Expectation as a Strategic Error: Ukrainian Pharmaceuticals on the European Threshold
European integration of Ukraine today is often perceived as an accelerated process — almost inevitable and largely predetermined. The opening of accession negotiations, the high density of contacts with European Union institutions, and the intensity of legislative screening create a sense that the result is close at hand.
However, this sense frequently turns out to be an illusion, especially for sectors in which access to the European market is defined not by political decisions, but by a complex system of regulatory, professional, and societal filters.
The pharmaceutical sector belongs precisely to this category, and here expectations of EU accession are increasingly substituting for a strategy of real market presence.
Working in the Brussels environment, I increasingly observe how Ukrainian pharmaceutical companies build their plans on the assumption that political acceleration will automatically lead to easier access to the European Union market.
In reality, the EU pharmaceutical market does not operate on the logic of advance payments. It recognizes only proven compliance with rules, the sustainability of procedures, and the ability to operate within a collective regulatory system. Even under the most favorable political dynamics, pharmaceuticals remain one of the most inert sectors in terms of market access, and this inertia is embedded in the very architecture of patient protection and the safeguarding of the public interest.
The intensity of the European process is often measured by the number of meetings, visits, and statements. For business, however, it must be measured differently. The true speed of integration is reflected in how quickly companies adapt their internal quality systems, pharmacovigilance, and regulatory compliance to the requirements of the Union.
In this sense, a dangerous gap often emerges between the feeling of acceleration and actual progress along the European trajectory. This gap becomes especially evident when companies invest resources in symbolic presence rather than in institutional readiness.
An analysis of the presence of Ukrainian pharmaceutical companies in Europe shows that physical presence does not necessarily mean participation. In recent years, an increasing number of companies have opened permanent offices in Brussels, expecting that geographic proximity to European institutions itself will become a source of influence or will accelerate regulatory processes. However, the Brussels reality is structured differently.
This is not a city of bilateral negotiations, nor a space where decisions are made on the basis of personal contacts. Brussels is an ecosystem of collective policymaking, in which pharmaceutical decisions are shaped at the intersection of regulators, professional associations, patient organizations, and expert platforms.
Within this system, a standalone corporate office that is not embedded in sectoral and societal networks proves to be structurally weak. It does not shape the agenda, does not participate in the creation of compromises, and, as a result, does not influence final decisions.
Such representative offices often substitute genuine regulatory work with active communication, creating an illusion of engagement. Yet the European medicines market does not open through public activity. It opens through inspections, dossiers, evidence of quality, and the sustainability of processes — elements that cannot be replaced by either presence or statements.
An additional problem lies in the mismatch of time horizons. A permanent office implies a long-term strategy, whereas real opportunities in Brussels are short-term and event-driven.
They arise at moments of consultations, revisions of directives, supply crises, or discussions of technical mechanisms. Without pre-established coalitions and trust-based relationships, such windows of opportunity pass by, leaving behind only a sense of missed chances.
Against this background, the question of how Ukrainian pharmaceutical companies can build effective communication in Brussels becomes particularly important. Experience shows that sustainable results are achieved not through individual promotion, but through participation in collective work.
The European Union is far more receptive to arguments framed as contributions to a socially significant objective — whether patient safety, the resilience of supply chains, or access to medicines in times of crisis. Within such frameworks, sectoral interests cease to appear private and begin to be perceived as part of the shared European agenda.
A key role in this process is played by Brussels-based civil and expert structures that know how to translate business interests into the language of regulatory logic and public benefit. Interaction with such organizations allows companies to speak to EU institutions not as external actors from a candidate country, but as participants in a shared professional dialogue.
In this sense, the experience of working within the European Facilitation Platform merely confirms a broader principle: what matters is not presence in itself, but the ability to be embedded in a network of trust, expertise, and collective action.
Ultimately, expectations of Ukraine’s accession to the European Union should not become a substitute for strategy in the pharmaceutical business. The European market does not reward patience or symbolic presence.
It recognizes only readiness to operate by the rules, the capacity for cooperation, and the ability to speak the language of evidence. Those Ukrainian pharmaceutical companies that are already investing today in quality, partnerships, and collective agenda-setting will enter the European space not as latecomers, but as structurally embedded participants in the system.
