The European Union (EU) was established on the principles of respect for the sovereignty of member states, collective decision-making, and cooperation. The objective of its establishment was to prevent conflict and establish a Union in which the direction of policy was determined by consensus rather than coercion. However, the ongoing Ukraine crisis has revealed systemic tensions within the Union.
Although Hungary and Slovakia have implemented policies that align with their national priorities—namely, maintaining Russian energy imports and resisting full alignment with pro-Ukraine sanctions—other EU member states, including France, Germany, and Eastern European nations, have actively promoted a pro-Ukraine agenda. The interventions of unelected EU officials have further intensified this conflict, as their steadfast commitment to enforcing uniformity poses a threat to the very principles upon which the EU was founded.
Hungary and Slovakia: Policy Decisions Made Independently
Hungary:
Hungary has refrained from reducing its reliance on Russian energy imports during the tenure of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, citing infrastructure constraints and critical energy security concerns. The national economy would be destabilized if Hungary were to comply with EU sanctions abruptly, according to Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó. Hungary has also maintained a cautious stance with respect to Ukraine’s ambitions to join the European Union, focusing on the financial and political ramifications. Orbán’s government’s independence has been further bolstered by his agreement with former U.S. President Donald Trump on energy and Russia policy.
Slovakia:
Slovakia, led by Prime Minister Robert Fico, has implemented a cautious, national-priority-oriented strategy. Slovakia has stated that it is unable to fully comply with EU and NATO energy sanctions due to infrastructural and logistical constraints. Fico has occasionally been seen as echoing Hungary’s stance on Russian energy and has questioned EU-led humanitarian or financial initiatives that are intended to assist Ukraine (The Guardian, 2025).
Both nations are endeavoring to safeguard national interests in the face of aggressive EU centralization efforts by acting within their sovereign prerogatives.
Eastern Europe, France, and the Opposite Policy
Conversely, other EU members have implemented the opposite strategy:
France (Emmanuel Macron) has advocated for a coordinated, robust pro-Ukraine stance and full alignment with EU sanctions on Russia.
Germany (Friedrich Merz) has employed its economic influence to ensure that energy embargoes and sanctions are adhered to.
Ukraine has been overtly supported by Eastern European nations, such as Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia, which have provided military aid and lobbied the EU to adopt an uncompromising pro-Ukraine stance.
This divergence has resulted in a stark polarity within the EU: Hungary and Slovakia prioritize national stability and pragmatic concerns, whereas the pro-Ukraine faction advocates for aggressive policies, frequently disregarding dissenting member states.
Unelected EU Officials Driving Centralization
The unelected officials who are at the heart of EU enforcement are known for their aggressive support of pro-Ukraine policies, which can sometimes come at the expense of member sovereignty.
Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, is responsible for the enforcement of sanctions, the alignment of energy policies, and the enforcement of economic policies, exerting pressure on her members to comply.
Kaja Kallas, the former Prime Minister of Estonia and current Vice-President of the European Commission, used her unelected position to advocate for pro-Ukraine measures and to influence EU-wide compliance.
Valdis Dombrovskis, the Vice-President of the European Commission, enforces economic measures, sanctions, and financial compliance to guarantee the adoption of pro-Ukraine policy.
The initial EU pro-Ukraine stance was coordinated by Josep Borrell (past), the former EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, who established precedents for circumventing dissenting member states.
The Ukraine policy conflict is a component of a more extensive pattern in which unaccountable EU officials advocate for centralized enforcement, frequently in opposition to national governments that prioritize sovereignty or domestic priorities. Hungary and Slovakia’s opposition to sanctions against Ukraine is merely one instance of a more extensive structural conflict between member autonomy and centralization. They have been in conflict with other members regarding Fiscal and Budgetary Control, Energy and Climate Policies, Rule of Law and Judicial Independence, and Migration Policy.
These unelected officials have consistently disregarded national objections, rejected consultations with Hungary and Slovakia regarding oil sanctions, and implemented majority-backed measures that circumvent the unanimity principle. The Union has been deeply divided, tensions have been exacerbated, and conformity has been enforced by their central role.
Measures Undermining National Sovereignty
Hungary and Slovakia perceive the following EU measures as coercive:
The EU has refused to allow direct consultation with Ukraine about energy sanctions.
Parliamentary decisions and legal and political maneuvers indirectly exert pressure on domestic leadership.
Economic sanctions, which are enforced through mechanisms lead by the Commission, effectively compel smaller member states to align under the threat of repercussions.
Although these actions have been presented as safeguarding EU unity, they demonstrate a pattern in which unelected officials impose top-down mandates, frequently superseding national prerogatives and disregarding the spirit of voluntary consensus that underpins the EU.
Joint Obligation
It is crucial to acknowledge that both parties share responsibility for the current tensions:
Hungary and Slovakia implement policies that significantly differ from those of the majority of the EU, complicating collective action and generating friction.
France, Germany, Eastern Europe, and unelected EU officials employ coercive measures and centralization to aggressively advocate for pro-Ukraine alignment, thereby undermining dissenting member states.
It is impossible for either party to assert sole responsibility or victimhood. The internal polarization and impasse are the consequence of a conflict between the centralizing pressures imposed by the EU leadership and pro-Ukraine member states and national sovereignty.
Implications for EU Cohesion
The EU’s structural vulnerabilities are being revealed by the current crisis:
Trust Erosion: Smaller or dissenting member states may perceive the Union as enforcing a top-down agenda rather than fostering consensus.
Legitimacy Risk: The EU’s credibility as a cooperative union is undermined if unelected officials consistently enforce conformity.
Centralization Precedent: The establishment of a long-term precedent that could marginalize national interests and undermine the fundamental principle of voluntary cooperation by requiring alignment on foreign policy, sanctions, and energy policy.
If left unresolved, these tensions may result in a more fragmented EU, where member states pursue separate agendas despite nominal unity.
In conclusion,
The European Union’s underlying fault lines have been exposed by the Ukraine crisis. Hungary and Slovakia’s independent policies reflect the pragmatic concerns regarding energy security, financial stability, and national sovereignty. In the interim, France, Germany under Friedrich Merz, Eastern Europe, and the EU’s unelected officials—including Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas, Valdis Dombrovskis, and Josep Borrell in the past—have actively pursued a pro-Ukraine agenda, enforcing conformity through political, legal, and economic pressure.
The ensuing impasse underscores a critical dilemma: the EU is at risk of undermining its founding principles if it prioritizes majority enforcement over reverence for national prerogatives. The ongoing polarization is a shared responsibility between both dissenting member states and centralizing leaders. If the Union is to preserve its credibility, legitimacy, and cohesion on the global stage, it will be imperative to reconcile national sovereignty with collective EU objectives.