László Dézsi – Beatrix Csaba (editor) / Infóvilág
The ongoing war in Ukraine, just beyond Hungary’s borders, shows no signs of abating. The opposing sides remain firmly entrenched in their positions, making the prolonged conflict seem like an unsolvable Gordian knot for Europe. The critical question is how deeply the European Union can become involved without triggering global war consequences. The significance of this issue was underscored at a panel discussion titled “The Effects of the Russia-Ukraine War on EU Integration,” where foreign policy journalists were invited to the Hungarian Press House.
Led by László M. Lengyel, head of the Hungarian Journalists’ Association’s foreign and security policy division, the panel featured experts such as Dr. József Kis-Benedek, a security policy expert and retired military intelligence colonel; Dr. Péter Tálas, another security expert; and Péter Dunai, a former journalist specializing in the post-Soviet region. They explored global political connections within the context of the war, often agreeing but sometimes diverging in their perspectives, reflecting the lack of a unified global approach to this tension-laden situation. Instead of focusing on the military situation, the discussion centered on how the war impacts the EU’s security policy, cohesion, cooperation, diplomacy, and future.
Europe’s Strategic Challenges
Dr. József Kis-Benedek emphasized a critical point: the EU, while closely linked to NATO, is not a military organization. Thus, the Russia-Ukraine war is not an EU-Russia conflict per se, yet Europe cannot remain unaffected by it. The tension is compounded by the fact that member states interpret the situation and necessary actions through the lens of their own interests, as illustrated by the differing stances of the Baltic states, Poland, and Portugal. Kis-Benedek noted that the EU cannot avoid the Russia-Ukraine war, yet there is no accepted solution on how to resolve it. Notably, there was initial discord among EU countries regarding sanctions, but a consensus was ultimately reached, with Hungary voting in favor.
The panelists concluded that, following the deterioration in Europe-Russia relations, security guarantees have evaporated. Thus, new security frameworks must be established alongside economic relations, with a strengthened role for the UN. Europe must prepare for a protracted war, as Russia appears to be doing the same. The level of military support Ukraine receives remains uncertain. The conflict affects not only Europe; global political dynamics are also at play. Weakening Russia appears to be a priority for the U.S., regardless of the outcome of its upcoming presidential election—a strategy reminiscent of the Cold War.
The Global Political Shifts
The global landscape complicates this scenario further, particularly with China’s prominent economic role in Europe. The American administration is keenly focused on the China-Russia relationship, as China, capitalizing on the situation, supplies Russia with dual-use goods that strengthen the global divide. China may become a balancing power in global politics depending on its alliances. Russia’s potential backing from Iran also adds complexity, creating a dangerous zone that extends beyond a local conflict. While the EU does not play an active military role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the long-term global impact on the region is undeniable.
Europe’s Multipolar Reality
Péter Dunai, a specialist in post-Soviet issues, highlighted that the Russia-Ukraine conflict must be viewed on a global scale, factoring in the economic and political roles of China and India. Dunai argued that the West must acknowledge a shifting, multipolar world, and we are witnessing this transformation in real-time. He reiterated that EU countries hold divergent views on the Russia-Ukraine war. Some nations, like Hungary and Slovakia, are “Russia-friendly,” while “neutral” countries, such as Germany, France, and Italy, remain on the fence. Then, there are the “hardliners” in the Baltics, who strongly fear Russia. Scandinavia is interestingly drawn toward NATO.
One of Russia’s primary goals, as Dunai noted, is to prevent Ukraine’s NATO membership, potentially by removing Zelensky’s government. This suggests that the war’s objective is not territorial gain but rather the destabilization of Ukraine’s current regime. Although Russia likely has no intent to attack Western Europe, the relative security in Europe remains fragile.
Key Strategic Concerns
Dr. Péter Tálas stressed the importance of examining specific questions: What does the war mean for the EU, and how will member states respond going forward? He suggested that we are in a transitional period that began in 2018 when Trump launched a trade war with China, sparking a shift in global order. The Russia-Ukraine war is part of this transition, as Russia seeks to reshape power dynamics. Russian decision-makers now view the status quo with skepticism, questioning America’s role as the world’s leading power. The EU, for its part, seeks Russia’s strategic defeat to avoid returning to the era of superpower sphere-of-influence politics.
According to Tálas, no single actor can bring about sweeping global change. While China is a rising power, it lacks the economic and military means for such influence. Its military is not equipped for strategic operations in distant countries, and China also lacks an alliance network comparable to that of the U.S. The “status quo challengers” like Russia and Iran prioritize regime sustainability over national security, creating a de facto world order conflict. Given the EU’s lack of a unified military, it does not support a world order based on military force alone. Instead, the EU would benefit from a system in which diplomacy and economic resources maintain order without military intervention, striving for sustainable peace.
Sanctions and Economic Measures
All the experts agreed that it’s natural for EU member states to differ in their views on the war. Complete unanimity is unrealistic, but most EU members believe Ukraine needs robust support. To date, the EU has implemented 14 sanction packages—a scale rarely seen before. Sanctions are an instrument to compensate for the EU’s lack of a military base, with armament and arms exports supplementing these measures, partly equipping EU forces and partly supporting Ukraine’s military. If European arms production expands, it suggests that all parties expect prolonged military engagements.
Kis-Benedek added that the EU still has untapped diplomatic potential. However, he noted that American influence is significant, as EU decision-makers often align with U.S. policies, which may not always align with European interests.
Financial Implications of Ukraine’s Reconstruction
Dunai observed that Ukraine’s reconstruction will require substantial funding, likely through loans. This raises the question of Ukraine’s repayment capacity. Greece and Italy took similar loans in the past, but their repayment was only possible with EU intervention. This example makes it uncertain how much economic and financial commitment EU member states are willing to make. For instance, Hungary opposes collective borrowing.
The discussion illuminated several key issues. One significant problem is the EU’s limited capacity to make unified, independent political, economic, and military decisions beyond sanctions. The outcome of the upcoming U.S. presidential election will influence not only support for Ukraine but also the relationship between Europe and the U.S. The panel’s insights suggest that the future world order is uncertain, and for Hungary, the primary concern is safeguarding national interests and securing a place among the “winners.”
