The allegations that Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has regularly shared sensitive information from European Union (EU) meetings with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, have deepened into an institutional crisis, prompting the European Commission to request an official explanation.[1] The claim that Szijjarto transmitted information to Russia can be evaluated not merely as a diplomatic tension, but as a multidimensional issue directly affecting the EU’s institutional integrity, internal functioning, and future trajectory.
In this context, it is first necessary to emphasize that the EU represents an integration model grounded in normative principles, seeking to manage differences among member states through law, democracy, and pluralism. However, in recent years, the Hungarian government under Viktor Orbán has adopted a stance that is not aligned with EU policies. Policies targeting areas such as the judiciary, media, and civil society organizations within domestic governance are regarded by the EU as interventions that do not conform to the principles of the rule of law and democratic pluralism.
The Budapest administration’s close relations with Moscow—particularly its energy dependence and its cautious stance toward sanctions—have complicated the EU’s ability to maintain a unified position in its common foreign and security policy. At the same time, Hungary’s veto power within the EU’s decision-making mechanism has emerged as another factor deepening EU–Hungary incompatibility. Especially in critical issues such as sanctions against Russia and military and financial support to Ukraine, Hungary’s repeated use of its veto power has made visible at the institutional level the capacity of a single member state to delay or obstruct the implementation of collective decisions. This situation both challenges the limits of the EU’s normative pluralism and creates vulnerabilities in maintaining strategic coordination within the Union.
The existing incompatibility has thus far been treated as a manageable issue within the EU’s sanctioning instruments and legal oversight mechanisms. However, the espionage allegation that Peter Szijjarto transmitted sensitive information to Russia shifts the issue to a different level. These claims go beyond the category of normative incompatibility or political divergence and raise the possibility that the fundamental principles of mutual trust, loyalty, and confidentiality—upon which the EU’s institutional functioning is based—may have been violated. Therefore, the issue concerns not only a member state’s deviation from Union norms but also the reliability and integrity of decision-making processes.
In this context, the espionage allegation calls into question the principle of good-faith cooperation, implicitly accepted within EU integration, and shifts relations among member states from a normative framework to a security-based domain. In particular, the possibility that closed diplomatic negotiations and strategic decision-making processes could be leaked to third actors not only weakens the EU’s internal coordination capacity but also undermines its position as a credible actor in the international system. This situation leads to a redefinition of Hungary’s role within the EU, while also prompting its evaluation not only in terms of normative non-compliance but as an actor posing institutional security and strategic risks.
This crisis makes the debate over whether the EU will continue to exist as a union of normative values or evolve into a security-oriented institutional structure shaped by growing perceptions of internal and external threats more visible. The espionage allegation raised by Szijjarto, in particular, elevates this debate from the theoretical to the concrete crisis level. In essence, the EU retains the capacity to manage such espionage allegations through legal and diplomatic instruments while maintaining its normative approach. The restoration of trust damaged among member states can be pursued through official warnings, sanction mechanisms, and procedures grounded in the rule of law. The adoption of this approach would demonstrate the EU’s commitment to its founding values and its capacity to manage differences within a normative framework.
If these allegations are proven or perceived as such by EU institutions, the issue may transcend the boundaries of normative incompatibility and be categorized as a direct internal threat. In such a scenario, the EU may be expected to adopt a security-oriented approach, accompanied not only by exclusionary rhetoric but also by institutional and structural transformations. Particularly in light of the long-standing veto policies of member states such as Hungary and their attitudes that complicate intra-Union coordination, the espionage crisis may further deepen the already fragile trust relationships within the EU. In this direction, the perception that normative instruments alone are insufficient may be strengthened, leading to a tendency to restructure collective decision-making processes through stricter oversight and institutional control mechanisms.
Therefore, the espionage allegation may provide a basis for legitimizing a security-oriented approach within the EU. At the same time, it may lead to prioritizing internal security measures at the institutional level. The adoption of a more selective and controlled approach in areas such as the sharing of critical information, foreign policy coordination, and strategic decision-making may signal a shift in the EU’s internal functioning. At this point, the allegation that Szijjarto shared information with Russia can be evaluated not as a rupture fundamentally transforming the EU’s current orientation, but rather as a catalyst that deepens the increasingly visible trend of securitization. In other words, the allegation functions as an accelerator of the EU’s transition from a normative framework to security-oriented practices, making this transformation more visible at the institutional level.
At this juncture, the upcoming elections in Hungary are a critical variable in the balance between normative and security-oriented approaches within the Union. If the current government wins the elections, the trust issues deepened by the espionage allegations may become more visible within the EU, highlighting the need to strengthen security-oriented mechanisms. In this context, stricter monitoring and coordination measures may come onto the agenda, including the sharing of critical documents, access to decision-making processes, and the strategic alignment capacity of member states. Conversely, a change in government in favor of the opposition may facilitate the reinforcement of the normative approach and help maintain the EU’s unity based on shared values. Therefore, the elections should be considered a determining factor shaping not only Hungary’s domestic politics but also the crisis of trust and strategic alignment within the EU triggered by the espionage allegations.
In conclusion, the Hungarian crisis constitutes a critical threshold that increases the visibility of long-postponed structural problems within the EU and necessitates a fundamental reassessment of the Union’s future direction. In particular, the espionage allegation deepens the question of how sustainable an integration model based solely on normative values can remain, while security-related concerns are becoming increasingly central within the Union’s architecture. In this framework, the EU faces two fundamental options: either to reinforce the normative framework with stronger sanctioning and oversight mechanisms, or to evolve into a more centralized, security-oriented structure in response to increasing threat perceptions. Current trends indicate not mutually exclusive alternatives but rather an intertwined process of transformation. Accordingly, the Hungarian crisis demonstrates not a departure from the EU’s normative identity, but its evolution into a multilayered integration model in which this identity is redefined through security concerns.
[1] Sebastian Starcevic, “European Commission wants Hungary to ‘clarify’ claims it shared info with Russia”, Politico, https://www.politico.eu/article/european-commission-calls-for-clarifications-about-report-hungary-shared-info-with-russia/, (Access Date: 25.03.2026).
