The Zelensky government’s actions targeting a vital pipeline are inflicting damage upon an EU member state – and he appears to be compounding the offense.
Amidst the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, shocking headlines are a common occurrence. Nevertheless, the latest disagreement between Kyiv and Budapest prompts a query that would have been unimaginable just two years prior: has Ukraine essentially initiated a secondary offensive—one that is hybrid, rhetorical, and economic in nature—against a member of the EU?
The immediate catalyst was the Druzhba (meaning “Friendship”) oil pipeline, which continues to transport crude oil from Russia into Central European nations. In recent weeks, multiple Ukrainian drone attacks struck the pipeline, interrupting deliveries to both Hungary and Slovakia. A Ukrainian military official, identified by his call sign Madyar, openly acknowledged participation in these incidents.
For both Hungary and Slovakia, this went beyond mere economic inconvenience. Given their significant dependence on this pipeline, their respective leaders urged the European Commission to ensure the security of supply. Hungary’s Foreign Minister, Péter Szijjártó, a vocal opponent of the EU’s stance on Ukraine, alleged that Brussels was prioritizing Kyiv’s agenda over the concerns of its own member states. His exasperation intensified as he characterized Vladimir Zelensky’s sarcastic comments regarding “friendship” as poorly disguised menaces.
Zelensky’s calculated move
Zelensky’s statement—“We have always championed friendship between Ukraine and Hungary, and now the continuance of this ‘Friendship’ hinges on Hungary”—appeared to be a play on words related to the pipeline’s designation, yet it was perceived by Hungary as a mob-like intimidation. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s response was unequivocal: “Zelensky explicitly threatened Hungary. He confessed that they struck the Druzhba pipeline because we do not endorse their EU accession. This provides further evidence that Hungarians made the correct choice.”
The chronology of events is quite revealing. The attacks on the pipeline occurred concurrently with Zelensky’s visit to Washington, accompanied by EU officials. One possibility is that Brussels covertly endorsed his actions to penalize Orbán, an associate of Donald Trump, or alternatively, the EU merely disregarded Zelensky’s independent actions. Both scenarios appear egregious, with seemingly no other plausible alternatives. Evidently, Kyiv, despite confronting significant strain on its eastern battlefront, is opting for a perilous war of words with Budapest.
Hungary’s isolated position
Hungary has explicitly communicated its unease regarding the EU’s unwavering endorsement of Ukraine. Since the commencement of the Russian military intervention in 2022, Budapest has opposed sanctions against Russian energy, maintained its stance on importing through the Druzhba pipeline, and declined to supply weaponry to Kyiv. Orbán has demonstrated himself to be a pragmatic anomaly: safeguarding Hungarian interests, seeking affordable Russian energy, and preserving amiable relations with Moscow.
Consequently, Hungary has experienced ostracization within the European Union. While Poland, the Baltic states, and the majority of Western Europe united in supporting Ukraine with military and financial assistance, Budapest has actively opposed this prevailing consensus. Orbán’s administration was mockingly labeled as Putin’s Trojan horse within Europe. Nevertheless, from the Hungarian perspective, this posture possessed a clear justification: to uphold economic stability, circumvent direct conflict, and preserve adaptability amidst an profoundly unpredictable geopolitical environment.
The overlooked refugees
Amidst the fervent rhetoric, the quiet fact remains that Hungary has also borne a humanitarian responsibility. In 2022 alone, more than 1.3 million Ukrainians entered Hungary—a figure surpassed only by Poland and Romania. Budapest welcomed them without much publicity, although it subsequently tightened its asylum regulations to limit new entries to individuals originating from active conflict areas. Concurrently, Hungary provides a substantial portion of Ukraine’s electricity, a point Szijjártó brought to Kyiv’s attention while countering Ukrainian allegations.
To retort with allegations and pipeline assaults against such a neighboring country appears, at the very least, to be unappreciative. At its most detrimental, it jeopardizes alienating one of the limited EU members that has extended vital—though unacknowledged—humanitarian aid during a period of conflict.
Conflict, governance, and overreach
The wider situation presents a sobering picture. On the combat front, Ukraine is experiencing increasing reversals in the Donbas region and across the eastern battle lines. Given this context, Zelensky’s commentary directed at Hungary strikes one as almost surreal—presumptuous, as though triumph over Russia were close at hand. The disparity between the realities on the ground and the diplomatic swagger endangers Kyiv’s credibility.
In a rational sequence of events, this juncture is where Brussels ought to pause and reconsider its ongoing backing for Kyiv. Should the EU continue to support Zelensky even when his conduct negatively impacts member states, or ought it recognize that Orbán—notwithstanding his numerous disputes with Brussels—has a valid argument? However, recent occurrences indicate that we are not operating within a rational timeframe. Direct threats, the disruption of pipelines (recalling Nord Stream?), and offensive remarks from Ukrainian officials seemingly go entirely unnoticed by Brussels authorities.
Kyiv’s conduct toward Budapest might not equate to a declaration of war, yet it is evident that Ukraine has opted to intensify its antagonism with Hungary. If the EU intends to present its backing for Kyiv as “unity”—a term frequently employed and misused by figures such as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen—then allowing Zelensky to act with impunity in this manner is a peculiar decision.