In a special episode recorded live from Lisbon, Jessica Hendrick puts six EU candidate countries through an enlargement simulation to find out what happens when crisis, cash, disinformation and political pressure collide with the race to join the EU
What happens if your economy is suddenly in crisis, Brussels offers help with strings attached—and Turkey, China or Russia can move faster? What if your country delivers every reform the EU asks for, only for a member state to block the next step anyway? And after years of waiting, would voters still choose to join?
In this special bonus episode, The Neighbourhood goes live from Lisbon for an EU enlargement game. Jessica Hendrick brings together RE-ENGAGE experts representing six EU candidate countries and throws a series of fictional—but very plausible—political and economic shocks at them inspired by real headlines: Russia’s intensified attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure, Ireland’s EU presidency push on enlargement, Iceland’s referendum, Germany’s regional elections and the upcoming 2026 Enlargement Package. Drawing on three years of surveys, interviews and crisis simulations, each expert has to answer for their country.
Playing for each country:
- Albania: Morten Bøås, research professor at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), representing RE-ENGAGE’s Albanian partners at the European University of Tirana
- Bosnia and Herzegovina: Damir Kapidžić, director of the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of Sarajevo
- Georgia: Ketevan Bolkvadze, senior lecturer in the department of political science at Lund University, originally from Georgia
- Moldova: Mathilde T. E. Giske, research fellow at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), representing RE-ENGAGE’s Moldovan partners at Moldova State University
- Serbia: Luka Filipović, research associate at the Institute for Contemporary History in Serbia
- Ukraine: Roman Petrov, president of the Ukrainian European Studies Association
The result is part enlargement simulation, part policy conversation and part game night. The experts bargain over a fictional €100 million EU cheque, decide whether the EU can compete with faster offers from other powers, test how easily disinformation could exploit frustration with enlargement, and imagine what would happen if EU membership was finally put to a public vote. Along the way, Serbia proposes keeping its relationship with Brussels “casual”, Bosnia finds a creative use for €100 million, and Ukraine calls for Hungarian “Varangians” when backsliding strikes.
When a crisis hits, does speed matter more than values? Can “Europe never wanted you anyway” become a winning political message? And if a country finally joins the EU, what stops democracy from sliding backwards once the prize of membership is secured?
Further reading:
RE-ENGAGE research overview
RE-ENGAGE research on Albania
RE-ENGAGE research on Bosnia and Herzegovina
RE-ENGAGE research on Georgia
RE-ENGAGE research on Moldova
RE-ENGAGE research on Serbia
RE-ENGAGE research on Ukraine
This podcast was recorded live in Lisbon on September 3rd, 2026.
Facts Only
* The event was recorded live in Lisbon on September 3rd, 2026.
* Six EU candidate countries participated in an enlargement simulation.
* Experts represented Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Serbia, and Ukraine.
* Participants were subjected to fictional political and economic shocks based on real headlines (e.g., Russia's actions, Ireland's presidency push).
* Participants negotiated a fictional €100 million EU cheque.
* The simulation tested the impact of crises, disinformation, and political pressure on the desire for EU membership.
* Specific negotiations involved Serbia proposing a "casual" relationship with Brussels, Bosnia finding a use for the funds, and Ukraine referencing Hungarian actors.
* The simulation examined questions regarding speed versus values, the role of narratives like "Europe never wanted you anyway," and democratic stability post-membership.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The exercise reveals fundamental tensions between state sovereignty, external geopolitical pressures, and the internal cohesion required for integration. The structure of the game—simultaneously managing immediate economic survival (€100 million), long-term geopolitical competition (faster offers from external powers like Turkey or Russia), and informational warfare (disinformation)—suggests that the pursuit of enlargement is not a purely rational calculus but a performance dictated by situational vulnerability. The dynamics observed, where actors negotiate tangible resources while debating abstract values, highlight how crisis acts as an amplifier, shifting focus from long-term institutional goals to immediate self-preservation and narrative control. The implicit question regarding whether "speed matters more than values" points toward a critical juncture: if membership is contingent on perceived security or material advantage, the foundational ideological commitment necessary for democratic resilience may be subordinated to pragmatic accommodation under duress. This process models how internal political alignments are tested when external shocks are introduced, suggesting that the success of enlargement hinges less on shared aspiration and more on an ability to strategically manage narrative fractures under duress.
Bridge Questions:
How do differing national historical narratives influence the perceived weight of external geopolitical offers during moments of acute economic or security crisis? What mechanisms could be established to decouple material incentives from irreversible political commitments in membership negotiations? If the incentive structure shifts heavily toward immediate survival, what institutional safeguards can prevent a victory based on expediency from eroding long-term democratic legitimacy?
Sentinel — Human
The text reads like a summary of an actual recorded expert discussion, grounded in real geopolitical events, exhibiting the characteristics of journalistic reporting rather than purely generated content.