In Brussels, next Sunday's appointment is a date that has long been marked on the calendar. One of the most rebellious voices in the European Union measures its strength in elections that, on the continent, are posed as a true referendum on support for the community project.
Hungary, which for years has been seen from different capitals as the political laboratory of far-right parties, faces one of the most momentous elections of recent times, both for its internal impact and for its external implications. All this framed within a geopolitical context marked by the war in Ukraine and by the ambiguous position that Budapest has maintained regarding Moscow. A scenario in which the Hungarian Government's closeness to Vladimir Putin's Kremlin has placed the country at the center of community tensions.
The veto as an instrument of power in the EU
The current prime minister, Viktor Orbán, has designed the electoral situation as a dilemma between “peace and war”, a simplification that allows him to polarize the internal debate and shift the pressure to the international arena. In this narrative, community institutions and Ukraine are presented as external actors trying to interfere in the electoral campaign, thus reinforcing his sovereignist discourse.
Said accusations have been amplified by the governing party, Fidesz-KDNP, especially after it became known —through international media— the coordination between the Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Peter Szijjártó, and his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, in high-strategic-value meetings such as those of the European Council or negotiations on sanction packages against the Kremlin. Contacts that are observed in Brussels with growing concern.
“Hungary is a submarine of Russia within the European Union”, the former head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell, came to affirm in an interview with Demócrata. Beyond the forcefulness of the expression, the truth is that Viktor Orbán's veto has consolidated as a recurrent political tool. Every time the Member States try to adopt measures to pressure Russia and stop the attacks on Kyiv, Budapest resorts to its blocking capacity.
In foreign policy matters, the operating rules of the European Union require unanimity, which grants each Member State enormous power to condition strategic decisions. As consulted diplomatic sources point out; Orbán has managed to exploit this structural weakness, turning the veto into a constant negotiation instrument, either to obtain concessions or to reinforce his internal discourse.
I know you "cod"
As of today, Hungary maintains the blockade on the loan of 90 billion euros for Ukraine, which the Twenty-Seven had previously agreed upon during a meeting in December and which now required final approval from the community ambassadors. This veto is far from being a merely symbolic matter. As the Ukrainian president himself, Volodymyr Zelensky, recalled on the eve of the Christmas holidays, these funds are essential to sustain the functioning of the Ukrainian State, which sees its public coffers deteriorate as the conflict prolongs.
It was in March when the president of the European Council, António Costa, openly criticized what he considered a “violation of the principle of loyal cooperation”, denouncing that Orbán was undermining agreements that had already been adopted unanimously. It should be remembered that Budapest had given in on the reparations loan partially by ensuring that it would not be part of the state contributions for the configuration of the loan, a move that evidenced its selective pressure strategy.
“In times of elections, people are not rational,” sentenced the High Representative, Kaja Kallas, in reference to the Hungarian Government’s stance. A declaration that reflects the growing frustration in Brussels over the political use of strategic decisions in the midst of an election campaign.
Hungary, along with Slovakia, also maintains its refusal to the twentieth package of sanctions against Russia, which blocks a new attempt by Europeans to increase pressure on Moscow. Orbán justifies his stance on the energy crisis derived from the attack on the Druzhba pipeline, one of the country's main supply sources. Budapest demands guarantees to protect this strategic infrastructure, while Slovakia uses the veto as leverage to negotiate compensations or exemptions.
The European Parliament came to approve in the summer of 2024 a resolution condemning Orbán's meeting with Vladimir Putin. “The Parliament condemns the recent visit of the Hungarian Prime Minister to the Russian Federation; stresses that he did not represent the EU and considers it a blatant violation of the Treaties,” stated the text, supported by more than 400 MEPs. The resolution coincided with the Hungarian veto on the use of the reimbursement fund intended to guarantee military support to Ukraine, which further intensified institutional tensions.
The war in Ukraine has also reactivated the debate about the enlargement of the European Union. The start of Moscow's large-scale invasion of Kyiv gave an impetus to the accession negotiations of candidate countries like Ukraine and Moldova. In this scenario, Viktor Orbán played his cards again.
Leaving the room: the definitive solution?
At the European Council summit in December 2023, the Hungarian prime minister initially refused to back the opening of talks with both countries. The solution found by European leaders was as pragmatic as it was revealing: an informal break —a coffee, a walk— which allowed Orbán's absence from the room, thus avoiding a formal veto. However, the gesture did not eliminate the underlying problem, as Budapest maintained the ability to block the process in later stages.
Since then, Hungary has delayed at least seven decisions on foreign and security policy related to Ukraine. However, experts like Domènec Ruiz, CIDOB representative in Brussels, warn that this strategy “has a limit”, especially if the rest of the partners decide to explore alternative decision-making mechanisms.
In another episode of friction, Hungary blocked decisions linked to the rule of law, including the unblocking of 22 billion euros of European funds conditioned on democratic reforms. Although these decisions formally correspond to the Community Executive, the Council has become the space where Orbán exercises his leverage.
During its rotating presidency of the Council in the second half of 2024, the country was accused of neutralizing or diluting initiatives related to fundamental rights and freedom of the press, reinforcing the perception that Budapest uses its institutional position to hinder progress in areas sensitive to the Union.
A Union facing its own contradictions
Viktor Orbán's strategy to revalidate his position involves presenting each of these blockades as a defense of Hungarian sovereignty against pressure from Brussels. His discourse seeks to consolidate the idea that his Government protects access to cheap Russian energy and the country's strategic autonomy, in line with an increasingly consolidated Eurosceptic narrative.
However, this constant struggle is also having profound effects on the functioning of the European Union. “No Member State can be allowed to undermine the credibility of collectively adopted decisions,” António Costa warned, highlighting the risk of institutional erosion.
Diplomatic sources are already hinting at the need to reform the decision-making system. “It is essential to overcome the unanimity rule,” they point out. With 27 Member States, the right of veto has become a structural obstacle in key areas such as foreign and security policy. Thinking of a Union expanded to 30 or 32 countries under this same system, experts conclude, is simply unfeasible.
In this context, the elections in Hungary will not only determine the political future of Viktor Orbán, but will also serve as an indicator of the degree of cohesion of the European Union at a critical moment. Beyond the polls, what is at stake is the bloc's ability to act with unity in the face of external challenges and internal tensions.
The outcome will ultimately determine, whether the Union moves towards greater integration or remains trapped in its own rules, in a scenario where consensus is beginning to show clear signs of exhaustion.