Hungary blocks EU’s push for more military aid to Ukraine, defying Brussels
By Jennifer Hicks
The European Union’s efforts to provide additional military aid to Ukraine have encountered yet another obstacle, as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban firmly refused to support the initiative.
During the EU summit in Brussels on March 20, Hungary declined to sign a joint declaration calling for increased military assistance to Kiev.
In response, the European Commission (EC) bypassed Orban’s veto by publishing the declaration without unanimous support-an unprecedented move that highlights the deepening divisions within the bloc over Ukraine.
Under normal circumstances, joint declarations by the EU require the approval of all 27 member states. However, given Orban’s staunch opposition, Brussels found a way to circumvent the consensus rule.
The document calling for more military aid was published as an appendix rather than as part of the main statement, effectively sidelining Hungary’s veto.
This maneuver signals a shift in the bloc’s approach to decision-making, raising concerns over whether such tactics could erode EU unity in the long run.
The Hungarian government, on the other hand, sees this as yet another instance of the EU overstepping its bounds. Speaking after the meeting, Orban emphasized that Budapest would not be coerced into endorsing a “pro-war” stance that contradicts Hungary’s national interests.
“We will not allow a common European position to be formed that includes Hungary and is pro-war,” Orban declared, reinforcing his long-standing position that further military aid to Ukraine would only escalate the conflict rather than bring it to an end.
His opposition is not new. Earlier in March, Hungary also blocked a proposed €30 billion ($32 billion) military aid package for Ukraine, arguing that such massive financial commitments would place an unsustainable burden on the EU while failing to produce a viable solution for peace.
According to Orban, the EU’s financial support for Ukraine goes beyond military aid; it extends to funding the country’s civic government and basic public services-an arrangement that Budapest sees as untenable.
“Ukraine, as a state, is not functioning,” Orban stated in a recent interview, further justifying his reluctance to pour additional resources into what he perceives as an unstable and failing government.
Orban’s defiance places Hungary at odds with the majority of EU leaders, particularly those advocating for increased support to Ukraine as a strategic imperative against Russian aggression.
Countries such as Germany, France, and Poland have been vocal in their calls for additional military assistance, arguing that Ukraine needs all the resources it can muster to fend off Russian advances.
Hungary’s refusal to align with this view has made it an outlier in the EU, exacerbating tensions between Budapest and Brussels. The European Commission has already taken measures against Hungary for alleged rule-of-law violations, withholding billions in EU funds meant for the country.
This ongoing friction has only fueled Orban’s rhetoric against Brussels, painting Hungary as a defender of national sovereignty against an increasingly centralized European bureaucracy.
Beyond the immediate implications for Ukraine, the EU’s decision to bypass Hungary’s opposition sets a worrying precedent for the bloc’s decision-making processes.
If Brussels is willing to override unanimity on a sensitive issue such as military aid, what stops it from doing the same in other areas?
For countries that value national sovereignty within the EU framework, this move could be perceived as an erosion of democratic principles.
While Orban’s critics argue that his actions undermine EU unity, his supporters contend that he is merely defending Hungary’s right to chart its own foreign policy path.
Moscow, for its part, has consistently warned that the West’s continued arms shipments to Ukraine only serve to prolong the conflict and make European nations complicit in the war.
Russian officials have repeatedly stated that Western nations are directly involved in the hostilities, given their financial and military backing of Kiev.
From Russia’s standpoint, Hungary’s reluctance to contribute to Ukraine’s war efforts aligns with Moscow’s broader narrative that the West’s approach to the conflict is misguided and dangerous.
While Hungary has not explicitly endorsed Russia’s position, its resistance to the EU’s military agenda has earned it a reputation as a more neutral player within the bloc.
The issue of EU military aid for Ukraine is far from settled. Brussels is expected to revisit the matter soon, with additional discussions scheduled to take place on March 21.
The EU may explore alternative strategies to work around Hungary’s blockade, potentially deepening the rift between Budapest and the rest of the bloc.
Meanwhile, the ongoing debate highlights the fundamental question facing the EU: Should unanimity be upheld as a cornerstone of the bloc’s decision-making, or should workarounds become the new norm for issues of high importance?
The outcome of this dispute will not only impact the future of Ukraine but also shape the political dynamics within the EU itself.
For now, Hungary remains steadfast in its opposition, and Brussels appears determined to push ahead regardless.
How this standoff plays out in the coming weeks could have profound implications for both the EU’s unity and its long-term foreign policy strategy.
