You can read more great Ukraine coverage by both staff and community members here.
With the next Ukraine funding authorization effort stalled by House Republicans, Hungary’s pro-Russian quasi-dictator Viktor Orban is using that chaos to stall European aid for Ukraine.
In a letter to the European Union, Orban threatened to both withhold European aid to Ukraine and block efforts for Ukraine to join the union.
“The European Council must have a frank and open discussion on the feasibility of the EU’s strategic objectives in Ukraine,” the letter states.
“Do we still regard these objectives realistically attainable? Is this strategy sustainable without robust support from the United States? Can we take continuing support from the United States for granted? How do we conceive the security architecture of Europe after the war,” it goes on.
It adds that “the European Council is not in a position to make key decisions on the proposed security guarantees or additional financial support for Ukraine, endorse further strengthening of the EU sanctions regime or agree on the future of the enlargement process unless a consensus on our future strategy towards Ukraine is found.”
Hungary has been a thorn on the EU’s side this entire war, as collective action requires unanimity among its member states. At times, Hungary has been bought into abstaining on key votes by either promising aid, or threatening to withhold aid. Hungary is a poor country deeply dependent on the largess of its richer neighbors. Yet for what have to be ideological reasons, Orban remains the only European Union leader to happily meet with the murderous Vladimir Putin, saying, “Hungary never wanted to confront Russia. Hungary always has been eager to expand contacts” in remarks happily broadcast across Russia’s propaganda outlets.
You might also remember Orban for wowing attendees at last year’s CPAC conservative conference by declaring that “globalists can all go to hell,” using the well-worn anti-semitic dog whistle, as well as declaring that “politics are not enough, this war is a culture war.” And of course, he’s a favorite of Donald Trump, who dreams of Orbam-style autocracy in the United States.
Now with Republicans gumming up the works in Congress, Orban has pounced. “Is this strategy sustainable without robust support from the United States?” he asks, likely prematurely. Ukraine still retains majority support in Congress, even in the House. The bigger question is the presidential election, as it’s clear that Putin (and Orban) are placing a great deal of their hope on a second Donald Trump presidency that would prompt a negotiated solution favorable to Russia. But at least in the interim, it gives Orban a fig-leaf excuse to obstruct Europe’s own efforts to aid Ukraine.
Orban’s aims here are even more ambitious than that. While he argues that Europe can’t manage to support Ukraine on its own without the U.S. (even though it literally can, not to mention pretending that Canada, Japan, Australia, and other Ukrainian-supporting nations don’t exist), this question hints at Orban’s ultimate play: “How do we conceive the security architecture of Europe after the war?”
This is, quite simply, an effort to give Russia what it so desperately wants and is so quickly losing: its imperialist hegemony over its former Soviet “republics.” Russia is Europe’s top security threat, and its only nation-state threat (not including terrorism, mass migration from conflict and climate chaos, and economic threats). Orban would be more than happy to return Ukraine to Russian control along with the rest of the central Asian countries caught in a tug-of-war between Russia, their own goals for true independence, and, increasingly, China.
Hungary has said it wouldn’t be the last nation to ratify Sweden’s ascension, and as of right now, that is still possible. While Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan finally signed off on Sweden’s bid, the country’s legislature still hasn’t ratified it. It’s a question of when, rather than if. But Hungary’s delay, even if they eventually allow Sweden in, sends a message: “If you doubt our resolve to block Ukraine, look at us make relatively uncontroversial Sweden’s life miserable.”
It’s certainly not a look that makes friends of their European counterparts. There has been murmuring in some corners about reforming both NATO’s and the EU’s veto powers as expansion has opened both organizations to shenanigans from elected governments hostile to their missions. So while the EU officially lauds progress with Ukraine’s membership bid, Orban mocks the whole notion by smugly noting (threatening?) that Ukraine is “light years away” from joining the EU.
As of now, withholding EU aid is the only mechanism to force Hungary to play ball. For example, the EU is withholding COVID recovery funds while demanding Hungary reverse authoritarian efforts to eliminate the independence of the nation’s judiciary. So Orban’s play is to hold Ukrainian aid hostage, forcing the EU to pick between fighting Russia or fighting Hungary’s slide into authoritarianism.
In recent weeks, Hungarian officials have indicated that their support for new EU aid for Ukraine could be conditioned on the Commission releasing the recovery funds. Earlier this week, Orbán sent a letter to European Council President Charles Michel demanding “urgent” discussions and urged fellow EU leaders to review aid programmes for Ukraine and the sanctions regime against Russia imposed following its invasion.
The Orbán government has also launched a public consultation asking Hungarians whether further aid should be granted to Ukraine until Hungary has received the recovery funds.
“Abusing a veto for blackmail is a cynical and a shameful practice that should be abolished, not rewarded,” said [European Parliament member Jeroen] Lenaers.
“Ukraine needs our help and Ukraine must get our help, and the EU must find ways to get that aid to Ukraine without rewarding the dismantling of the rule of law, and Hungary,” he added.
Given the choice between Europe or Russia, it’s bizarre that Orban would pick Putin. But European unity, its ability to effectively govern, and NATO’s own cohesiveness all require revisiting the unanimity provisions. Imagine a U.S. Senate where the filibuster only required one vote. It’s an untenable long-term situation.
Campaign Action