Exceptional Times: The European Commission, Discursive Power and the Temporal Politics of Ukrainian Accession to the European Union

Existing literature has discussed how, in the past, the European Commission has employed time conceptions to legitimize its strategic approach to enlargement. The crisis in Ukraine has, however, conducted the von der Leyen European Commission to adopt new temporal narratives regarding the politics of enlargement. This paper answers the following research question: how has the von der Leyen European Commission used its discursive power to argumentatively recontextualize the temporal politics of Ukrainian accession to the European Union? Past enlargements were narratively legitimised employing two main conceptions of time, namely long or medium-term temporal horizons and linear conceptions of time. The military and political exceptionality and uncertainty of the Ukrainian situation does not seem to be compatible with long or medium-term temporal horizons or with linear conceptions of time. How the von der Leyen European Commission employs time conceptions to legitimize the accession of a country living exceptional times is in need of urgent discussion. The von der Leyen European Commission has invoked the dissonant heritage associated with the European 2014 decisions regarding Russia to legitimize Ukrainian accession to the European Union. The von der Leyen European Commission employs its discursive power to determine the political timing of Ukrainian eventual accession. Building from the Discourse-Historical Approach, particularly from Ruth Wodak’s (2000) notion of discursive recontextualization, and Foucault’s concept of discursive power, this paper argues that the von der Leyen European Commission has discursively recontextualized its narratives on the politics of Ukrainian enlargement by employing a strategy of argumentation based on the existential significance of Ukraine accession to the European Union and on the need to accelerate the timing of the Ukrainian accession process. The consequences of both argumentative moves are assessed regarding the future of the European Union enlargement policy.