Following the scandal between US President Trump and Ukraine, Kiev is receiving a lot of solidarity. A different tone is coming from Hungary.
Shortly before a special EU summit, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has announced a blockade of possible new support efforts for Ukraine. In a letter to EU Council President António Costa, which was obtained by Deutsche Presse-Agentur, Orbán wrote that he could not agree to a joint declaration by the EU heads of state and government on Thursday.
Zoltan Kovacs, the state secretary responsible for international government communications in Hungary, confirmed that the letter is authentic.
The threat from Budapest comes after US President Donald Trump threatened to abandon Ukraine in the fight against Russia if an agreement with Russia was not reached. He made serious accusations against Ukrainian head of state Volodymyr Zelensky in front of the cameras at the White House.
##Orbán calls for direct talks with Russia
Orbán went on to write that there are “strategic differences in our approach to Ukraine that cannot be bridged by drafts or communication”. The EU should follow the example of the USA and hold direct talks with Russia on a ceasefire and an agreement in Ukraine.
It is therefore unlikely that the EU will be able to adopt new measures to support Ukraine at the special summit on Thursday. According to the EU’s External Action Service, there should ideally be an agreement in principle on a new EU package with military aid for Ukraine.
##Unanimity is needed for far-reaching decisions
However, far-reaching decisions must be made unanimously in the EU and Hungary had already announced last week that it intended to block the plans.
The initiative of EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas is aimed at strengthening Kiev’s position in the negotiations instead of pushing for peace, Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto announced via the social network X. Hungary would not support spending European taxpayers’ money to prolong the war.
(Translated using DeepL)
There is no mechanism to kick members from the EU. There’s article 7 which pretty much starts with first giving a warning and then everyone (except Hungary) unanimously has to agree to revoke the rights of Hungary. I’m of course simplifying the process because it doesn’t matter as the EU is so toothless that they haven’t even been able to give Hungary a warning.
Hungary should’ve gotten a warning the moment they were established as “Partly free democracy”.
You guys 'member the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth? I 'member. This kind of thing is what brought them down, too.
But, there’s still time to fix our Western organisations, I think. Really, 3/4 vote should be enough for anything.
I know. And I think it’s a lapse in better judgement from the beginning days of the EU. Nobody expected that this could be necessary one day. But alas here we are.
They really should have seen it coming, considering basically any part of history, but that goes for most Western foreign policy decisions of the last couple decades.
They saw it coming, but Europe was made step by step, because it wouldn’t have been otherwise. That’s called politics. Unanimity was absolutely necessary for Europe to birth.
But now Europe needs to grow up. And it will, as it did many times already.
Edit: I missed a key point for clarity. Nobody would have joined Europe if they thought Europe could force any decision on them. Which is why it is based on unanimity.
When it comes to anything from the pre-1992 period, absolutely. They either didn’t know how permanent their treaties were, or didn’t know they’d be expanded to so many parties.
The EU itself was born in the “end of history” era, so I’d take a less generous reading of the politics involved. But, either way, I do hold hope.
Note that I mentioned foreign policy more broadly - there’s other examples of bad decisions we’re seeing the obvious impacts from now. For example, China is really rich, but still totally autocratic and threatening to neighbors. Clinton was quoted as saying them resisting democracy if they had free markets would be like “nailing jello to a wall”, despite counterexamples starting somewhere in the neighborhood of 3000BC.
I realize I missed my key point : nobody would have joined Europe if they thought Europe could force anything on them. That was the key to make Europe a thing.
You’re right otherwise.