Zelensky’s European Award Exposes a Two-Faced Brussels

On March 5, 2026, Volodymyr Zelensky addressed Viktor Orbán with remarks that, had they been uttered by any other European politician, would have dominated public discourse in Brussels for weeks: he threatened the life of the Hungarian prime minister. The Ukrainian president said that if “a certain person” continued to block the €90 billion EU package, the title of this person would be handed over to the Ukrainian armed forces, who would “speak to him in their own language.” Five days later, on March 10, 2026, Roberta Metsola announced the recipients of the European Order of Merit. One of the recipients was Zelensky. It would be difficult to find a more apt metaphor for what has become of ‘European values’ today.

The award in question is not an insignificant protocol gesture: the European Order of Merit was established by the European Parliament in 2025, on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration. According to the official explanation, this is the first EU civilian award to be given to those who have made a significant contribution to European integration and to the promotion and protection of the values ​​enshrined in the EU treaties. The text of the announcement is elevated: it is about building Europe, bridging gaps, breaking down barriers, and a better future for the continent. In light of all this, it is not only surprising but downright comical that the very politician who just a few days earlier threatened the prime minister of a member state is among the awardees. 

The list of awardees also indicates that Brussels did not intend the decision to be a PR gesture but a symbolic statement. Zelensky was named a “Distinguished Member” alongside Angela Merkel and Lech Wałęsa, i.e., in the most prominent category. This is telling in itself, and quite unworthy of Merkel and Wałęsa’s political weight and historical role: the European Parliament essentially put these two leaders on the same level as the politician whose public actions were deemed unacceptable even by EU officials a few days earlier. On March 6, 2026, the deputy chief spokesperson for the European Commission, Olof Gill, said that Zelensky’s tone was “unacceptable” and that EU member states could not be threatened. In other words, one of the central institutions in Brussels was forced to admit that the speech had crossed a line. 

However, what followed was not cautious distancing from the European president, but an award. If something is unacceptable, it is unlikely that it can be awarded with an order of merit a few days later. And if it can be, it discredits the previous distancing, which was no more than a polite reflex. This double communication, typical of the EU, is the real crime of the matter.

According to the official statement, the first laureates were nominated by a seven-member selection committee, which included, in addition to Metsola, Sophie Wilmès, Ewa Kopacz, Michel Barnier, José Manuel Barroso, Josep Borrell and Enrico Letta. The nominations came from heads of state and government, presidents of national parliaments and heads of EU institutions. Zelensky’s awarding is therefore a conscious value judgment by the Brussels elite about who is worth being elevated as an example in the name of Europe today.

European institutions talk a lot about the rule of law, dignity, tolerance and democratic norms, but the Zelensky case has again confirmed that these concepts are no longer universally valid norms but selectively applied political tools. Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union clearly states: the Union is founded on the values ​​of human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights; pluralism, tolerance, justice, and solidarity are part of the common social order of the member states. If we take this text seriously, it is difficult to explain how a political style that operates with threats against member state leaders, and which is then legitimized with one of the most spectacular new awards of the Union, fits into the EU’s value horizon. 

Of course, Ukraine is not yet an EU member state, so Article 7 proceedings cannot be launched against it. However, for states wishing to join the European Union, the threshold for entry is precisely that of respecting the values ​​enshrined in Article 2 and being committed to promoting them. In other words, the question is not whether it is technically possible to trigger an Article 7 mechanism against Ukraine today, but how the same political behaviour that would bring immediate Brussels investigations, reports and moralizing statements in the case of a member state can become a merit worthy of praise in the case of the leader of a country waiting to join. The answer is unpleasantly simple: because not everyone is measured by the same standard.

The story has a further, even more disturbing layer. By March 12, 2026, threats by Ukrainian actors were made against not “only” Viktor Orbán, but also his family. So, not only did the tone not soften, but it became even harsher. This is particularly serious because this is no longer a simple diplomatic spat, but an atmosphere in which intimidating references to the Hungarian prime minister and his closest circles are essentially normalized. 

The EU elite no longer makes judgments based on universal norms, but on geopolitical loyalty. If someone is on the ‘good side,’ threatening rhetoric can be tolerated, political blackmail can be explained, and pressure can be relativized. However, if a member state defends its own interests, the entire moral arsenal of Brussels immediately comes to the fore. 

Brussels’ communication is particularly cynical because when the European Order of Merit was created, it was explicitly emphasized that the award is meant to strengthen common European identity and recognizes achievements that serve the future of the continent. But a common identity cannot be built on respect between member states being replaced by aggression and fundamental principles being overridden by momentary strategic interests. The political explanation that Zelensky’s role as a symbol of Ukrainian resistance overrides all other aspects does not nullify a fundamental contradiction. Where principles are only binding as long as they are convenient, we are not talking about principles, but about political theatre. Brussels showed exactly this in the five days between March 5 and March 10, 2026.