Viktor Orbán’s Criticism of the EU's Military Aid to Ukraine - EU Mulls Options

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has repeatedly denounced the European Union’s (EU) military assistance to Ukraine as a “pro-war policy,” which has stirred up controversy and conflict within the bloc.

His stance has not only strained Hungary’s relationship with Ukraine but also raised concerns, as reported by Euronews, within the EU about the bloc’s ability to maintain a united front in its support for Kyiv amidst Russia’s ongoing invasion.

Orbán’s rhetoric, branding the EU’s provisions of military equipment as counterproductive, comes in stark contrast to the prevailing sentiment within the European Union, which has largely rallied behind Ukraine.

In particular, his controversial trip to Moscow in July 2023, at the height of diplomatic efforts to isolate Russia, was met with sharp criticism from other EU member states.

Many saw it as an appeasement gesture to the Kremlin, further undermining the EU’s efforts to present a cohesive stance in its support of Ukraine. Some went as far as calling it an act of disloyalty to the EU’s common foreign policy objectives.

The European Peace Facility and Hungary’s Veto

At the heart of the ongoing friction is Hungary’s veto of the European Peace Facility (EPF), a crucial fund aimed at providing military aid to Ukraine. The EPF, which amounts to €6.6 billion, has been blocked for over a year, largely due to Hungary’s objections.

This fund is designed to assist EU member states in reimbursing military aid to Ukraine, ensuring that resources are available to counter Russian aggression. However, Hungary’s veto has paralyzed this financial mechanism, preventing it from fully functioning and causing frustration among EU officials.

A senior EU official summed up the severity of the situation, noting, “This tranche of the EPF, which amounts to €6.6 billion, has been blocked for a year and a half. It’s a lot of time, a lot of money, and it’s undermining our support to Ukraine.”

The crux of Hungary’s veto lies in a May 2023 incident when Ukraine’s anti-corruption agency blacklisted Hungary’s OTP Bank, labeling it as an “international sponsor of war” due to its continued operations in Russia. The move enraged Orbán’s government, sparking a diplomatic dispute between Budapest and Kyiv and placing the EU in an awkward position as it struggled to mediate the tensions.

The Proposal for a Voluntary EPF: Potential Pitfalls

In an attempt to break the deadlock, the European Union has floated the idea of transforming the EPF into a voluntary mechanism, allowing individual member states to contribute on an opt-in basis rather than mandating compulsory participation.

At first glance, this proposal seems like a practical solution to bypass Hungary’s veto and unlock the frozen €6.6 billion. However, diplomats within the EU have voiced concerns that this move could have unintended consequences and undermine the EU’s long-standing unity against Russia.

One diplomat warned that the reform “raises a number of questions about the cascading effects, the operation of the instrument in the longer term.” Essentially, making the EPF voluntary could set a dangerous precedent, creating fractures within the EU’s cohesive foreign policy approach.

Up until now, the bloc has largely adopted an “all-hands-on-deck” approach to its support of Ukraine, with every member state contributing its share. A voluntary system might encourage other countries to withhold contributions or scale back their commitments, thus weakening the overall effort to support Ukraine and counter Russian aggression.

Moreover, the voluntary nature of the EPF could raise budgetary issues for member states. The current system operates on compulsory contributions, ensuring a reliable flow of funds. A voluntary system, by contrast, might create uncertainty regarding the availability of resources in the future, complicating long-term planning for military aid.

Orbán’s Position and EU Unity

Orbán’s opposition to the EU’s pro-Ukraine stance stems from several factors. He has long maintained close ties with Russia, particularly through energy agreements that have kept Hungary heavily dependent on Russian oil and gas.

Orbán’s government has also positioned itself as a critic of EU federalism, often siding with nationalist or populist policies that prioritise Hungary’s sovereignty over collective EU decision-making. His stance on Ukraine can be seen as a continuation of this broader resistance to EU integration, as well as an effort to balance Hungary’s economic interests with its geopolitical position.

However, Orbán’s actions have put Hungary at odds with many of its EU counterparts, who view Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an existential threat to European security. The EU has been striving to maintain a unified front in its opposition to Russian aggression, which includes sanctions, military aid to Ukraine, and diplomatic efforts to isolate the Kremlin. Hungary’s veto of the EPF has complicated these efforts and raised doubts about the EU’s ability to respond decisively to future crises.

EPF Reforms Could Further Undermine EU Unity

The ongoing conflict between Hungary and the rest of the EU over military aid to Ukraine highlights a deeper divide within the bloc. Orbán’s criticisms of the EU’s military assistance as a “pro-war policy” and his Moscow trip have made him a controversial figure in European politics, drawing ire from other EU leaders.

Meanwhile, the proposed reforms to the EPF, although seemingly a way to bypass Hungary’s veto, carry risks that could undermine the EU’s unity.

As the war in Ukraine drags on, the EU faces a difficult balancing act. It must navigate internal divisions while ensuring that its support for Ukraine remains strong and effective. Whether Hungary’s resistance will ultimately be overcome or lead to further rifts within the EU remains to be seen, but it is clear that the future of Europe’s security policy hangs in the balance.