Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó faced intense criticism this week after attending the Minsk International Conference on Eurasian Security, where he joined officials from Russia, Belarus, and Syria in a forum seen as a counterweight to the Munich Security Conference.
Hungary’s attendance at the summit has angered many European Union and NATO officials, who see Budapest’s diplomatic outreach to Moscow and its allies as increasingly at odds with Western security interests.
The event, presented by Moscow as a Eurasian counterpart to the Munich Security Conference, prominently featured a logo resembling a Rubik’s Cube overlaid with a blood-stained map of Eurasia—a striking visual that closely mirrors Hungary’s 2024 EU Council presidency logo, which also incorporates the Rubik’s Cube motif as a nod to Hungarian ingenuity, even sharing the same colour scheme.
This visual parallel suggests that Péter Szijjártó’s attendance was far from coincidental, highlighting Hungary’s increasingly schizophrenic positioning as it courts Eurasian allies while holding a leadership role within the EU.
In his speech, Péter Szijjártó’s repeated assertions of Hungary’s “sovereignty” and “neutrality” placed Hungary squarely at odds with the EU’s unified approach towards Russia.
By casting Hungary’s foreign policy as one of pragmatic independence, he implied that the EU’s alignment with the U.S. and its sanctions on Russia undermine national autonomy—suggesting these policies serve Western priorities at the cost of Hungarian interests.
This rhetoric, however, underscores a contradiction: while Hungary benefits from EU membership, it simultaneously dismisses the collective security values that membership entails.
Hungary’s calls for “sovereignty” and “dialogue” effectively position the country as a defender of engagement with Russia, despite ongoing aggression in Ukraine. This stance raises significant questions about Hungary’s commitment to NATO and EU principles, as it signals a readiness to diverge from the bloc’s collective strategy in favour of bilateral dealings with Eastern powers.
Szijjártó’s rhetoric, framed as an appeal for bridge-building, risks undermining EU solidarity, potentially emboldening other states with similar tendencies and fracturing the bloc’s unified response to shared security threats. Hungary’s stance has, in effect, become both isolating and disruptive, casting further doubt on its alignment with European security objectives.
In Brussels, this rhetoric is increasingly seen as a cover for Hungary’s alignment with Russia. As a member of NATO and the EU, Hungary’s involvement in the forum has reignited concerns about its commitment to collective European security.
French MEP Nathalie Loiseau remarked, “The Hungarian government never wastes an opportunity to shame us,” while former NATO assistant secretary-general Camille Grand called Hungary’s participation “extremely troubling.” Estonian MP Marko Mihkelson captured the prevailing frustration, pointedly asking, “How much longer?”
