Six leaders. Six variations of the same accusation. At the European Council summit in Brussels this week, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán found himself on the receiving end of a coordinated diplomatic offensive unlike anything the bloc has directed at one of its own in recent memory.

The trigger: Orbán’s refusal to release a €90 billion loan to Ukraine that the EU unanimously approved in December. His justification — that Ukraine must first restore oil flows through the war-damaged Druzhba pipeline — collapsed under scrutiny when European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pointed out that Kyiv had already agreed to EU-funded inspections and repairs. “The loan remains blocked because one leader is not honouring his word,” she said.

The Frustration Was Loud

The roster of critics read like a roll call of EU heavyweights. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called the veto an “act of serious disloyalty” — language rarely aimed at a sitting EU head of government. French President Emmanuel Macron warned that energy concerns “must not be instrumentalised.” European Council President António Costa was blunter: “Nobody can blackmail the European Council. Nobody can blackmail the European Union institutions.”

Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo went further, accusing Orbán of domestic politicking at Europe’s expense. “He’s using Ukraine as a weapon in his election campaign,” Orpo said, “and it’s not good.” Hungary faces parliamentary elections on April 12, and Orbán — trailing in polls — has made opposition to Ukraine funding a central plank of his platform.

EU High Representative Kaja Kallas added that Hungary was not acting “in good faith” and said the bloc has tools to bypass the veto but would need “political character” to deploy them.

A System Built on Trust

The EU’s consensus model was designed for a bloc of nations acting in good faith — a framework where disagreement is genuine and compromise is the expected outcome. Orbán’s approach inverts this logic. By linking the Ukraine loan to a bilateral energy dispute and timing his obstruction to an election cycle, he has turned the unanimity requirement from a safeguard into a weapon.

This is not the first time. Hungary has previously blocked or delayed EU sanctions against Russia, held up Ukraine’s accession talks, and extracted concessions by threatening to paralyse collective action. But the scale of opposition at this summit suggests the patience that once accompanied those manoeuvres is exhausted.

What Leverage Remains?

The question now is whether the EU’s frustration translates into action. Several mechanisms exist. In February, the Council approved the legal basis for “enhanced cooperation” among 24 member states, excluding Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic — a pathway that would sidestep the unanimity requirement entirely. Von der Leyen told reporters after the summit: “We have different options and we will use them.”

The Commission has been formally asked to develop workarounds. Kallas suggested Croatia’s Adria pipeline as an alternative oil route for Hungary, undermining Orbán’s stated rationale. If the pipeline excuse is neutralised and the veto persists, the political case for bypassing Budapest grows considerably stronger.

After April 12

Orbán’s calculus may be straightforward: hold the line until Hungarian voters go to the polls. His campaign has framed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a threat to Hungarian interests, and releasing €90 billion to Kyiv would undercut that narrative.

But the summit exposed a risk Orbán may have underestimated. The coordinated nature of the criticism — from Berlin to Helsinki, from the Council presidency to the Commission — suggests that European capitals are no longer willing to treat Hungarian obstructionism as an inconvenience to be managed. They are beginning to treat it as a problem to be solved.

The consensus model gives every member state a voice. It was never designed to give one member state a stranglehold.

Sources