In his role as rotating EU president, Orbán's overtures to Russia and China have not only highlighted Europe's divergent approaches to the world's major powers, but cracks that the West's adversaries can exploit.
The rise of populist, anti-internationalist politics in France, Germany and the US further exacerbated the vulnerability of the transatlantic partnership.
Orbán's meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping signaled Hungary's willingness to forge closer ties with powers that many Western leaders view with suspicion, if not outright hostility. His actions in discussing the fate of Ukraine can be seen as a direct challenge to the collective stance that NATO and the EU seek to maintain against Russian aggression and China's assertive global ambitions.
This was highlighted on July 16 when it emerged that Orbán had written to other EU leaders stating that Donald Trump wanted immediate talks between Russia and Ukraine if he won in November. Orban accused the EU of imitating the "pro-war policy of the US" and said this must stop.
His motives are multifaceted. Economically, Hungary benefits from investments and energy deals with Russia and China. Politically, his brand of illiberal democracy resonates ideologically with the authoritarian tendencies of Moscow and Beijing. From a strategic point of view, Hungary's position in NATO and the EU allows the Hungarian leader to use his relations with Russia and China to strengthen his domestic and international authority.
The tension between NATO's strategic objectives and the actions of countries such as Hungary presents a serious challenge. While NATO's focus is on collective defense and deterrence, particularly against Russian expansionism and Chinese influence, the EU's approach is more fragmented, with members pursuing their own diplomatic and economic interests, sometimes at the expense of a unified position.
This disconnect creates opportunities for opponents. Russia, for example, has long sought to weaken NATO by exploiting internal divisions. Orbán's engagement with Putin gives Russia a foothold in the EU and NATO, potentially undermining the alliance's unity and decision-making processes. On the other hand, China can use its economic influence to drive a wedge between EU member states by promoting bilateral agreements that circumvent EU regulations and norms.
The rise of far-right forces in key NATO countries adds another layer of complexity. In France, Marine Le Pen's National Assembly gained significant support by advocating a nationalist, anti-European stance. Le Pen's rhetoric often echoes that of Orbán, emphasizing sovereignty and opposition to what she sees as excessive powers from Brussels.
These nationalist sentiments threaten to undermine collective decision-making in the EU and weaken its ability to present a united front on global issues. It was only after the second round of national elections on July 7 that Le Pen's party was denied control of the French government - an unexpected result after such a strong showing in the first round.
In Germany, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has similarly capitalized on nationalist and anti-immigrant sentiment. The AFG's skeptical attitude towards NATO and the EU's foreign policy has reduced Germany's traditional role as a stabilizing force in Europe.
The rise of these parties reflects broader discontent in Europe that adversaries such as Russia and China can use to foment discord. Even in the US, former President Donald Trump's criticism of NATO has created uncertainty about the future trajectory of Washington's foreign policy, which could embolden opponents to test the Western alliance's resolve.
The tension this creates has strategic implications. First, it complicates NATO's ability to respond quickly and decisively to threats. Consensus is critical to NATO operations, and internal disagreements can delay or weaken the alliance's response to aggression.
Second, the lack of a unified EU foreign policy undermines Europe's ability to act as a coherent global player. Individual member states pursuing different agendas weaken the EU's collective bargaining power, making it easier for adversaries to take advantage of the bilateral relationship.
Third, the rise of the far right in key NATO countries is undermining the ideological cohesion that has underpinned the transatlantic alliance in the 75 years since its founding. The shared values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law are at the core of NATO's identity.
To counter these challenges, it is imperative that NATO and the EU strengthen their commitment to collective defense and coherent foreign policies, ensuring that internal differences do not undermine their strategic objectives in an increasingly competitive world. This may mean taking a tougher stance on recalcitrant members whose behavior threatens the West's large, treaty-based organizations.
--------
Doug Livermore, Center for European Policy Analysis
