– Prime Minister Viktor Orban recently vetoed a joint statement on Ukraine’s political and military support at the latest EU summit. How do you think this decision will affect Hungary’s relations with other EU member states, particularly in terms of common foreign policy goals?
– I think it’s important to clarify just what is the legal nature of this document. Is it primarily a foreign and security policy document, or does it concern the defense industry or even EU expansion? In my view, this matter falls entirely within the realm of common foreign and security policy, as thi sis the key element connecting the three issues discussed. So from this perspective, the process of the last EU summit was particularly significant. It was definitely evident that decisions regarding aid to Ukraine were far less prepared than in previous cases, meaning they haven't managed to properly pave the way for member states to reach a consensus in many cases. So things became more uncertain regarding this issue, and there is much less palpable agreement among member states—whether on taking out loans, the total extent or amount of aid, or what sources Brussels intends to use in order to finance it.
This is why I emphasize that this is a foreign and security policy issue. The statement was signed and adopted by 26 member states, while Hungary vetoed it—clearly making this a foreign and security policy veto. If the declaration by those 26 countries is implemented as if it were a unanimous decision, that would constitute a violation of the EU treaties.
The EU's current political climate also appears to reveal a growing tendency in Brussels to avoid requiring unanimous agreement from member states whenever possible. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that no decision should be forced upon member states if full agreement is lacking. Migration has been the best example of this—when consensus is absent, decisions simply do not get implemented by member states because they would undermine the bloc's integration framework.
– What alternative solutions does the Hungarian government propose for supporting Ukraine and, most importantly, for promoting peace, given that it found the joint statement unacceptable in its current form?
– It is important to recognize that any measures taken regarding Ukraine have a direct impact on the possibility of ending the war. This statement was essentially a document that provided a framework on how to continue financing the war, which inevitably gives the impression that the European Union intends to prolong the war, rather than seek peace. Additionally, strengthening Europe’s defense capabilities is a highly important issue in and of itself. Hungary has always been at the forefront of this effort—it is one of the few NATO countries where the ratioof defense expenditures meets or exceeds 2% of GDP, which is a NATO requirement. The Hungarian government is committed to making further progress in this area, and - from this perspective - we support all joint European capacity-building initiatives. However, we do not support the continuation of an arms buildup, whether under the pretext of or at the expense of such initiatives.
So this is the alternative that Hungary has consistently put forward regarding this issue. If we look at the current developments, we see that PM Orban has commenced a peace process that President Trump is now set to complete.
In the case of the Russia-Ukraine war, only an agreement, a ceasefire and diplomatic efforts can bring a resolution. It is no coincidence that the European Union often finds itself backed into a corner by the United States. And indeed, the EU has largely contributed to this situation by making statements and taking positions that create the impression that it does not truly intend to seek peace. Instead, it appears to be following the path outlined by President Zelensky at multiple summits—pulling the EU into excessive and aimless spending that will neither end the war, nor enhance Europe’s competitiveness. In fact, it actively undermines it. I think Hungary’s alternative approach to these issues is clear: Europe must build strong defense capabilities for European purposes, as part of some peace-promoting measures. Secondly, if the EU does not actively facilitate peace negotiations, it should at least refrain from obstructing them. And thirdly, European taxpayers’ money should be used exclusively for initiatives that foster growth and development within Europe.
– What steps does the government plan to take to ensure that Hungary’s position is better understood and accepted by EU partners?
– I see this issue as one where there is a clear distinction between what is said behind closed doors at the summit and what is stated publicly. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has also mentioned that, behind the scenes, he has observed that more people share Hungary’s position than are willing to openly acknowledge it. The Hungarian government has already experienced a similar process with regard to migration. So as time passes and people increasingly feel the effects of bad decisions firsthand, they tend to hold their leaders more accountable for their choices. Naturally, this shifts the process in a direction where more countries come to accept the position that Hungary represents.
So from this perspective, we are not on the wrong track. If we compare the outrage caused by the peace mission at the start of the EU presidency to now, it's clear that everyone wants peace. More people are talking about the need to establish peace than before. I interpret this as a sign that people are starting to realize the Brussels leadership is heading in the wrong direction, and they obviously want to initiate change at the local level first.
The question is how the EU’s institutional system — which seems intent on continuing the previous narrative — will find ways to somehow push through its decisions and policies in member states that refuse to accept them. This is precisely why efforts are being made to transition to qualified majority voting in various areas, as a deep divide is emerging between the expectations of the Brussels leadership, and those of the people.
– In your opinion, how much influence could the Hungarian government’s announced consultative vote on Ukraine’s accession have on the European partners, if the results reveal a clear trend? If the Hungarian government presents these results to the European Commission, what impact could they have on the decision-making process?
– I think the most important aspect of this is that the Hungarian people express their stance, because this position will certainly be binding on one person —Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Then, in reality, all this leads to a straightforward legal solution, because no candidate state can be admitted to the European Union without unanimous agreement. In the past, there have been several instances where the start of accession negotiations or the granting of candidate status was vetoed by other member states. Take North Macedonia, for example, where Bulgaria's veto was specifically based on cultural and minority-related concerns.
In this case, it is crucial to consider the potential consequences of Ukraine’s accession, because the risks involved present not just economic, but also some very significant security threats. Integrating a war-torn country into the EU inherently poses immense security risks. Additionally, there are considerable economic implications, as Ukraine would become the EU’s primary beneficiary. This would mean a complete restructuring of the EU’s financing system, and even then, we could not be sure who the ultimate beneficiary in Ukraine would be. Corruption is so deeply entrenched there that there's no guarantee that these financial resources would actually reach the Ukrainian people. The entire ecomonic spectrum is deeply permeated by this widespread corruption network , which the European Commission itself has documented in numerous reports.
Therefore it is critical that the European people take a stand on this issue. Another important aspect is that the Western Balkan countries, which already meet the security criteria and are in better shape economically than some EU member states, have been unable to join the bloc. If Ukraine is admitted unconditionally despite carrying significant security risks and through an expedited process, we can no longer speak of a meaningful enlargement policy.
– The European Commission has decided that Hungarian students will continue to be excluded from the Erasmus+ program, even though Hungary, like all other EU member states, contributes to the EU budget that funds these programs. In your view, what impact does this have on European integration and scientific-research cooperation? Is there any chance that legal or budgetary safeguards could be introduced in the future to protect such EU programs from political interference?
– Just this week, the European Parliament’s Cultural and Education Committee voted on preparations for the EU’s new seven-year budget, where this issue was also raised. Unfortunately, the European People’s Party (EPP) and the Left did not support the Patriots' initiative that would have prohibited the EU from disadvantaging researchers and students in a member state by suspending these programs. It is important to understand that Hungary also contributes to the funding of the Erasmus+ and other EU programs, just like any other member state. Therefore, it is a legitimate expectation that Hungarian beneficiaries should have equal access to these resources. The European Commission’s decision to exclude Hungarian students and researchers from these programs on political grounds is not only legally unfounded, but also harmful to European integration.
Originally, the EC justified its decision by citing the need to protect the EU budget and prevent any misuse of funds. However, as the distribution and oversight of these funds fall under Brussels’ jurisdiction, Hungary’s exclusion does nothing to mitigate financial risks. Moreover, such politically motivated decisions are undermining the credibility of EU programs in the long run. They obstruct collaboration in the areas of innovation and research development that are crucial for Europe's entire internal market. It is particularly concerning that the exclusion of Hungarian model-transition universities has led several international consortia to replace them with non-EU partners, which increases the risk of European knowledge outflow. In my opinion, this is not only disadvantageous for Hungary but for the entire European Union.
Therefore, in the future, it would be essential to incorporate legal and budgetary safeguards into EU regulations to prevent political disputes from affecting access to educational and research programs.
Previously, Hungary has already proposed such an initiative, which the the European Union should take into account when planning the next budgetary cycle.
Cover photo: Bernadett Petri (Photo: Balazs Vida)
