EU sanctions package: Hungary’s stance on Kirill and the politics of religion and energy

EU ambassadors have approved a sixth sanctions package against Russia, featuring a partially delayed oil embargo. Yet, according to the dpa agency, Hungary’s stance led the European Union to drop sanctions targeting Moscow Patriarch Kirill.

Bloomberg reported that this move comes just as Hungary pushes to end its sanctions case against the Russian church leader.

religious-financial issue

Nikolai Topornin, Associate Professor of European Law at MGIMO, argued that Budapest blocked sanctions on the Russian Patriarch based on a principle that keeps church matters separate from state affairs in Europe.

He explained that Hungarians oppose sanctioning religious figures because, as a rule, church and state operate independently under the law.

Beyond philosophical debates about the nature of existence and belief, Kirill did not draw objections from European governments. There was no notable opposition from European states against the Patriarch, and no immediate grounds to sanction him, according to Topornin.

Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky, a senior researcher at IMEMO RAS, partly concurs, noting the role religion plays in Hungarian society.

He added that Viktor Orban often meets Western partners in a Catholic monastery, a fact notable given Hungary’s traditionally Catholic identity. Yet Orban, a Calvinist, highlights that religious questions for Hungarians can be a practical matter of daily life rather than a formal historical narrative. The expert suggested that for Hungary, religion remains a regular factor in decision-making.

Nonetheless, he pointed out that Hungary’s economic interests also tilt decisions, underscoring the value of Russian energy at stable prices, which differs from volatility seen elsewhere in Europe. This economic angle makes it sensible for Budapest to maintain ties with Russia, both commercially and culturally.

According to the expert, Budapest understands that the present framework will eventually shift. He predicted that Hungary will need to reengage with Russia later and suggested that the country could reap various benefits, including economic advantages, though it is premature to claim specifics.

Russia as a tool

Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky stressed that Hungary has no obligation to hinder the execution of sanctions against Russia.

He noted that Hungary has always prioritized sovereignty, a principle that can be difficult to uphold within the European Union. For Hungarians, proclaiming an independent stance against Brussels is a meaningful assertion of national autonomy.

The analyst recalled years of EU influence attempts, including efforts to allocate funds to mitigate COVID-19 impacts, which Hungary did not receive, illustrating ongoing frictions with Brussels.

Poland is cited as a parallel case, though adopting a different tone toward Russia. The expert suggested that Poland uses its partnerships with the United States, the United Kingdom, and other non-EU powers to sway Brussels, while Hungary pursues similar leverage through its links with Moscow and Beijing.

For Budapest and Warsaw, the debate centers on resisting Brussels’ pressure rather than simply explaining why certain restrictions are imposed. The aim, as described, is to safeguard Eastern European independence within the union.

In this view, Budapest is not obstructing sanctions as a rule but defending a distinct national position, a trend that raises questions about Brussels’ ability to set a uniform policy across diverse member states.

less radicalism

Experts contend the Patriarch’s exclusion from sanctions stems from the unique relationship between Eastern Europe and Brussels rather than a broad agreement on punishment. MGIMO’s Topornin noted that the EU has discussed a wide range of measures against Russia, including personal sanctions against Kirill, which some member states resisted.

He recalled other contentious ideas, such as a proposed ban on Russian real estate purchases by EU citizens. Cyprus blocked that measure, citing private property and market principles as incompatible with political tools. He stressed that such issues are usually settled by courts and should not be weaponized in politics.

The political scientist expressed confidence that the EU’s decision-making framework will prevent a rush toward radical changes in sanctions policy. He warned that many extreme proposals do not align with current goals or accepted political and legal standards in the bloc.

As a result of collective deliberation, only measures aligning with the economic and political outlook of EU member states remain, ensuring that sanctions stay effective without veering into extremes.