The EU restricts Hungary’s access to sensitive information due to suspicions of leaks to Russia

In the European Union, not only the rhetoric towards Budapest is noticeably changing, but also the diplomatic practice itself. Due to long-standing suspicions that Viktor Orban’s entourage and Hungarian diplomacy may be passing sensitive information to Moscow, some European leaders are increasingly discussing important topics in narrow formats, without the full composition of 27 countries. A formal scandal before the elections in Hungary on April 12 seems unlikely. But the political conclusion has already been made.

Why distrust around Hungary in the EU has grown again

The essence of the new wave of concern is simple and unpleasant for Brussels. According to POLITICO, citing five European diplomats and officials, the European Union is limiting the circulation of confidential materials to Hungary, and some meetings are held in a narrower composition due to long-standing suspicions that Viktor Orban’s government may be passing information to Russia.

The reason for the new round was also a publication by the Washington Post, which stated that Budapest maintained close contacts with Moscow throughout the war in Ukraine. In particular, it was claimed that Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto could update information for Sergey Lavrov during breaks in negotiations with European colleagues.

This does not look like an isolated nervous episode. One of the European interlocutors directly described what is happening as follows: it is precisely because of less loyal member states that a significant part of the EU’s key diplomacy is increasingly moving into smaller formats — E3, E4, E7, E8, Weimar, NB8, JEF, and others. In other words, the common table remains, but real agreements are increasingly sought in a smaller room.

Here, the leak itself is not only important as a risk, but also the destruction of trust. If within the union one of the countries begins to be perceived as a potential channel for the Kremlin, the formal architecture of the EU is preserved, but in practice, the union begins to split into circles of access.

What do these ‘small formats’ mean

For the general audience, this may sound like dry Brussels technique. In fact, it is an important political symptom.

The Weimar format is France, Germany, and Poland. NB8 are the Nordic and Baltic countries. JEF is the Joint Expeditionary Force of ten Northern European states. Behind these abbreviations lies the same logic: when there is no confidence that sensitive things can be discussed openly in a large composition, decisions begin to be prepared in a narrower circle.

Former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis said that back in 2024 he was warned: the Hungarian side could pass information to Russia. According to him, because of this, he and his colleagues limited the amount of data they shared in the presence of Budapest representatives. Even before the NATO summit in Vilnius in 2023, as he claims, they spoke with Hungary only in general terms, and real agreements were discussed separately.

This is essentially the main shift. Hungary is not yet being pushed out of the European structure, but it is increasingly being moved away from the core of confidential negotiations.

Why the EU is unlikely to go for an open conflict before the elections on April 12

Despite the seriousness of the accusations, the formal reaction of the European Union to the new reports, as follows from the publication, will not be. The reason is purely political: no one wants to add fuel to the fire on the eve of the Hungarian elections on April 12 and give Orban a new reason to play the ‘Brussels attacks Hungary’ card.

This explains the current duality. On the one hand, European diplomats do not hide their concern. On the other hand, they prefer not to translate it into an official crisis right now. One of the interlocutors directly said: any actions before the vote could only help Orban in the campaign.

The Hungarian Prime Minister himself has already made it clear that he is confident in re-election. His Minister for European Affairs Janos Boka called the reports of suspicions ‘fake news’ and ‘a desperate reaction’ to the rise in Fidesz’s ratings. Szijjarto, in turn, rejected the Washington Post material as ‘conspiracy theories more absurd than ever before.’

But in such stories, it is important not only what is publicly denied. Sometimes more important is how partners begin to behave. And partners, apparently, are already behaving as if the risk of leakage is real.

Why the issue is not only about Ukraine

On the surface, everything revolves around the war in Ukraine, European aid to Kyiv, and relations with Moscow. But the problem is broader.

If one of the EU countries is perceived as an unreliable participant in confidential discussions, it affects not only the Ukrainian dossier. It undermines the very principle of collective decision-making in Europe. Information begins to circulate not along the full institutional line, but through a system of selective access. The union remains a union on paper, but in fact, it operates through a system of semi-official internal filters.

And at this point, the topic ceases to be purely Brussels. For readers of NANews — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency here, the direct Israeli angle of view is important: if Europe is not sure about the hermeticity of its own negotiations on war, sanctions, security, and Russian influence, it concerns not only Kyiv. It also affects the overall resilience of the Western camp at a time when Israeli security is also directly linked to how collected and sane the West is in confronting aggressive regimes.

Why for Israel this is more than just a European intrigue

Israel understands well the price of leaking sensitive information. In a region where Iranian proxies, terrorist structures, intelligence networks, and constant pressure through hybrid tools operate, the issue of trust within alliances is never secondary.

That is why the story with Hungary looks to the Israeli audience not as another quarrel within the EU, but as a warning. If in Europe they suspect that the minister of a foreign state could actually report to Lavrov during meetings, it means not just political cynicism, but a crisis of basic allied loyalty.

Against this background, another thing is especially indicative. At the European Council meeting, Orban refused to support the allocation of 90 billion euros in loans to Ukraine, causing a sharp reaction from other leaders. For some European diplomats, this became another confirmation of the old picture: Hungary has long played the role of Putin’s ally within the EU and systematically weakens the European security line.

One of the interlocutors formulated it without diplomatic embellishments: if it is confirmed that the Hungarian side indeed passed sensitive information to Moscow, it will mean a direct betrayal not only of its country but also of Europe.

What might happen next after the elections

Until April 12, Brussels is likely to continue doing what it is already doing: sharing more quietly, filtering more strictly, more often retreating into closed smaller formats, and carefully raising the level of document classification.

After the elections, the room for maneuver may change. If Orban retains power, the EU, according to diplomats, will have to look for other ways to respond. This could mean further restricting access to sensitive information, an even greater role for parallel diplomatic clubs, and further blurring of the formal unity of the union.

The paradox of the situation is that even without a loud decision, Hungary is already partially paying a political price. When allies begin to discuss real agreements without you, formally you remain at the table, but in fact, you are already sitting on its edge.

The final conclusion here is harsh. The story with suspicions towards Budapest is not just pre-election nervousness and not only a plot about Viktor Orban. It is a test of whether the European Union can protect itself from within when one of its members has been balancing between the European system and Russian interests for years. For Israel, this is an important signal: in an era of war and hybrid pressure, the main currency of alliances becomes not loud rhetoric, but trust. When it disappears, even the largest blocks begin to shrink to small rooms.