The most crucial change after this meeting, however, is not simply about the harsh rhetoric towards Hungary. The point is that Brussels has already openly moved on to looking for a formal veto bypass, and this way has been included in EU papers for months.
The authoritative European Council conclusions of 19 March do not contain a common position of all 27 states on Ukraine. It simply states that the text on Ukraine, contained in a separate EUCO 2/26 document, received "the decisive support of 25 Heads of State or Government". Full unanimity was not erstwhile again, but most countries decided to go further without blocking capitals.
At the same time, it was declared that the Union would proceed to supply political, financial, economic, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support to Ukraine. The paper besides explicitly states that providing Ukraine with budgetary and military resources is essential in order to proceed exercising its right to self-defense. This means that despite the blockade of Budapest, the political direction on the side of most EU countries has not changed: the money is to go to Kiev, and the summit was to find a way to launch it, alternatively than open a discussion from scratch.
Von der Leyen and Costa are no longer talking about the dispute, but about the execution of the decision
The strongest message after the summit came from Ursula von der Leyen. The head of the Commission said after the gathering that the EU would supply a debt to Ukraine "in 1 way or another". António Costa spoke even harsher: he defined Hungary's position as "unacceptable" and stated that since the leaders had already agreed once, they had to keep their word. Friedrich Merz in turn informed that the Commission had been asked to find a way to pay the funds despite the blockade of Budapest.
In earlier stages, the dispute afraid whether or not Orbán could inactive be persuaded. After the Thursday summit, the EU communicative looks completely different. It is not focused on further negotiations with Hungary, but on asking how to run a debt without their consent. This means moving from the political phase of force to the search for a circumstantial legal mechanism.
Veto Orbán blocks 1 stage, although the decision itself was made in December
What Hungary is blocking present is not the very thought of supporting Ukraine, but 1 of the elements of its implementation. The European Council has already agreed on 18 December 2025 that Ukraine is to receive a debt of EUR 90 billion for the period 2026-2027, based on EU debt in capital markets and secured by the EU budget. This point was entered both in the authoritative statements of the December summit and in the subsequent Commission and Council legislative documents.
Orbán blocked 1 of the steps needed to launch this structure, as it requires the unanimity of all 27 states. At the same time, Hungary is not expected to bear the cost of the debt itself, as is the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It was this arrangement that caused a feeling of a double problem in Brussels: Budapest does not finance the instrument, but can inactive halt it from running.
Sam Orbán explains his opposition with a dispute over the "Friendship" pipeline. He believes that until Volodymyr Zelenski unblocks oil supplies, money from Brussels should not go to Ukraine. Costa responded to this after the summit that the work for attacks on energy infrastructure and pipeline problems rests with Russia, not Ukraine or the Union.
The veto bypass is not an improvisation. This option has been in EU papers for a long time.
The European Commission's proposal of 14 January 2026 explicitly stated that the December agreement provided for the anticipation of utilizing "enhanced cooperation" under Article 20 TEU. The same paper states that mobilising the EU budget as a warrant for this debt should not affect the financial commitments of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia.
This is even more evident in the Council paper of 4 February. It besides reiterated that December's consent provided for an option based on "enhanced cooperation" and pointed out that the expenditure associated with this solution was to be borne by the participating countries.
Moreover, the draft already leaves area for a later Council decision accepting specified cooperation and lists a group of countries to participate in it. This means that the emergency way is not an improvisation but a solution prepared in Brussels for months.