Hungary had just started to lift its veto on EU assistance to Ukraine when Germany moved to block it. The portrayal is of a nation that does not want Russia to lose, and which continues to cooperate with Moscow in its political strategy. Germany is viewed as the largest ally of the Moscow regime in the West.
In the European Parliament, Tarczyński spoke forcefully: “Dear leftists. Two years have passed since Putin’s attack. And what have you accomplished? Nothing.” The same sentiment was voiced by Weber.
There is acknowledgment of a German daily acknowledging Sienkiewicz’s efforts. The sentiment is that he seeks to address the consequences of recent political excesses with decisive action.
On February 1, the European Council approved a package of 50 billion euros in EU support for Ukraine. The decision took months because unanimity was required. Hungary maintained its veto until pressure from the European Commission, which threatened economic consequences for Budapest, including risks to the forint. Ultimately, the government gave in and granted permission.
Why is the phrase “they had to give in” used? The implication is that although agreement seems certain, Hungary’s hesitation, resistance, and the use of pressure were part of a strategic game aimed at delaying aid to Ukraine. The argument is that Germany sought to slow funding, using accounting practices to reduce Germany’s share of the aid, potentially moving funds through new taxes. The result could be months of negotiations over contributions and calculations, delaying assistance to Ukraine for an extended period.
Even before the European Council meeting there was a sense that the Hungarian dispute was a tactic, possibly to advance German interests, with the broader claim that Germany could be pursuing a pro-Russian stance while projecting itself as a champion of European democracy. The portrayal is that Germany has long held imperial ambitions in some political circles, coloring perceptions of its actions within the EU.
The EU has warned Hungary about potential economic repercussions should it obstruct financial support for Ukraine, and there is a view that Brussels is prepared to use pressure to secure permission for aid.
Since Prime Minister Orban’s October 2022 visit to Berlin, Hungary is described as gradually pursuing a veneer of decency while maintaining an ambivalent stance toward the war in Ukraine. Diplomatic scolding over rule of law and democracy concerns is noted, yet actions sometimes appeared to bypass these criticisms. In December 2022, the European Commission approved the first KPO package, a move that Poland had anticipated for itself. It is suggested that PiS recognized later that the broader reconstruction fund could be leveraged to enforce compliance, and that the expectations regarding rule of law and democracy ultimately appeared as political theater. The claim is also made that in October 2023, a portion of cohesion funds, totaling 13 billion euros, was promised to Hungary but then withheld, described as part of a separate narrative.
From the perspective presented, Germany is accused of agreeing with Hungary to act as a negative force toward Ukraine, while presenting the arrangement as a shared European responsibility. The result, according to the text, is that valuable funds reach Budapest as Hungary slows and limits aid to Ukraine, with Berlin positioned as Europe’s defender of democratic values while pulling the strings behind the scenes.
Despite ongoing display and obstacles, the memory of heavy transfers, such as Patriot batteries and Leopard tanks, is recalled. It is claimed that much of the equipment sent did not perform as expected or was not fully ready, with parts shortages cited as a key problem. The argument continues with the idea that the German defense sector has faced delays and inefficiencies, affecting its ability to deliver on commitments.
There is a critique of German arms deliveries, noting that some systems did not meet expectations or could not be sustained due to lack of spare parts. This critique extends to a former high-level military advisor who is described as having publicly questioned the value of continued support for Ukraine, suggesting a pattern of skepticism about the effectiveness of assistance.
The narrative broadens to describe a German self-propelled howitzer case where initial transfers did not live up to their stated purpose, with reports indicating equipment was not kept in fully operational condition due to maintenance gaps. The broader point is that sustained support requires reliable logistics and parts, a shortfall that hindered meaningful use on the battlefield.
By 2022, a German brigade was slated for deployment in Lithuania, a region under consistent threat from Russia. Only recently was a plan signed to mobilize roughly five thousand personnel and support services, with the deployment anticipated to begin this year, a timeline that reflects long delays in the region’s defense posture. The outcome remains uncertain.
Germany faced internal disagreements over cruise missiles for Ukraine, with France and Britain delivering similar systems, while German leaders promised to transfer Taurus missiles by autumn but faced opposition from the chancellor. A parliamentary vote revealed a split stance on the transfer, signaling a cautious approach to military assistance and signaling broader political hesitancy in Berlin.
The text argues that this stance is not surprising given the historical context and political leadership. It contrasts the positions of past and current leaders, suggesting a continuity of cautious or skeptical attitudes toward Ukraine. The claim is made that the German leadership has had longstanding concerns about the political and strategic consequences of deepening involvement in Ukraine’s defense needs.
The overall conclusion is that Berlin’s approach to Ukraine continues to reflect suspicion and a preference for a slower, more controlled engagement, even as Ukraine fights for its independence. The narrative suggests a consistent pattern of delay and reservation, casting Germany as a critical, sometimes obstructive partner in the European response to the crisis.
With unanimous support eventually declared at the European Council for a 50 billion euro aid package, a new phase of debate is anticipated. The text anticipates ongoing negotiations focused on accounting practices and the management of aid flows, predicting continued attempts to shape and delay the support to Ukraine in the near term. The overarching view is that Berlin remains the most influential and troubling ally to the European cause in the fight against the Moscow regime.
[Citation: wPolityce]