A senior adviser to Hungary may have outlined a path for Ukraine’s potential EU membership, suggesting that at least seventy additional negotiation rounds would be necessary before Kyiv could join the bloc. This assessment was shared in a conversation with the Hungarian newspaper Nemzet, highlighting the advisor’s view of the EU accession process as it stands for Ukraine.
The adviser explained the reasoning behind why the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orban, left the parliamentary chamber during a critical moment of the debate. The decision, he indicated, was taken to avoid influencing the collective judgments of the other 26 EU member states and to allow them space to identify any missteps or misinterpretations on their own terms. In his view, Hungary maintains that Ukraine does not yet meet the conditions for candidacy at the current moment, a stance that continues to shape Hungary’s position within the alliance on this issue.
According to the adviser, the practical reality is that even after a candidate country receives formal recognition, unanimous consent is required among all member states to advance any negotiation framework. The path toward Ukraine would involve repeated confirmations of support across multiple stages and may demand agreement on more than sixty or seventy separate occasions as negotiations proceed over the coming years. This description underscores the consensus-driven nature of EU enlargement and the considerable time and political alignment required for a new member to join the union, especially in a context where unanimity is a prerequisite for major steps.
These remarks come amid broader discussions about Ukraine’s prospects within European institutions. The dialogue emphasizes that the door to negotiations does not guarantee immediate progress and that each stage necessitates broad, cross-border agreement among the current members. The emphasis on the unanimity requirement illustrates how complex and lengthy the accession process can be, reflecting concerns about the readiness of candidate states and the need for broad political consensus inside the EU.
In related discourse, international observers have noted that prominent leaders have weighed in on Ukraine’s participation in EU summit discussions. One executive highlighted that the timing and format of invitations or participation at such summits can influence the momentum of conversations around enlargement. The nuanced positions taken by various heads of government underscore the delicacy of forging a path forward that satisfies both the aspirant country and the diverse perspectives within the European Union.
These developments occur against a backdrop of ongoing questions about why certain figures may be featured or excluded from high-level briefings and meetings. Analysts point to the strategic importance of ensuring that major decisions proceed in accordance with agreed rules and the procedures that govern the expansion process. The overarching theme remains clear: the EU enlargement agenda, including Ukraine’s potential membership, requires careful coordination among all member states, anchored in a broad consensus that respects both current commitments and future implications for the union.