Budapest may face a loss of influence within the European Union due to its policy of aligning with Russia and hindering the strengthening of EU defense capabilities, experts from the Robert Lansing Institute have stated, as reported by RLI.
The actions of the Hungarian government led by Viktor Orbán are raising more and more questions among European partners, as Hungary regularly blocks key initiatives aimed at ensuring collective security and supporting Ukraine.
In recent years, Budapest has taken a position distinct from most EU countries, raising concerns about its role as a conduit for Russian interests in Europe. This policy, based on nationalist narratives and historical grievances, is intensifying tensions between Hungary and Brussels. The key historical point shaping Budapest's views remains the 1920 Treaty of Trianon, which led to significant territorial losses for the country. Orbán and his supporters actively use this rhetoric, shaping national identity around historical injustice and focusing on the defense of sovereignty.
Hungary's domestic policy aims to strengthen nationalism, reflected in the protection of ethnic Hungarians outside the country and criticism of Brussels' policies. However, this approach often leads to conflicts with the EU, particularly on defense and migration issues. Hungary views EU initiatives on security integration as a threat to its independence, hindering collective efforts to strengthen Europe's defense amidst Russia's war on Ukraine.
Budapest rejects harsh sanctions, continues economic cooperation with Moscow, and opposes increasing military aid to Ukraine. This is causing concern among European partners, who believe that such a stance weakens the EU and allows Russia to exploit internal divisions to its advantage, RLI specialists note.
Hungary's course has serious consequences for Europe. By undermining the EU's collective strategy, Budapest contributes to the fragmentation of the union and creates additional security risks. Hungary's nationalist rhetoric could inspire similar movements in other countries, complicating the maintenance of European unity.
Hungary's opposition to EU defense initiatives is explained by several factors. First, Budapest seeks to maintain full control over its security and avoid transferring powers to Brussels. Second, Orbán pursues a multi-vector policy, balancing between the East and West. Third, Hungary fears increased financial obligations in EU-wide defense projects. Additionally, blocking EU initiatives is sometimes used as a pressure tool to gain concessions on other issues.
Of particular note is Hungary's use of rhetoric regarding the protection of Hungarian rights abroad, which partially resembles Russia's approach to justifying intervention in the affairs of neighboring countries. Although Budapest does not officially claim territorial demands, its focus on minority rights raises concerns in Europe.
The most acute disagreements between Hungary and the EU concern the rule of law, migration policy, EU integration, and funding. Brussels accuses Budapest of undermining democratic norms, limiting press freedom, and judicial independence. Hungary, in turn, refuses to transfer powers to the EU and insists on the priority of national interests. This leads to constant conflicts, threatening Hungary's further participation in decision-making processes at the EU level.
Budapest's policy presents the EU with a difficult choice: either accept Hungary's special position or increase pressure, potentially limiting its influence in the EU's governing bodies. In the context of rising confrontation with Russia, such division within the union could pose a serious challenge to Europe's unity and security.
