By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement responding to Hungary’s accusations regarding Ukraine’s decision to not renew a Russian gas transit agreement. The statement, delivered via X, sarcastically offered to replace Hungary in the EU and NATO should Budapest choose to join Russian-led blocs like the CIS or CSTO. Kyiv dismissed Hungary’s claims of increased gas prices as a politically motivated campaign, highlighting Hungary’s continued support for Moscow’s narratives and obstruction of Western aid to Ukraine. Ukraine urged Hungary to prioritize ending the war by fostering EU unity and strengthening its own energy independence.
Read the original article here
Ukraine’s recent declaration of readiness to replace Hungary within the EU and NATO has sparked considerable online discussion. The sentiment expresses a desire for a shift in the alliances, driven by a perceived contrast between Hungary’s perceived pro-Russian stance and Ukraine’s unwavering commitment to Western values and its ongoing fight against Russian aggression.
The core argument centers on the idea that Ukraine offers substantial benefits that outweigh those of Hungary. This includes not only the invaluable combat experience gained during the ongoing war but also the potential for bolstering the economic strength of both the EU and NATO. Furthermore, it’s suggested that Ukraine’s inclusion would significantly lessen Russia’s influence within these organizations.
However, the feasibility of such a replacement is a complex issue. The EU’s inability to expel member states directly is repeatedly highlighted. While the possibility of persuading a member state to leave voluntarily is acknowledged, this is considered unlikely in Hungary’s case, especially given its current geopolitical alignments.
The idea of a simple “trade” between Ukraine and Hungary overlooks the legal and political intricacies involved. The processes of both EU and NATO membership are not easily bypassed; they require a consensus among existing members and adherence to established procedures. The notion of simply “copying and pasting” documents or creating a new alliance, while creatively presented, is practically improbable.
Discussions delve into potential mechanisms to influence Hungary’s position within the EU. Cutting off EU funding is proposed as a means to encourage Hungary to reconsider its alliances, effectively forcing its hand through economic pressure. This strategy highlights the inherent power imbalances within the EU and the limitations of such soft power tactics.
Concerns are raised about the practicality of such drastic measures, especially the potential for wider ramifications. Such actions might further destabilize the EU and set a dangerous precedent. The comment sections also voice anxieties regarding the inherent difficulty of achieving unanimous agreement among all EU member states on a matter of this magnitude.
The potential for internal disagreements within the EU and NATO is acknowledged. Historical examples of vetoes and political gridlock, particularly involving Hungary and Poland, are cited as evidence of the challenges in implementing such sweeping changes. The potential for future alliances and conflicts within the bloc is considered as a factor that may impede this plan.
Several scenarios are explored which could lead to the fracturing of the EU’s agreement regarding membership. These range from a direct attack by a member state on another, through to a general policy change that specifically rejects any non-democratic system of governance. However, the consensus is that such scenarios are highly unlikely or would likely lead to a protracted period of instability, before any formal expulsion or replacement could occur.
The discussion emphasizes the importance of considering the long-term implications of any actions taken. The consensus seems to be that while the sentiment for replacing Hungary with Ukraine is understandable given the current geopolitical climate, the practical implementation faces significant hurdles. The legal frameworks of both the EU and NATO are not easily circumvented, and reaching a unanimous agreement among member states is considered incredibly difficult, if not impossible. While Ukraine’s contributions are lauded, the path to such a dramatic shift within the alliances is fraught with complexities and unlikely to occur in the near future.