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)
This global idea of keeping enemies in the fold to avoid war has kinda created gridlock to doing anything good. A century of centrism in foreign policy and globalization isn’t making anything feel so great.
Why don’t we kick Hungary out of the EU? We don’t need a traitor state. And as we’ve seen with Brexit it is possible for a country to leave the EU.
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.
The issue is that there is no real legal mechanism to kick someone out. Some might also fear that the EU is weakened politically if members can get kicked out again, if their politics upset the majority of EU members.
They could be suspended but it would need to be unanimous. Unfortunately as soon as Poland rejoined the civilized Europe, Slovakia decided they wanted to be Russia’s best vassal in Europe.
Definitely a concern. What sort of action might warrant expulsion if a means did exist? What proportion of votes would ratify the expulsion?
Get this Russian traitor out of our beautiful Union!
EU should talk to putin. Invite him to the Hague for a nice sit down.
Good idea. We should invite Netanyahu next.
I mean where else? Brussels?
We should send Orban to Moscow with EU’s demands and hope he never comes back.
How is this guy still alive?
Someone already tried to assassinate the Russian puppet of Slovakia
unanimously
My understanding is that EU sanctions require unanimity. Hungary could put a hole in the bottom of the boat there.
On the other hand, sending troops or funds is not fundamentally an EU activity, does not require unanimity, and could be done by all other EU members even if Hungary objected. Much aid to Ukraine has been provided on a direct country-by-country basis, albeit not all. And I believe that this is the form of involvement that would be required to significantly alter the outcome in Ukraine; additional sanctions would not be sufficient.
However, I am skeptical that there is a political desire in the EU to do this. I think that the strongest statement from Europe that I’ve seen has been from the UK, which has said that it would send a “peacekeeping” force – but only if the US backstops it, which the US has said that it will not. So…that’s not really much of a commitment in practical terms.
I think that end of the day, Ukraine’s fate may have been decided on the battlefield. Russia was willing to outlast Ukraine, and there is no willingness from US and I do not believe I see any from Europe to directly militarily intervene to alter that outcome. Without a commitment of forces to Ukraine, Russia has nothing keeping it from simply rebuilding and then doing another push, taking over Ukraine down the line, or simply imposing its will on Ukraine by using continued threat of hard power; if Ukraine has no hard-power ability to resist, it must conform to the Kremlin’s will.
EDIT: I’d imagine that this also has implications for other post-Soviet states in the neighborhood, like Georgia and Moldova, who are in a similar position. If there is no willingness from the outside to put boots on the ground, and there is willingness from Russia, then one would expect Russia to re-exert control over countries. Sort of a path-of-Belarus, I guess.
Ah, yes. This guy is also a cunt
Oh, the DICKtator is talking shit again… Just ignore him…
