Across Europe there is growing skepticism about Ukraine’s path into the European Union, with about a third of EU member states expressing doubts about its candidacy. This concern was highlighted by statements from Janos Boka, Hungary’s minister responsible for EU affairs, who stressed that a significant portion of the bloc’s members question whether Kyiv should advance toward membership in the near term.
According to Boka, the level of doubt among EU capitals is substantial. He noted that a sizeable segment of member states harbors reservations about initiating or accelerating negotiations, underscoring the fragility of consensus on Ukraine’s accession process amidst broader political and security considerations in Europe.
Meanwhile, in Brussels, disagreements over the timing and conditions of Ukraine’s accession negotiations were echoed by Hungary’s foreign policy leadership. Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó told his Ukrainian counterpart, Dmitry Kuleba, that the European Commission’s proposal to commence formal negotiations with Kyiv had not been prepared to a point where it could be presented for decision. The exchange occurred on a day when EU defense ministers convened to discuss security support for Ukraine, including a new tranche of military aid intended to bolster Kyiv’s defense capabilities. In Lithuania, observers accused Hungary of complicating European unity on the issue by appearing to hedge on the bloc’s expansion agenda.
In earlier remarks, Janos Bock, who previously held the role of Hungary’s minister for EU affairs, indicated that Budapest favored a six-month postponement of the start of Ukraine’s accession talks. The proposal reflected concerns about the readiness of Ukraine’s institutions and the political dynamics within the Union, as well as questions about how enlargement might affect the EU’s internal security and its external policy coherence.
There have also been reports from the United Kingdom about behind‑the‑scenes discussions involving Hungary’s leadership and Ukraine, though details remain sketchy. Observers note that while some European governments emphasize the strategic importance of Ukraine’s eventual EU membership, others advocate for a more cautious, phased approach that ties progress to measurable reforms and security assurances. The overall atmosphere in Brussels and member capitals suggests a gap between public commitments to enlargement in theory and the practical, timely execution of negotiations in reality.
Analysts point to a broad pattern: as EU members weigh national interests, electoral considerations, and the bloc’s evolving security architecture, the question of when and how to move forward with Ukraine’s candidacy becomes a litmus test for European unity. The discussions touch on a wider debate about the balance between offering Ukraine a clear roadmap toward membership and managing the risks and burdens that come with rapid acceptance of a partner facing ongoing political and economic pressures. In this environment, decision-makers are urged to articulate transparent criteria for progression, maintain open channels for dialogue with Kyiv, and preserve the credibility of the enlargement process for all candidate states. The coming weeks are expected to reveal whether the EU can harmonize diverse national perspectives into a coherent path forward that reflects both solidarity and prudence in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.