Hungary’s Russia Leaks Expose EU Vulnerabilities

Revelations that Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó regularly provided Russia with advance information on European Union discussions have sent shockwaves through Brussels, starkly illustrating Budapest’s deep-seated alignment with Moscow. For European diplomats, this alleged breach of confidentiality is more than just an embarrassing incident; it exposes significant legal ambiguities and a concerning lack of robust internal mechanisms to prevent leaks, even when dealing with entities deemed adversarial by the EU. These anxieties are amplified as information increasingly becomes a weapon in geopolitical conflicts.

One EU diplomat, speaking anonymously to Euronews, expressed a sentiment echoed by many: “Is it shocking? Yes. Is anyone surprised? Not really.” The core issue, according to this diplomat, lies in the EU’s insufficient internal protocols for addressing a member state actively undermining the bloc from within.

Reports surfaced over the weekend detailing Szijjártó’s consistent communication with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, during EU meetings in Brussels, including during session breaks. While initially dismissing these claims as “fake news,” Szijjártó later confirmed regular contact with Lavrov, clarifying that these exchanges took place “before and after” European Council summits, rather than “during.” He defended these briefings as “completely normal” and “standard practice,” arguing that decisions made at the EU level invariably impact its relations with third countries, including Russia. Nevertheless, Hungary’s approach remains an outlier within the Union.

Although Szijjártó’s interactions with Russia were not formally debated at a recent gathering of ambassadors in Brussels, the broader apprehension has shifted towards the interception and sophisticated wiretapping of information by malicious actors. A diplomat familiar with the discussions indicated that raising Hungary’s specific case at that forum would have been “pointless,” as no one anticipates clarity from Budapest, especially with a critical election looming. This sentiment was reinforced by the diplomat’s observation that, regardless of the specific allegations, “all capitals assume everything can be leaked and have learned to be cautious.” The primary concern has thus evolved to encompass more advanced methods of information interception and surveillance.

The intercepted communication between a Brussels-based journalist and a European Commission spokesperson, concerning a dispute involving Hungary, Slovakia, and Ukraine, underscored these escalating concerns. “It won’t get better, so we have to get smarter,” a diplomat remarked, highlighting the need for enhanced vigilance and strategic adaptation.

Outrageous Yet Predictable: A Foreign Policy Conundrum

Szijjártó’s alleged actions present a multifaceted challenge for the EU, but the implications are particularly acute within the realm of foreign policy. This domain is characterized by its reliance on unanimous decision-making, stringent security protocols for high-level meetings, and an underlying expectation of good faith collaboration among the 27 member states, especially on sensitive security matters. Hungary’s conduct, as alleged, pushes this foundational assumption to its limits.

At a recent summit, Council President António Costa, responsible for orchestrating high-level EU leader meetings, publicly stated that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was no longer acting in good faith, a sentiment predating the latest allegations of deeper collaboration with Russia.

Another diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, revealed a long-standing awareness of such potential vulnerabilities: “We’ve assumed this could happen for many years, that’s why we’ve had to adapt.” This adaptation has manifested in the formation of smaller “coalitions of the willing,” comprising countries eager to collaborate in more restricted, secure formats. The implication is clear: “Hungary won’t be invited any time soon” to such exclusive groupings.

However, formally excluding Hungary from broader EU deliberations is a considerably more intricate undertaking. Thus far, the EU’s official response has been confined to requests for clarification from Hungary and its foreign minister, a figure who has frequently clashed with his counterparts in foreign affairs meetings. A third diplomat described engaging with Szijjártó as “mostly useless,” attributing this to Budapest’s entrenched positions and predictable talking points. “A lot of it is performative and there’s always something to get something,” the diplomat added, recalling a February meeting where Szijjártó reportedly criticized Kaja Kallas, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, regarding Ukraine.

Navigating the Labyrinth: The Absence of Clear Internal Threat Protocols

The absence of explicit protocols designed to address internal threats has fueled calls for recourse to political, rather than purely legal, measures to sideline Hungary from critical discussions. This responsibility would largely fall upon Council President Costa.

According to former European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, a strong political signal could prove as impactful as the legal instruments the Commission employs to address member states that violate EU rules. Costa has publicly asserted that he will not permit the European Council to be “blackmailed,” issuing a clear warning to Hungary, though concrete measures have yet to materialize. Barroso believes they should: “If the clarification is not sufficient, the President of the European Council can perfectly say: we are now going to meet without Hungary,” he told Euronews, emphasizing that member states are bound by “decency” under the EU treaties.

Council officials often cite “professional secrecy” and the principle of “sincere cooperation” among members. However, diplomats acknowledge that ministers and officials frequently adhere to their own national transparency regulations, which may be less stringent. “It shows there are holes in the system,” a fourth EU diplomat commented. “But the truth is that very few things are confidential here,” the diplomat added, specifically referencing the Foreign Affairs Council, where Szijjártó frequently participates alongside EU ambassadors and advisors.

A spokesperson for the Council reiterated that EU member states are obligated by treaty to “not to disclose information of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.” This duty, the spokesperson stressed, “continues even after their official responsibilities have ended.” This commitment to secrecy, however, appears to be inconsistently applied or interpreted when national interests and geopolitical allegiances come into play.