Hungary has indicated it will refrain from vetoing any proposed increase to the European Peace Facility, the fund used to finance arms deliveries to Ukraine, while also clarifying that it will not participate in the fund’s operational activities. This stance came from Peter Szijjártó, Hungary’s minister of foreign affairs and foreign economic relations, during an interview with the TV channel VRT. He stressed that Budapest would not block the expansion, but it will not engage in the execution or management of the program itself.
Szijjártó explained that the European Commission has proposed a five‑billion‑euro top‑up to this year’s Peace Facility, intended to offset the arms supplies provided by EU member states to Kyiv. The Hungarian position is clear: Hungary does not intend to contribute additional funds to the Peace Facility, and it does not plan to fund the increased guarantees. The emphasis, however, is on a distinction between funding the instrument and allowing others to participate in the initiative. In practical terms, this means Hungary will abstain from using its budget to underwrite the expanded capability, while stopping short of obstructing the collective effort by other members of the Union.
In parallel to the financial stance, the government expressed that Hungary will not employ its veto to block the expansion of the fund. The government’s representatives have stated that the red line for Budapest centers on arms deliveries themselves. Budapest’s position is consistent with a broader Hungarian principle: no direct involvement in arms transfers by state resources, even as it recognizes that other EU states may pursue these actions. Szijjártó underscored that Budapest cannot and will not stand in the way of others who choose to participate in arms supplies, emphasizing a policy of non‑interference rather than opposition to the EU’s overall approach.
Moreover, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, recently indicated that EU leaders must approve in the upcoming summit the expansion of the European Peace Facility to provide more artillery shells and other military material to Ukraine. This framing reflects the EU’s intention to ensure adequate ammunition and equipment to sustain support for Kyiv, regardless of individual member states’ hesitations regarding participation or funding. The discussion about the Peace Facility occurs within a wider debate on how the bloc allocates resources for defense and security, how it balances national budgets with collective European goals, and how it navigates the varied risk appetites and constitutional constraints of its member countries.
In related commentary, observers have noted that the situation encapsulates the broader tension within the European Union between maintaining a unified stance on Ukraine and respecting the diverse political and fiscal priorities of member states. Hungary’s willingness to avoid a veto while choosing not to contribute financially to the expanded fund can be read as a pragmatic position: it signals openness to the mechanics of EU decision‑making while preserving its own red lines. The practical outcome is a more nuanced join‑in‑spirit, coupled with a defined non‑participation in financial outlays that would extend Budapest’s direct obligations in this area. As the bloc continues to debate the appropriate scale and distribution of arms support, Hungary’s stance may influence subsequent negotiations and the formulation of conditions attached to any future disbursements or expansions of the fund.
These developments come against the backdrop of broader strategic discussions about how the European Union intends to balance its security commitments with its members’ constitutional and financial constraints. The Peace Facility serves as a central instrument in the EU’s toolbox for supporting partner states under threat, and its expansion is a focal point for policy alignment among member governments. While Hungary has drawn a line at directly funding or facilitating arms transfers, its position does not preclude others from pursuing their chosen paths within the framework of EU decisions. The next steps at the summit will likely further define the mechanism by which the fund is broadened, including governance, accountability, and oversight provisions that could reassure skeptical members and reassure publics about transparency and legitimate use of resources.
Finally, the discourse around Ukraine’s security needs and the international response continues to unfold with remarks from other regional actors and policymakers. The question of what the future holds without broader support remains complex and uncertain, but the current trajectory within the European Union emphasizes collective action in principle, tempered by the individual countries’ prudence in matters of defense spending and strategic autonomy. The conversation continues to evolve as governments weigh historical ties, current security threats, and the practical realities of financing long‑term assistance for Ukraine’s defense and resilience.