Hungary has blocked a unified European Union statement on the Greenland crisis, undermining efforts to present a coordinated response to American territorial demands and exposing the bloc's inability to act decisively at a critical moment for transatlantic relations.
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó stated that the future of Greenland "is not a problem for the European Union" and that Budapest would not support a joint declaration on the subject, according to Romanian news outlet Informat.
The veto prevents the European Union from issuing a formal collective position defending Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland, despite President Donald Trump's repeated threats to acquire the island "one way or another" and his imposition of threatened tariffs against multiple European nations.
Hungary's obstruction follows a consistent pattern of blocking EU consensus on matters related to American policy or Russian interests, raising questions about whether Budapest's positions reflect independent judgment or alignment with external powers.
To understand today's headlines, we must look at yesterday's decisions. Hungary has repeatedly disrupted European unity since Prime Minister Viktor Orbán consolidated power over the past decade. Budapest blocked or delayed EU sanctions against Russia following the invasion of Ukraine, obstructed aid packages to Kyiv, and maintained close economic and political ties with Moscow while other European nations severed connections.
The Greenland veto is particularly consequential because it prevents the EU from demonstrating solidarity with Denmark—a member state facing direct pressure from a theoretically allied nation. European Union foreign policy requires unanimity among all 27 member states, giving any single country effective veto power over collective positions.
European diplomats speaking on background expressed frustration that Hungary would block support for a fellow EU member during what several characterized as an existential challenge to European sovereignty principles. Denmark has been a EU member since 1973, while Greenland withdrew from the bloc in 1985 following a local referendum, though it maintains associate status through Danish membership.
The inability to issue a unified statement amplifies perceptions of European weakness and division at a moment when the continent faces multiple simultaneous challenges: ongoing war in Ukraine, energy security concerns, economic competition with China, and now, unprecedented pressure from Washington over territorial sovereignty.
Germany and France have issued individual statements supporting Denmark, but the absence of a collective EU position significantly diminishes the bloc's diplomatic weight. Individual member state declarations carry less international significance than formal EU pronouncements, which represent the coordinated position of a economic union of 450 million people.
The crisis has revived longstanding debates about EU decision-making structures, with some members advocating for qualified majority voting on foreign policy matters rather than requiring unanimity. France has particularly pushed for such reforms, arguing that single-country vetoes paralyze the bloc during critical moments.
However, any reform of EU treaty provisions requires unanimous approval from all member states—meaning Hungary and other countries benefiting from veto power would need to agree to relinquish it, an outcome analysts consider highly unlikely.
The Greenland crisis thus exposes a fundamental structural vulnerability in European foreign policy architecture: the inability to act collectively when confronted by determined opposition from even a single member state, regardless of how vital the issue or how isolated the dissenting position.
