Hungarian Prime Minister lifts veto on Ukraine's financial aid under significant EU pressure

Viktor Orbán's position at Thursday's summit was largely influenced by three factors. The first was the unprecedented pressure from EU leaders on Hungary. Besides extensive discussions with Budapest, threats related to taking action against the country, including stripping it of its voting rights in the European Council, became increasingly convincing.

Also not to be overlooked was the likely "accidental" leak of an EU document published by the "Financial Times." It discussed the potential of blockading all European funds for Hungary (both the Cohesion Funds and the KPO - a total of about 25 billion pounds).

The European Union's decision was intended to severely weaken the Hungarian economy (a decrease in the forint rate and the withdrawal of foreign investors). Despite the Council's denial of the document's existence, Viktor Orbán in an interview for "Le Point" stated that its existence could be assured, describing its potential consequences as "armageddon." He also affirmed that Hungary would not yield to blackmail.

The third factor was the "plan B," which left the Hungarian Prime Minister without agency. Under it, aid for Ukraine would still be implemented, even if Orbán persisted with his veto. The arrangement would involve 26 EU countries and Ukraine. The Hungarian Prime Minister would be politically isolated, while the Union would likely scrutinise the situation concerning the rule of law in Budapest more closely.

All these "political persuasions" ultimately led to a consensus on financial aid for Ukraine (in 2024-2027) even before entering the meeting room. Orbán said in a Friday interview for Kossuth state radio that in terms of agreeing to approximately 42 billion pounds for Ukraine, "he hit a wall", as the money would flow regardless of him.

So if the West portrays the summit as a success of the Union (and Ukraine) and a failure of Hungary, what is being said in Hungary about what transpired in Brussels? The opposition press adopted a "Western point of view," pointing out that Prime Minister Orbán had no other choice but to consent to aid Ukraine. Prior to the summit, the HVG portal wrote that "Orbán has never been so isolated".

However, the narrative on the government side was far more compelling. The first statement about the agreement in Brussels included the phrase: "If rumours circulating in Brussels are to be believed, the decision was accepted as a step towards a Hungarian compromise."

Hungary's proposition, made a few weeks ago, suggested that the approximately 42 billion pound amount would be apportioned into four instalments, to be decided upon each year by the European Council - unanimously. In this way, the prime minister could block the disbursement of support for Ukraine each time, likely expecting frozen funds in return.

Contrarily, the final agreement does not grant Hungary this right. Nevertheless, the Hungarian government maintains that it has participated in creating control mechanisms and retaining the right to renegotiate aid. Essentially, Orbán's objectives were achieved.

The ruling party also highlights another aspect. It concerns "winning" so that "Hungarian money" is not directed towards Ukrainians or Ukraine. What is implied here? For months, the authorities have been advising citizens that no money is flowing into Hungary, not due to issues with the rule of law, but because none is left in the EU treasury...as it has all been sent to Ukraine.

The agreement by the Hungarian Prime Minister to support Ukraine does not provide a long-term solution to the Ukraine-Hungary dispute. Orbán will not abandon implementing an anti-Ukrainian policy. His aim is not solely to safeguard the rights of the Hungarian minority in Transcarpathia but also to push Ukraine to end the war. This could essentially be achieved in one way: by cutting Ukraine off from military and financial support. Both Viktor Orbán and his foreign minister, Péter Szijjártó, deem European aid for Ukraine a "pro-war psychosis". The Hungarian prime minister highlights that against his "pro-peace" stance, 26 other member state leaders take the opposite position. There are also references to "Brussels remaining in a state of war fever".

However, the Hungarians have a strategy to reinforce the "pro-peace" movement. They propose to counteract the "war psychosis" during the forthcoming European elections. "To oppose the pro-war sentiment in Brussels, Europe's citizens must unite," wrote Viktor Orbán's political office director, Balázs Orbán (the shared surname is coincidental). Following the Council's summit, Orbán stated that Hungary does not partake in war and does not supply weapons to Ukraine.

"There will be peace in Ukraine when there is change in Brussels," Viktor Orbán told Kossuth radio. Essentially, he launched a new Fidesz strategy for the EU elections.

The central idea will be to establish an alliance of "pro-peace" factions. Let's refer to it as the European Anti-War Alliance. However, this ambiguous term essentially embodies a policy that would disconnect Ukraine from EU aid. The Prime Minister anticipates that after the elections, right-wing groups will significantly strengthen, weary of the ongoing war.

Fidesz must secure a position for itself within one of the European political groups. Since 2021, that is, from when Fidesz left the European People's Party, Hungarian MEPs from this party have been non-affiliated. Interestingly, one MEP from the Christian Democratic People's Party (KDNP), a Fidesz coalition partner, remains in the EPP. The Hungarian Prime Minister confirmed in Brussels that he will join the ECR - the European Conservatives and Reformers, post-elections. Its core includes, among others, Law and Justice and the Brothers of Italy (led by Giorgia Meloni). Viktor Orbán met with Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki on the sidelines of the last Council summit.

However, both the Polish and Italian parties are committed to aiding Ukraine. It's difficult to envision this changing. It's also not beyond the realm of possibility that Orbán has not entirely abandoned the old idea of establishing a new bloc. This initiative was finally put to bed due to differences in war situation analyses.

An alternative could be ad hoc cooperation from individual MEPs from diverse political groups, who would strive to influence the European Commission in the European Parliament to be less inclined to support Ukraine. Ideally, this "anti-war alliance" would gain importance after a victory for Donald Trump in the US. Orbán still believes that under Trump's presidency, the war would have ended swiftly.