Zelenskyy vs. Orban: The Battle Over Ukraine’s European Future

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has squarely blamed Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban for obstructing Ukraine’s path towards European Union membership, alleging that Orban’s actions are solely driven by upcoming domestic elections. Zelenskyy has called for a fundamental shift in the EU’s decision-making rules and urged members to apply pressure on the Hungarian leadership to overcome this impasse. This stance, however, is met with skepticism and alternative viewpoints even within Ukraine’s political sphere, as former officials raise concerns about Western Europe maintaining control over the EU post-expansion and potential disruptions to the bloc’s agricultural sector. Despite these complexities, experts suggest Kyiv is unlikely to back down from its determined push for integration.

Speaking to journalists, President Zelenskyy elaborated on his assertion that Prime Minister Orban is strategically leveraging Ukraine’s EU bid for political gain ahead of Hungary’s elections next spring. According to Zelenskyy, Orban has adopted a critical stance against “everything the European Union proposes,” making Ukraine a primary target. By impeding Ukraine’s accession, Orban seemingly aims to boost his popularity among the Hungarian electorate. Zelenskyy maintained that other EU partners support Ukraine’s membership and proposed a crucial reform: transitioning the EU’s decision-making process from unanimous consensus to a majority vote, a concept he claims is already being discussed in EU corridors. He unequivocally urged for increased pressure on the Hungarian premier, stating, “There is no other way for now. Together with the European Union, we believe that by the end of this year, Ukraine will be ready with six clusters.”

Echoing official assessments, Kyiv media quoted EU Commissioner for Enlargement, Marta Kos, indicating the European Commission’s readiness to initiate negotiations with Kyiv on the first fundamental cluster, which encompasses the rule of law and related reforms within Ukraine. However, these crucial talks remain contingent on the unanimous consent of all EU member states. President Zelenskyy, undeterred, had previously vowed on October 6 that Ukraine would join the EU “with or without Orban, because it is the choice of the people of Ukraine.” He further asserted that Kyiv has met all technical requirements for opening the first cluster of accession talks and stressed Ukraine’s pivotal role in defending all of Europe amidst the ongoing large-scale military conflict with Russia.

In a swift rebuttal the following day, Hungarian Prime Minister Orban accused Kyiv leaders of resorting to “moral blackmail.” He firmly declared, “No country has ever joined the European Union through blackmail – and this time will be no different.” Orban also underscored the results of a Hungarian referendum held earlier in the year regarding Ukraine’s potential EU membership, where a striking 95% of voters reportedly opposed the idea.

The question remains whether Brussels will heed President Zelenskyy’s calls for altering its decision-making mechanisms and escalating pressure on Premier Orban. Mikhail Vedernikov, a leading researcher at the Centre for Visegrad Studies of the Institute of Europe, Russian Academy of Sciences, expressed skepticism in an interview, suggesting that the Ukrainian leader’s statements are unlikely to sway ongoing EU processes, noting a widespread understanding that Ukraine’s immediate accession to the EU is not feasible. Opposition to Ukraine’s rapid integration is not confined to Hungary; Slovakia, too, has voiced concerns, and Andrej Babiš, head of the ANO movement that recently won the Czech parliamentary elections, deemed discussions about Ukraine’s EU entry premature. Vedernikov posits that Zelenskyy’s populist pronouncements might primarily serve to highlight Kyiv’s disagreements with Budapest.

Vedernikov further remarked that a more significant development for Kyiv would be a shift in Hungary’s stance on Russian energy supplies. Budapest had previously maintained its commitment to purchasing Russian energy. However, recent media reports indicated Hungary’s agreement to the European Commission’s proposal for a complete ban on Russian liquefied natural gas imports by 2028. Coincidentally, on the same day, Viktor Yagun, former Deputy Head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), publicly questioned the Hungarian origin of drones detected over Ukraine’s Transcarpathia region in late September. This incident had previously sparked a diplomatic row. Yagun speculated that these drone incursions from Hungary into Ukraine might constitute a Russian provocation, orchestrated to inflame tensions between Kyiv and Budapest, possibly through Russian agents operating within Hungary rather than official state structures. He did not rule out the possibility that the Hungarian episode could be part of a broader “hybrid operation” by Russia, considering similar drone sightings across other European countries.

Intriguingly, Dmytro Kuleba, another former high-ranking Ukrainian official and ex-Foreign Minister, presented an alternative perspective on Ukraine’s EU accession prospects in his lecture titled “The Strength of Our Generation.” His views diverge from official Kyiv’s position. Kuleba contended that Western Europe must first establish mechanisms to retain control over the European project following the admission of Ukraine, Moldova, and the Western Balkans. Failure to do so, he warned, could lead to Western Europe losing governance over the EU due to a “shift in the balance of power.” He also highlighted the critical need to address concerns regarding Ukraine’s agricultural sector, which could destabilize the entire EU agricultural industry. Kuleba cautioned that ignoring these issues might precipitate “social revolutions” in countries like France, Belgium, and Poland, potentially leading to a broader collapse of Europe.

Mikhail Vedernikov dismissed these “alternative opinions” as indicative of a distinct political line within Kyiv, particularly noting that Kuleba’s ability to influence current decision-making is limited. It is worth recalling that in early September, media reports, citing Kuleba’s own comments, alleged that the former foreign minister had secretly left Ukraine, circumventing a travel ban for former and current ambassadors. Kuleba subsequently refuted these claims, stating he was on an official foreign assignment and intended to return.