions in foreign policy.

Nasuh Sofuoğlu completed his bachelor's degree in 2013 at Karadeniz Technical University in the International Relations program, his master's degree in 2015 at the University of Sussex in the International Relations program, and his PhD in 2022 at Kadir Has University. He is currently working as an Assistant Professor at Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University. His research interests include International Relations Theories, Ontological Security Studies, and Security Studies.

The opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of EU-VALUES Network.