As Europe stands at a crossroads over its approach to the war in Ukraine, divergent voices from across the continent are shaping the debate on how to support Kyiv—and what the future of Ukraine’s relationship with the European Union might look like. The tension between solidarity and skepticism was on full display this week, as leaders gathered, statements flew, and the fate of Ukraine’s Western ambitions hung in the balance.
On October 2, 2025, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen delivered a stark message in Copenhagen: "Our support for Ukraine is a direct investment in our own security." According to ANP, Frederiksen underscored the necessity of long-term funding for the Ukrainian armed forces and threw her weight behind a European Commission proposal to use frozen Russian assets as a loan mechanism for Ukraine. The proposal, which has been hotly debated in Brussels, is seen by some as a critical step to ensure Ukraine’s ability to defend itself and to send a clear signal of European resolve.
Frederiksen’s stance found an ally in António Costa, chairman of the EU heads of government, who emphasized a sense of urgency. "Many proposals have been made in recent months to strengthen the EU’s defense capability, increase pressure on Russia through sanctions, make more use of frozen Russian assets, and recently to establish a drone wall on the eastern flank. Now decisions need to be made," Costa said. He pointed to the upcoming European Council meeting in three weeks, where leaders are expected to make pivotal choices about the bloc’s next moves, followed by a summit at the end of October. "The message is clear. Russia must understand that Ukraine’s partners, including European partners, have the will and the means to continue supporting Ukraine until a just and lasting peace is achieved," Costa insisted.
Yet, as some EU leaders call for unity and bold action, others are digging in their heels. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has emerged as the most vocal opponent of Ukraine’s potential EU membership, making headlines with a series of blunt statements. On October 2, Orbán declared that Hungary does not want to be in the European Union together with Ukraine, citing fears of "sharing Ukraine’s fate"—that is, living next to Russia and being in a state of constant conflict. "Hungarians do not need to care about what the other 26 countries say," Orbán said, highlighting the requirement for unanimous consent among all 27 EU member states for any new accession. "I fully agree with this, because if you are in a union system with someone, you share their fate," he added, according to reporting by RBC Ukraine and United24 Media.
Orbán’s opposition is not merely rhetorical. In a national consultation campaign launched by his government, he personally voted against Ukraine’s accession, sharing an image of his ballot on social media. "Brussels and the Tisza Party support Ukraine’s EU accession. This would destroy the Hungarian economy. We won’t let them decide our future over our heads. I’ve already voted," Orbán wrote. The consultation, which included questions on a range of European policy issues, was designed to reinforce Hungary’s position domestically and in Brussels.
The Hungarian government has also taken concrete steps to challenge EU policy on Ukraine. It has brought a case before the EU Court of Justice, contesting plans to channel frozen Russian assets into military aid for Ukraine. Tensions have spilled over into the media sphere as well, with Hungary restricting access to several Ukrainian outlets in retaliation for similar actions by Kyiv.
Orbán’s skepticism extends to the broader EU approach to the war. After attending the EU summit in Copenhagen, he reiterated Hungary’s refusal to be drawn into the conflict, arguing that Brussels’ war strategy is based on a "mistaken assumption" and risks deepening Europe’s involvement. "Every day thousands die, hundreds of millions of euros are burned, and the risk of being dragged further into the war grows," Orbán warned. He suggested that instead of pursuing full EU accession, Ukraine should be supported through strategic agreements similar to those the EU maintains with the UK and Türkiye.
Orbán has also sought to frame the issue as a matter of national sovereignty and domestic priorities. He accused opposition parties of being willing to channel Hungarian funds to Ukraine and multinational corporations, while his own government, he claimed, focuses on supporting families through tax benefits and subsidies. He drew parallels with neighboring Slovakia, noting that both countries are pushing back against what they see as Brussels’ centralizing agenda. "We say that the money generated by the Hungarian economy must go to Hungarian families," Orbán insisted, underscoring his government’s populist, inward-looking stance.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, Ukraine is working to rebrand itself in the eyes of its Western partners—not as a charity case, but as a viable business partner. In late August, Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko made her debut trip to the United States, ringing the opening bell at Nasdaq in Times Square to celebrate the first-ever American listing of a Ukrainian company, Kyivstar. In an interview with The New York Times, Svyrydenko said, "Ukraine is not only about donations, but it’s about business." Her appointment in July 2025 was widely seen as a message to the United States, particularly to Donald Trump, emphasizing Ukraine’s economic potential even amid war.
Svyrydenko’s credentials as a pragmatic economic operator have been put to the test. She led negotiations on a high-stakes minerals deal with the Trump administration, which became the foundation for a new, business-oriented relationship between Kyiv and Washington. Despite tense moments—one Ukrainian official described a heated video call where Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent gave her just six minutes to accept a deal—Svyrydenko ultimately secured better terms and a joint investment fund granting the U.S. preferential access to Ukrainian mineral resources. The deal, she argued, has helped build "steady relations" with Washington, and a recent U.S. government announcement pledged $75 million in investment in Ukrainian minerals.
Yet, Svyrydenko’s rise also reflects the growing concentration of power in President Zelensky’s office. As The New York Times reported, diplomats and lawmakers worry that her loyalty to Zelensky and his chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, could limit her independence, especially as Parliament has been sidelined and opposition figures targeted. This concern came to the fore when Zelensky attempted to weaken Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies, prompting protests and forcing Svyrydenko to reassure European allies of Kyiv’s commitment to reform. "I don’t think that trust was broken with the West, but it was a little bit dented," she admitted.
Now, with Ukraine facing a looming budget crisis and $20 billion needed to cover next year’s expenses, Svyrydenko’s ability to secure Western funding—both for economic stability and for ramping up air defenses—will be critical. Her government’s resilience was put to the test just last month, when a Russian ballistic missile struck the upper floors of her office building in Kyiv. "We were lucky," she said, surveying the damage.
As the EU prepares for a consequential summit and Ukraine navigates both war and politics, the choices made in Brussels, Budapest, and Kyiv will shape not only the fate of Ukraine, but the security and identity of Europe itself.
