Brussels, Belgium – Hungary has maintained its veto on a proposed €90 billion ($106 billion) emergency loan for Ukraine and blocked the adoption of a 20th package of sanctions against Russia, citing a dispute over the continued flow of Russian oil via Ukrainian territory. The move, announced on , represents a significant setback for European Union efforts to support Ukraine and maintain a unified front against Moscow as the conflict enters its fourth year.
The impasse centers on the Druzhba pipeline, a Soviet-era network that delivers Russian crude oil to Hungary and Slovakia. Shipments through the pipeline have been disrupted since , with Kyiv claiming damage caused by Russia – a claim Moscow denies. Budapest accuses Ukraine of deliberately halting supplies, effectively imposing an “oil blockade,” and has threatened retaliatory measures.
“Ukrainians cannot blackmail us; they cannot jeopardize the security of Hungary’s energy supply by colluding with Brussels and the Hungarian opposition. No, a clear no,” Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó stated following a meeting of EU foreign ministers. The statement underscores Hungary’s firm stance and its willingness to leverage its veto power to protect its national interests.
The EU had anticipated reaching an agreement on both the sanctions package and the financial aid for Ukraine at the meeting. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas described the outcome as a “setback” and acknowledged that it sent “a message we did not want to send today.” The failure to secure unanimous agreement highlights the growing divisions within the EU regarding its approach to the conflict and the ongoing reliance of some member states on Russian energy supplies.
The proposed €90 billion loan was intended to provide crucial economic support to Ukraine, helping to stabilize its finances and fund essential services amidst the ongoing war. The sanctions package aimed to further tighten the economic pressure on Russia, targeting individuals and entities involved in the conflict and undermining Moscow’s ability to finance its military operations.
Hungary’s actions are not occurring in isolation. Slovakia has also voiced concerns over the disruption of oil supplies and has threatened to halt emergency electricity exports to Ukraine if oil deliveries are not resumed. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico stated on that he would follow through on this threat, pointing to the significant amount of emergency electricity Slovakia provided to Ukraine in to stabilize its energy grid.
The situation is further complicated by Ukraine’s claim that its drones struck a Russian pumping station serving the Druzhba pipeline overnight. This alleged attack, if confirmed, could escalate tensions and further jeopardize the resumption of oil supplies.
The current impasse raises questions about the EU’s ability to maintain a cohesive and effective response to the conflict in Ukraine. Hungary’s position, often seen as the most pro-Russian within the bloc, has consistently challenged the EU’s consensus on sanctions and support for Kyiv. While Hungary, along with Slovakia and the Czech Republic, previously secured an opt-out scheme regarding financial contributions to the aid package, the outright veto of both the loan and the sanctions represents a significant escalation of the dispute.
The EU’s failure to approve the 20th sanctions package is particularly noteworthy. The package reportedly targeted individuals accused of serious human rights violations, specifically members of the Russian judiciary and heads of penal colonies implicated in the politically motivated sentencing of activists and the inhumane treatment of political prisoners. The sanctions would have banned these individuals from traveling to or transiting through the EU, frozen their assets, and prohibited EU citizens and companies from providing them with financial assistance. To date, 72 individuals have been subjected to similar measures.
The situation underscores the challenges inherent in forging a unified foreign policy within the EU, particularly when member states have divergent national interests and energy dependencies. Hungary’s actions serve as a reminder that unanimous agreement is required for certain key decisions, granting individual member states significant leverage in shaping the EU’s response to international crises. The long-term implications of this deadlock remain to be seen, but it undoubtedly complicates efforts to support Ukraine and maintain pressure on Russia.
