The majority of Hungarians were pessimistic about the future, which made Péter Magyar’s message—“change will make things better”—more convincing than that of the patriotic forces led by Viktor Orbán. Our argument was different: while Hungary is not perfect, a look at the world shows that things could easily be much worse—therefore, it is wiser to choose stability and preserve what we have achieved. In the end, however, we were unable to persuade a majority that safeguarding the results of the patriotic side mattered more than the uncertain promise of change.

Thus, the hope for change prevailed over the instinct to choose stability.

But what does this actually mean?

This is not a uniquely Hungarian story, but rather a well-known pattern of Western European centrist-liberal parties. A formation similar to French President Emmanuel Macron’s La République En Marche! has emerged in Hungary—one that compromises with the left and liberals, makes communicative gestures toward the right, and ensures for Brussels the majority needed for further centralization of the European Union and for key strategic objectives, such as supporting the war in Ukraine.

In this context, one specifically Hungarian feature is worth highlighting. The Tisza Party was able to strengthen itself in a protest atmosphere created by economic hardship—with undeniable assistance from foreign intelligence services and intervention through social media. At the same time, its success was also aided by effectively capitalizing on perceived government shortcomings and by extensive field work.

As a result, it unified actors from the left to the liberal center: greens, liberals, and socialists. This fits well into the broader European pattern represented by the European People’s Party—the political family of Péter Magyar in the European Parliament—led by Manfred Weber and serving as the political stronghold of Ursula von der Leyen; a model built on bringing together actors from across the political spectrum.

Beyond exposing the real mistakes of the past 16 years and conducting extensive groundwork, the success of Péter Magyar and the Tisza Party was also supported by a highly complex external intervention. Its main elements were the following:

· For years, Brussels has withheld a significant portion of the EU funds due to Hungary. Ursula von der Leyen recently openly acknowledged at a Hamburg event marking the 80th anniversary of Die Zeit—as reported by Süddeutsche Zeitung—that the freezing of approximately €17 billion had a tangible impact on Hungary’s economic performance, competitiveness, and indirectly on the election outcome. This amounts to an admission that financial instruments were used as tools of political pressure—not merely for technical or rule-of-law reasons. This statement confirms what had already been indicated by several participants in European Parliament debates: the withholding of funds served as a political instrument.

· Similarly significant external pressure came from the blockage of the Druzhba pipeline by Ukraine in early 2026, which made it considerably more difficult to ensure energy supply and imposed additional costs on the Hungarian budget. Despite this, the national government managed to preserve regulated utility pricing and keep energy prices stable for Hungarian households and the economy. Notably, the “repair” of the pipeline was resolved with remarkable speed following the Hungarian election results—not by Ukrainian experts or a European Commission delegation, but by the outcome of the election itself. Kyiv received what it wanted: the desired election result and the green light for nearly €90 billion in loans. The pressure, however, has not disappeared—it has merely changed its addressee. What the Orbán government faced will now confront the Tisza government. Their response will be decisive. The dilemma remains the same: how to ensure that Hungarian resources remain in Hungary and that energy prices stay affordable.

· In addition, there was an unprecedented level of one-sided intervention by social media platforms in the domestic campaign. Within the framework of the EU’s Digital Services Act, the European Commission activated its “anti-disinformation” mechanisms in the weeks leading up to the election, working closely with major tech companies, including Meta Platforms. Through fact-checkers and Brussels-funded NGOs, content was filtered in a way that visibly restricted the reach of national, sovereignty-focused voices. Based on our own experience, shadow banning on Facebook—Hungary’s most widely used social network—made effective voter outreach virtually impossible. Never before have major platforms exerted such influence in a domestic campaign.

A silver lining is that the vote count of the patriotic forces led by Viktor Orbán, the Fidesz–KDNP, remained stable. We received 38.61 percent of the party-list vote—more than 2.45 million ballots—figures comparable to elections such as 2002, 2006, and 2014, when our performance was solid but not exceptional. The right was further strengthened by the 5.63 percent (over 358,000 votes) secured by the eurosceptic Our Homeland Movement, bringing the national-patriotic side to roughly 45 percent overall.

By contrast, the Tisza Party achieved 53.18 percent, corresponding to more than 3.385 million votes. This resulted in a classic, sharply contested 45–55 percent left–right race, in which the promise of change—reinforced by external pressures—ultimately tipped the balance in Tisza’s favor.

Importantly, this shift did not reflect a collapse of our base, but rather the defection of a portion of 2022 voters and the mobilization of new, primarily younger voter groups, which together formed Tisza’s 3.3+ million-strong bloc.

Although polling data and personal experiences gathered during Viktor Orbán’s nationwide campaign indicated a narrow path to victory, we underestimated the scale of external influence: Brussels’ pressure, the Ukrainian oil blockade, various interventions—and the voters’ reactions to them.

What can be expected from the new government?

Exactly what similar Western formations deliver: management instead of politics, coordination instead of leadership. The credo of former Social Democratic Chancellor Helmut Schmidt—“Those who have visions should go to a doctor”—is interpreted by them to mean that politicians have no right to formulate a comprehensive vision or ideal for the political community. Their task is administration.

They will not be able to fulfill their economic promises. If they aim to transform the system, they will have to finance it either through debt or through higher taxes and contributions—ultimately, the voters will always pay the price.

Access to EU funds will likely become easier, but this will require giving up a degree of sovereignty in return, while overall EU resources are shrinking due to large-scale European project like green transition, decoupling from Russian energy or funding for Ukraine. Energy prices will remain high, and the introduction of the euro—promised by Péter Magyar in place of the Hungarian forint—will act as a constraint on growth.

Just one and a half weeks after the election, a clear example already shows the expectations the Tisza government will face. The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled to annul certain provisions of Hungary’s child protection law: restrictions on the “promotion” of homosexuality and gender reassignment in media accessible to children, and even the registry of individuals convicted of pedophilia, were deemed incompatible with EU law. In doing so, Brussels openly intervenes in parental rights, child protection, and national culture—precisely in those areas where, as is typical of such “rainbow coalitions,” the public sphere, culture, and education are handed over to the progressive left.

We could also point, by way of example, to the fact that Ursula von der Leyen, just one day after the Hungarian elections, called for a shift to qualified majority voting in EU foreign policy and the elimination of the unanimity-based veto. In her view, the Hungarian election result provides the necessary “momentum” for Brussels to more effectively advance its position on key issues.

Hungary is once again embarking on a path of imitation: relinquishing its ability to influence major civilizational questions and to interpret them independently.

Despite the efforts of the managerial elite, no meaningful increase in efficiency can be expected due to the general stagnation observed across the continent.

Voters fragment into ad hoc coalitions and reorganize only around specific issues.

What is to be done on the national side?

We must take stock of our mistakes, but we must not resign ourselves to managing decline. The Fidesz–KDNP must transform from a governing party into a movement: we must expand the patriotic community with actors, groups, and activities beyond politics. We must defend national achievements that enjoy broad societal support—family tax reductions, regulated utility pricing, and home creation schemes.

These were not criticized even by a significant portion of Tisza voters. However, if the new authorities violate civilizational or rule-of-law frameworks—as Péter Magyar recently did by issuing an ultimatum demanding that the President of the Republic, the President of the Supreme Court, the head of the National Judicial Office, the President of the Constitutional Court, and the Chief Prosecutor “voluntarily” resign by May 31 or face removal—we will stand up for anyone unjustly attacked.

Everyone can count on us who is targeted outside the framework of the rule of law.

At the same time, a full renewal is necessary: bold, outspoken, battle-tested yet composed, innovative and humble politics—this is what the anti-establishment mood in the West demands as well.

Connectivity is essential: Hungary must maintain good relations with all power blocs without subordinating itself to any, as that would entail a loss of sovereignty. We believe in a European Union composed of sovereign nations, and we must not accept the European elite’s strategy of managing stagnation and decline. We must fight for our national interests and strengthen the deeper layers of society and grassroots initiatives. This requires a new vision—it is not enough to defend past achievements, even if that in itself is a significant accomplishment.

Public finances are stable, and foreign currency and gold reserves are high. The Tisza Party’s two-thirds majority grants it full authority to implement its program, but we are concerned that transitioning to a different system—even with good intentions—may result in declining living standards or increased indebtedness.

We root for Hungary: we support everything that benefits it and oppose everything that harms it. We call for thinking about the country’s future within European and rule-of-law frameworks.

Across Europe, patriotic forces stand in opposition to this trend. In Hungary, a renewed national side must be ready by the next European Parliament elections—one that knows the country and remains faithful and committed to the principle that in every conflict, Hungary comes first.

If the majority of people once again express a demand for such a policy—and they will—then our time will come again.

Until then: protect, build, renew—this is the task ahead.

Attention was drawn to this development by Australian influencer Mario Nawfal, who is set to visit Budapest for CPAC Hungary. He noted that on Monday, a spokesperson for the European Commission admitted the activation of a “rapid response” system, granting EU-funded fact-checking networks and NGOs meaningful influence over Hungary’s online discourse.

Several concrete developments illustrate how a Brussels–Kyiv–Magyar-aligned narrative space is being constructed in the shadow of Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s open threats and Ukraine’s blockade of the Druzhba oil pipeline.

The objective is clear. There is a single serious obstacle preventing Brussels and Kyiv from advancing their pro-war agenda without resistance: Hungary’s patriotic government led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

· a government that rejects pro-war policies and consistently stands on the side of peace,

· refuses to make Hungarian families pay the price of war,

· and says no to new taxes and austerity.

For this reason, the goal of the Brussels elite is unmistakable: regime change in Budapest. The aim is to install a Brussels- and Ukraine-aligned government that will execute directives without question—whether on migration, gender policy, war, tax increases, or austerity measures.

And the work has already begun. As Mario Nawfal recently reported, Facebook has visibly restricted the reach of posts by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Meanwhile, Péter Magyar, leader of the Tisza Party, is generating disproportionately high engagement figures—exceptional even by global standards—despite operating in a smaller, linguistically limited environment.

Moreover, rather than using an official political page, he operates through a “professional mode” personal profile, which may allow him to bypass restrictions on political content under Meta’s policies.

Nawfal also pointed out that a regional Meta executive has publicly aligned with mainstream Brussels positions, including pro-Ukraine messaging and criticism of the Hungarian government. According to Philip Pilkington and Joey Mannarino, this individual is likely Oskar Braszczyński, whose Facebook profile features visual elements associated with pro-Ukraine and anti-Orbán symbolism—as well as imagery opposing Poland’s conservative Law and Justice party (PiS). Here he is:

Engineering the Narrative: Polls, Pressure, and Preemptive Framing

Another small yet important instrument in this machinery is the wave of heavily promoted public opinion polls gaining traction in the international press, showing a significant lead for Péter Magyar. The institutes publishing the most striking figures—Republikon Institute and 21 Research Center—operate within a funding environment linked to European institutional sources and networks associated with George Soros. These are facts.

Polling is a legitimate component of democratic politics. However, in an externally financed research environment, prominently communicated figures often appear with the intent of shaping what is considered a “likely” or “legitimate” electoral outcome according to their own preferences. Through their framing, they subtly prepare the ground for the notion that any result contradicting their projections is implausible—after all, “the polls” say otherwise.

Following the release of the Judiciary Committee’s report, many in the United States voiced concern about electoral interference in Europe, censorship mechanisms operated by EU institutions, and the global risks they may pose.

Recent developments concerning Hungary only reinforce these warnings.

At the same time, a “crisis scenario” is taking shape—one that preemptively invokes accusations of “Russian interference” to frame the outcome in the event that Péter Magyar fails to deliver the result expected by Brussels and Kyiv. This narrative has already been used to justify activating the DSA machinery and “anti-disinformation” cooperation just weeks before the election—effectively allowing Brussels to legitimize its intervention based on its own constructed claims.

According to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, the European Commission has already applied digital censorship as a form of electoral intervention in the Netherlands, Romania, and Slovakia—across eight elections in six European countries.

For this reason, there is little basis to assume that similar measures were not planned ahead of Hungary’s upcoming parliamentary elections.

And why is all of this necessary?

Because last weekend’s Peace March—the largest of its kind to date—made it unmistakably clear that the pro-peace majority in Hungary is beyond dispute.

Despite threats and pressure, approximately 180,000 people took to the streets to send a clear message: Hungary will not back down.

The sheer size of the crowd came as a surprise not only to Péter Magyar himself, but also to Brussels and Kyiv, which had expected supporters of the Tisza Party to outnumber them.

On March 15, numerous well-known public figures and hundreds of thousands of citizens stood with the national side, marching peacefully through the streets of Budapest, while support in the countryside remains overwhelmingly strong. The “silent majority” now appears stronger than the vocal minority.

According to mobile cell-based data from the Hungarian Tourism Agency, the opposition’s event drew approximately 150,000 participants—while the national side also demonstrated substantial mobilization in Budapest, alongside its well-established strength across the country.

Growing National Unity in the Face of Kyiv and Brussels Pressure

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has carried forward the momentum of last weekend’s Peace March throughout the week, visiting several major cities across the country—with more to come. The campaign has clearly moved beyond Budapest and continues to build nationwide. This week, the prime minister visited three key regional cities before traveling to Brussels today for the EU summit.

The experience has been consistent everywhere: Hungarians are deeply outraged that Volodymyr Zelenskyy has, for weeks, been blocking the Druzhba pipeline—critical to Hungary’s energy supply—while also issuing direct threats against Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Public sentiment is increasingly defined by resistance to pressure coming from Kyiv and Brussels.

It is no coincidence that national unity is strengthening. More than 1.5 million people have already returned the National Consultation survey. According to research by the Nézőpont Institute, a decisive majority of Hungarians support the prime minister and reject the Ukrainian president’s threats: 79 percent of respondents consider them unacceptable. Among Fidesz voters, this position is nearly unanimous, but even within the opposition camp, those rejecting such threats are in the majority.

The situation is further aggravated by the fact that these threats are not isolated. Similar statements have been made in succession from Ukrainian political, military, and intelligence circles—clearly serving as instruments of pressure.

In this context, Hungary’s position is clear: the government will yield neither to blackmail nor to external pressure. This is the stance the prime minister represents at today’s European Union summit, where—true to form—Hungary’s national interests will come first.

· contribute financially to Ukraine’s war effort,

· support Ukraine’s accession to the European Union,

· abandon access to affordable Russian energy,

· and accept a political shift that would ultimately serve the expectations of Brussels and Kyiv rather than the interests of the Hungarian people.

Hungary’s response is clear and unequivocal: we will not put our country’s security at risk for the sake of a war, we will not allow Hungarian taxpayers’ money to be diverted to finance Ukraine’s war, and we will not accept Hungarian families paying higher fuel and utility costs simply because someone abroad seeks to impose their political will on us.

The seriousness of the situation is further compounded by the fact that all of this is happening at a time when the world is already extremely unstable. A new major armed conflict has erupted in the Middle East—one of the most severe in decades—threatening Europe simultaneously with an energy crisis, migration pressures, and economic shocks. Gas and oil prices are rising again, maritime routes are coming under threat, shipments are being disrupted, and more and more countries are being forced to recognize that energy security is not an abstract concept but one of the fundamental pillars of national sovereignty.

In this situation, President Zelensky’s actions toward Hungary—barely one month before parliamentary elections—are doubly unacceptable.

Ukraine has halted oil transit through the Druzhba pipeline, a route that is essential for the energy security of both Hungary and Slovakia. At the same time, Ukraine is no longer even attempting to claim that this is a technical or operational issue: President Zelensky himself has described the withholding of oil supplies to two European Union member states as a political decision.

The Ukrainian president has gone even further. He has made it clear that this pressure is linked to Hungary’s upcoming parliamentary elections.

As he stated, he personally would not restore the pipeline supplying oil to two EU countries and also suggested that he would prefer to see a Ukraine-friendly government in Budapest—one that would obediently implement Kyiv’s demands.

In other words, this is not merely economic pressure but a direct attempt to interfere in Hungary’s democratic electoral process.

This is no longer a simple diplomatic disagreement. It is an unprecedented attack on Hungary’s sovereignty.

Hungary is being pressured to act against its own national interests: to finance a war that has nothing to do with it; to surrender its economic flexibility; and to open the door to Ukraine’s accession to the European Union—an accession that would have unforeseeable security, financial, and political consequences for the entire continent.

Hungary’s pro-peace position, by contrast, is clear. Hungary is not against Ukraine and does not seek conflict with the Ukrainian people. The question is not whether Ukraine belongs culturally or geographically to Europe, but whether a country that is currently at war, with unstable borders and dependent on external financing, should become a full member of the European Union.

The answer is clearly no, and Hungary says so openly.

Ukraine’s accession to the European Union would effectively bring the war itself into the Union. Admitting a country at war would mean the EU becomes directly connected to an armed conflict. The front line today stretches about 1,200 kilometers, and even if peace were declared tomorrow, years would need to pass before anyone could say the borders are stable and fighting will not resume.

If Ukraine were an EU member, any renewed clash could automatically involve the Union through its commitments to a member state. In other words, admitting Ukraine would not strengthen peace — it would place the European Union directly on the edge of a war zone, or potentially inside one.

The financial consequences for EU member states would also be substantial.

Due to Ukraine’s size, population, and the enormous cost of reconstruction, it would immediately become the largest recipient of EU funds. In practical terms, this would mean a massive redirection of financial resources from existing member states—including Hungary—to Ukraine. Hungary, like all EU member states, would have to contribute more to the EU budget while receiving less in return. The work, taxes, and economic output of Hungarian citizens would be used to finance another country’s wartime and reconstruction needs.

This is neither fair nor in Hungary’s national interest.

The Hungarian Public Rejects External Pressure

President Zelensky is therefore applying both economic and political pressure against Hungary while attempting to force domestic political change in Budapest. The Ukrainian oil blockade is not simply about energy disruption; its purpose is to weaken the national government through economic pressure and improve the electoral prospects of opposition leader Péter Magyar, who is aligned more closely with the Brussels-Kyiv political line.

Hungarian citizens, however, understand exactly what is happening, and public opinion has not sided with Zelensky but with Hungary’s patriotic government.

Recent surveys by McLaughlin & Associates and the broader public mood confirm that the overwhelming majority of Hungarians reject Ukrainian pressure.

They oppose forcing Hungary to bear the costs of energy decoupling and energy diktats, and they clearly see that financing the war, fast-tracking Ukraine’s EU membership, and eliminating Russian energy supplies would mean higher prices, greater uncertainty, and less economic flexibility for Hungarian families.

Hungarians are firmly saying no.

This was demonstrated last weekend in Debrecen, in eastern Hungary, where—under the shadow of President Zelensky’s pressure campaign—the largest anti-war rally in the country’s history was held. Thousands gathered to express a simple message: Hungary wants peace and will not give up its sovereignty or security under external pressure.

This public sentiment was also visible in Budapest, where hundreds gathered in front of the Ukrainian embassy to protest against Kyiv’s pressure campaign and the threats directed at Hungary.

Demonstrators delivered a clear message: Hungary will not accept political intimidation or energy blackmail. The peaceful protest symbolized a broader national response—Hungarians are prepared to stand up for their sovereignty and will not allow external actors to influence their democratic decisions.

The patriotic government led by Viktor Orbán has also taken practical steps in response to Ukrainian pressure. Hungary has made it clear that as long as oil transit is not restored, Ukraine cannot expect previous forms of cooperation to continue unchanged. Hungary will also not support further EU decisions that would channel hundreds of billions of euros toward Ukraine.

At the same time, the Hungarian state must address the growing security risks. When a country at war openly exerts political pressure on an EU member state while targeting its energy system, the state’s first duty is to protect its strategic infrastructure. Hungary has therefore reinforced the protection of critical energy facilities and taken all necessary steps to maintain operational security in the face of external threats.

The Gold Convoy: Cash, Gold, and Intelligence Links

It is also telling that alongside these developments, serious financial and national security concerns related to the war and Ukrainian networks have also emerged. Hungarian authorities are investigating cases involving massive cash movements, gold shipments, and suspected links to Ukrainian intelligence services.

On March 5, Hungary’s National Tax and Customs Administration (NAV) detained seven Ukrainian nationals—including a former Ukrainian intelligence general—who were traveling from Austria to Ukraine in two armored cash-transport vehicles. Authorities discovered $40 million, €35 million, and 9 kilograms of gold in the vehicles.

Hungarian officials also report that this year alone more than $900 million, €420 million, and 146 kilograms of gold have passed through Hungary en route to Ukraine.

These cases raise serious questions: whose money is this, what purposes does it serve, and what networks operate behind these movements? Hungarian authorities have a clear duty to investigate every such case thoroughly and to protect Hungary’s security and sovereignty.

These developments are further evidence that the current situation surrounding Ukraine presents not only military risks but also structural and corruption risks that Europe cannot afford to confront with naïve illusions.

Péter Magyar’s Camp Increasingly Looks for Foreign Support

At the same time, troubling developments are also unfolding on the domestic political front. During the campaign, activists from the patriotic side have been harassed in several locations, elderly Fidesz supporters have been verbally and physically attacked, and incidents have occurred that would previously have been unimaginable in Hungarian political life.

In a town near Budapest, the situation escalated to the point where a Fidesz activist was shot at.

Even more alarming, however, is that Péter Magyar’s political circle is increasingly relying on external intervention. President Zelensky himself has spoken about wanting to see a Ukraine-friendly government in Budapest.

Meanwhile, a left-wing politician supporting Péter Magyar’s Tisza Party sent an open letter to the NATO Secretary General calling on the military alliance to act against Hungary’s patriotic government and exert pressure on the Hungarian electoral process in order to advance the interests of Péter Magyar.

This is an unprecedented step since the democratic transition. A Hungarian political actor effectively called upon a foreign military alliance to intervene in Hungary’s democratic elections.

Hungarian history has repeatedly shown the consequences when external powers attempt to influence the country’s fate. It is therefore particularly alarming that today there are political forces willing to build their strategy on such intervention.

But Hungary will not yield to external pressure.

· We reject Ukraine’s demands.

· We will defend Hungary’s peace and security.

· We will break the Ukrainian oil blockade.

· And we will demonstrate that Hungary cannot be governed or intimidated from abroad.

In this situation, the patriotic camp has only one course of action: until the April 12 elections we must build the strongest possible national unity behind the pro-peace position that defends Hungary’s interests. Only this unity can repel external pressure, reject President Zelensky’s threats, and make it clear that Hungary’s future will not be decided in Brussels or Kyiv—but by the Hungarian people.

Hungarian society is already making this clear. More than one million citizens have signed the National Petition in a short period of time.

In the coming days another important moment is expected. On March 15—the national holiday commemorating the Hungarian Revolution of 1848—the largest Peace March ever is expected to take place in Budapest.

This will not merely be a political event. It will demonstrate that Hungary stands up for its own interests. Hungarians want peace, they want to defend their sovereignty, and they will not allow anyone to force them to their knees through blackmail or threats.

Hungary stands on the side of peace—and we will continue on this path.

We clearly won the first day of the campaign: the patriotic governing parties led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Fidesz–KDNP, were the first to collect the required number of nomination signatures, ours was the first candidate officially registered, and by the end of the day we had submitted nearly twice as many signatures as Brussels- and Kyiv-backed Péter Magyar and his Tisza Party.

Since the start of the campaign, Fidesz politicians have been continuously travelling across the country, and until the elections, 50 people will hold more than 200 public forums with large audiences.

Péter Magyar is visibly struggling in this regard. Fewer and fewer people are attending his events, and at the gatherings of second-tier politicians — if they hold any at all — only a handful of people show up. Meanwhile, he and his circle are avoiding the press, so that their real intentions do not come to light — because their Brussels- and Kyiv-aligned agenda clearly has no support among Hungarian voters, and any real questioning by the press would only expose this and bring Péter Magyar closer to failure.

The patriotic governing parties’ advantage is also evident in the collection of nominations: together with the autumn drive, we will soon reach one and a half million signatures.

Hungarians Reject the War — and the Costs That Come With It

Hungarians are widely rejecting the war, as the National Petition launched by the patriotic forces to give people a voice in sending a clear message to Brussels has already gathered several hundred thousand signatures, with Hungarians making it clear that they will not pay for the war, will not finance Ukraine, and will not accept higher utility costs caused by resources diverted to fund the conflict.

These strong results are due to voters feeling that when it comes to standing against the war and confronting Ukrainian energy blackmail, only the government side can be relied upon, while the opposition always stands with Brussels and the Ukrainians.

According to a fresh survey, three-quarters of Hungarians consider it unacceptable that the Ukrainian leadership is sabotaging the restart of the Druzhba pipeline for political reasons.

Nearly two-thirds also disagree with Brussels attempting to force Hungary to abandon Russian energy.

This is even more important in the current turbulent international situation, as the newly erupted Middle East conflict threatens oil price increases on an unprecedented scale. In such circumstances, advocating for decoupling from Russian oil and accepting Ukrainian blackmail would be madness.

In such circumstances, Péter Magyar has openly sided with Ukraine against the Hungarian people. He dismissed the government’s warnings about the Ukrainian oil blockade as fearmongering and panic-mongering, claiming there is no danger and no war, while at the same time openly campaigning for Hungary’s detachment from Russian energy — the very core of the Brussels- and Kyiv-backed programme he represents, which seeks to cut Hungary off from Russian oil at any cost. Today, the Ukrainians are effectively implementing that very agenda.

Hungarians are not naïve — they can clearly see that, given the global instability and the escalating Middle East conflict, advocating for decoupling from Russian oil and accepting Ukrainian blackmail would be madness. This is precisely why Viktor Orbán is standing up for Hungarian families: he will not give in to Ukrainian pressure, he will not send Hungarian money or weapons into the war, and he will protect Hungary’s energy security.

According to a recent poll, the majority of Hungarians support the government’s position regarding the Ukrainian oil blockade, and barely twenty percent believe Hungary should give in. Tisza Party voters are divided on the issue, with one-third siding with the Ukrainians.

Social resistance to the war is increasing day by day, as almost every day brings a new Ukrainian threat or act of pressure.

Smoke and Mirrors: The Poll Narrative Behind Péter Magyar Falls Apart

During the first week of the campaign, Péter Magyar’s supposed secret weapon also collapsed: the system of manipulated opinion polls. While he continues to project confidence in victory, the reality is that he is trailing — and this week the REAL results of the January poll conducted by the left-wing Medián institute, which had circulated internationally, were leaked to the Hungarian press, revealing that the published figures had been deliberately distorted to inflate Tisza’s support and create the false impression that Magyar was leading.

The leak made clear that the entire narrative had been little more than political smoke and mirrors, and that Tisza is in fact not leading at all. With Medián’s exposure, the Tisza Party lost its strongest tool for influencing electoral expectations.

It is therefore no surprise that since the beginning of the year a defeat narrative has also been quietly prepared. The script is familiar: if Péter Magyar wins, it is presented as a triumph of democracy; if he loses, it will be framed as fraud. Even Radosław Sikorski, Poland’s foreign minister under the Tusk government and a prominent international ally of Magyar’s Brussels-backed political camp, has suggested that if Hungary’s elections are not deemed “fair,” the European Union should take tougher action.

By pre-emptively raising doubts about the legitimacy of the vote, they are effectively constructing a political escape route — not to protect electoral integrity, but to minimise the political cost of defeat.

It is no surprise that the Tisza camp is becoming increasingly tense and aggressive. Last Wednesday, a symbolic violent incident occurred: a man cut down Fidesz posters in Budapest, and when a Fidesz activist confronted him, Péter Magyar’s supporter angrily attacked the activist standing behind the camera, struck him, and kicked him while he was already on the ground.

Péter Magyar builds his politics on inciting hatred and anger, which is a direct path to violence.

We continue to believe in the power of solidarity and unity, and we trust that in April we can show the way not only to the Tisza Party, but also to political violence.

This was not the only attack last week. In the digital sphere as well, the national side faced an unprecedented assault: META, without explanation, shut down the Facebook pages of three regional news portals. The tech giant’s decision seriously violates press freedom and could even be interpreted as interference in the election campaign.

The Hungarian National Media Association issued a protest statement on the matter. In recent weeks, several right-wing pages and profiles have also reported restrictions on their reach on Facebook. Tisza Party MEP Dóra Dávid, who is also a former legal counsel at META, recently called on Tisza supporters to report content and pages associated with Fidesz.

After all this, where do the parties stand?

The Nézőpont Institute conducted a survey on the most likely party-list outcome. It shows that Fidesz has been leading Tisza by an average of 5–6 percentage points since December 2025.

In the 41 days ahead, this advantage must be increased. There is only one thing to do: we must gain momentum and do the work.

We must tell everyone that Viktor Orbán and Fidesz are the guarantee that we stay out of the war, that our money will not be sent to Ukraine, and that Hungary will spend its resources not on a war but on Hungarian families and businesses.

If we do this work, in the end we will push the Tisza–Kyiv–Brussels axis off the field.

On 12 April, Hungarians will choose between two clear directions.

The policy of the patriotic governing parties led by Viktor Orbán, Fidesz–KDNP, is consistent:

· Hungary must stay out of the war.

· We will not allow Brussels to draw Hungary into an open-ended, multi-generational war and reconstruction financing scheme.

· We do not accept that European — and therefore Hungarian — taxpayers’ money be used to finance, without limits, a war that has already claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, while Europe’s competitiveness continues to deteriorate.

· We will not allow Hungarian families to bear the cost of the war through higher energy prices, mounting debt, or economic austerity.

· We will protect the utility price cap system, one of the lowest household energy price levels in Europe, and the security of Hungarian families.

Opposing us stands the Brussels- and Kyiv-backed Tisza Party. They align themselves with the pro-war mainstream in Brussels and support continued financial and political commitments to Ukraine. Such a government would not serve as a counterweight to Brussels, but as its executor.

The real question is this: will Hungary represent its own national interests, or adjust itself to external expectations?

In the digital sphere, the opposition is highly active and, together with the liberal mainstream media, creates the impression that the political balance of power has already been decided. A significant portion of those rooting for the Brussels- and Kyiv-backed Hungarian opposition start from this assumption. However, when one steps outside the digital echo chamber and looks at concrete, measurable data, those expectations are not always borne out by reality.

It is rare in an intense election campaign to have objective, distortion-proof data beyond opinion polls. Yet we now have two such examples:

· Two weeks ago, a by-election was held in Balmazújváros, a town in eastern Hungary that had previously been led by the opposition. The liberal, Brussels-aligned media elevated it into a matter of national prestige, projecting a Tisza victory in advance. Voters, however, chose the Fidesz–KDNP candidate. Narrative and reality diverged.

· The other data point is the official balance sheet of the nomination signature collection that began on last Saturday. Péter Magyar, the Brussels- and Kyiv-backed opposition leader, claimed on social media that they had gathered 250,000 signatures within 1–2 hours. According to the official data of the National Election Office, the Tisza Party submitted only 110,000 nominations, while Fidesz submitted 196,000. It is possible that he collected more nomination signatures, but first, it would be pointless not to submit them, and second, in this context you can claim anything.

This is not the final election result, but it is a clear signal: nationwide social support cannot be substituted with online noise.

Yesterday, Viktor Orbán described the day as “a fantastic performance”: “In the first real test, nearly 190,000–200,000 signatures were collected within just a few hours. The result of hard work. And the message is clear: the Tisza Party’s digital bluff has burst once again. This is not surprising. We will have to live with this until Election Day — they talk big, and in the end, we win big.”

The election is, of course, far from decided. But based on the available facts, there is a strong possibility that Viktor Orbán and the patriotic forces will once again receive a strong, stable mandate from the Hungarian people.

In the next 48 days, it is therefore worth paying attention not only to the noise amplified by social networks and wishful thinking polls, but also to facts and reality.

The decision rests with the Hungarian people: in April, they will weigh which path better serves Hungary’s peace, security, and national interests.

Marco Rubio arrived in Europe on the occasion of last week’s Munich Security Conference. With his speech, he significantly stirred the stagnant waters of the liberal political bubble when he stated that the continent’s leadership had taken Europe in the wrong direction, drifting away from its own citizens and strategic interests — but that it may not yet be too late to make corrections.

According to international press reports, it was no coincidence that after Munich, he chose to visit Bratislava and Budapest. It is symbolic that the U.S. Secretary of State — as a kind of continuation of his Munich speech — paid official visits to the two Central European countries that for years have consistently argued for sovereignty, border protection, strengthening industry, and the primacy of national interest.

A Golden Age in Hungarian–American Relations

“A golden age has begun in relations between the United States and Hungary,” Prime Minister Viktor Orbán stated at the joint press conference held in Budapest with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The Prime Minister said that with Donald Trump’s return to the White House in 2025, relations between the two countries have entered a new level and “have never been at such a high level, so balanced, and guided by such goodwill.”

Marco Rubio confirmed this, emphasizing that the term “golden age” is not an exaggeration: Hungarian–American relations today are as close as one could imagine, and this is not merely rhetoric, but is reflected in concrete actions and agreements.

The U.S. Secretary of State also pointed out that the 17 American investment decisions made since Donald Trump took office clearly refute the liberal argument that Hungary would be an isolated country. As he put it, more and more American companies wish to invest in Hungary because they see strong leadership that protects investments and ensures a competitive regulatory environment.

Marco Rubio also spoke in detail about the personal relationship between Donald Trump and Viktor Orbán. He highlighted that the trust between the two leaders is a decisive factor in relations between the two countries. “Your success is our success,” he said, adding that Hungary’s role in Central Europe is of key importance from the perspective of the national interests of the United States.

Energy and Sovereignty: A Strategic Agreement with Washington

A tangible outcome of the Budapest visit was the energy cooperation agreement signed by Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and trade Péter Szijjártó and Marco Rubio, which had been prepared during Viktor Orbán’s November talks in Washington.

Viktor Orbán explained that the U.S.–Hungarian agreement covers nuclear energy, crude oil, and natural gas. These agreements — together with the exemption granted to Hungary allowing the continued use of Russian gas and oil — contribute to ensuring that Hungary’s energy supply remains secure and that Hungarian families and the economy continue to have access to competitively priced energy by international comparison.

In response to a journalist’s question regarding Hungary’s exemption from U.S. sanctions on Russian energy carriers, Marco Rubio articulated a clear principled position. He stated that the expectation of the United States is that every nation act according to its own national interest. “If the Hungarian Prime Minister does not serve Hungarian interests, he will not remain prime minister for long. But who will serve Hungary’s interests if he does not?” he asked. He added that where national interests align, an extraordinary partnership can be built — and that Hungarian–American relations today are precisely of that nature.

A Shared Objective: Ending the War

The Russian–Ukrainian war was also a central topic of the U.S. Secretary of State’s visit to Budapest. Viktor Orbán reaffirmed that Hungary supports the peace efforts of the United States. He emphasized that the current U.S. president has done the most in international politics to bring the war to a peaceful conclusion, and stated that had Donald Trump been president of the United States at the outset of the conflict, the war would not have broken out.

Marco Rubio noted that the United States is the only country capable of bringing both sides to the negotiating table. Military and technical consultations have already begun, and Washington’s objective is to play a facilitating role in achieving an agreement as soon as possible. “This is an extremely destructive war that must be brought to an end as quickly as possible,” he stressed.

Viktor Orbán indicated that Hungary is prepared to host a peace summit in Budapest if necessary, and reaffirmed that the invitation to U.S. President Donald Trump to visit Hungary remains open.

The Prime Minister also announced that he will travel to Washington this week for the inaugural meeting of the newly established Board of Peace, where he will personally represent Hungary.

Kyiv Has Also Entered the Hungarian Election Campaign

In response to a journalist’s question, Viktor Orbán addressed the role of the Ukrainian leadership in Hungary’s election campaign. He stated that the Ukrainians and their president have clearly entered the Hungarian campaign. He added that such open intervention is not common, though understandable from the perspective that it is not irrelevant to Ukraine what kind of government Hungary will have.

The Prime Minister outlined two possibilities: one is the position of the patriotic government, which does not support Ukraine’s accession to the European Union and will not send money to finance the war; the other would be a government supported by Brussels and Kyiv that would accept Ukraine’s EU membership and assume a share of the war’s financial burdens.

“We must defeat them as well,” Viktor Orbán said, adding that Hungarian democracy is strong and that the election will be decided by the Hungarian people.

The Stakes of the April Elections: Peace or Drift Toward War

With less than two months remaining until Hungary’s parliamentary elections, Viktor Orbán addressed the stakes in his annual state-of-the-nation speech last weekend. He stated that this election is not simply about a change of government, but about whether Hungary will preserve its sovereign foreign policy or align itself with the war-oriented and Brussels-driven logic that now shapes much of Europe.

Viktor Orbán said that Brussels has decided it wants to defeat Russia on Ukrainian territory and is mobilizing massive financial and military resources to that end. The European Union has so far spent nearly €200 billion on the war, approved an additional €90 billion loan in December, and further demands amounting to hundreds of billions are on the table for operational costs and for Ukraine’s army.

In his assessment, much of Europe — with the exception of Hungary and Slovakia — is engaged in war preparations: conscription has been reintroduced in nine countries, in some cases extended to women; civil defense manuals are being distributed to households; military spending is rising; and agreements are being made regarding the deployment of troops to Ukraine.

In this context, he described the April election as “the last Hungarian decision before the war,” because, as he put it, the next government will have to take a position on the question of war or peace.

It was in this context that he spoke of the “Tisza–Brussels–big business coalition,” referring to powerful foreign-backed financial actors and oligarchic interests seeking leverage over Hungarian politics. He claimed that in Hungary, the foreign oil business, the banking sector, and the Brussels elite are preparing to form a government, and that if they succeed, “they will empty the pockets of Hungarian families.” As long as there is a national government, he said, Hungary will not send weapons, will not send Hungarian money to Ukraine, and will not allow young people to be drawn into the war.

He described energy policy as a key issue. He recalled that in 2025 he reached agreements with the American, Russian, and Turkish presidents to ensure that Hungary could continue purchasing oil and gas at affordable prices. “There will be oil and there will be gas. Paks II is being built,” he stated, adding that while other countries pay several times Hungary’s household energy prices, the national government has protected Hungarian families.

The conclusion of the speech was clear: 2026 must be the year of victory — for families, for the right, for Fidesz, and for Hungary. In Viktor Orbán’s interpretation, the April decision is not merely about political change, but about whether Hungary preserves its own path or joins the Brussels-led war mainstream.

Who Will Pay for Ukraine’s Reconstruction? – A Brussels Plan Under Scrutiny

The debate over financing the war is not a theoretical question. A recent study by the Hungarian Institute of International Affairs, Ukraine Prosperity Roadmap and the Road to Nowhere, examines a reconstruction plan for Ukraine circulating in Brussels worth approximately $800 billion, first reported by Politico.

The report’s conclusion is clear: the “Ukraine Prosperity Roadmap” is not an official EU strategy backed by institutional accountability, but a financial construction authored anonymously that would use European taxpayers’ money to reduce risk for private investors involved in Ukraine’s reconstruction. The scheme relies on non-repayable EU grants and “sub-market return” financial instruments, aiming to mobilize up to $500 billion in public and private capital—without detailed sectoral priorities, clear allocation criteria, or strict oversight mechanisms.

According to the study, the key question is not whether Ukraine requires reconstruction, but who assumes political responsibility for a structure of this magnitude built on public funds, and under what democratic mandate European taxpayers would be expected to bear the cost.

Hungary’s position is clear: Member States cannot become automatic financiers of a vague, anonymous “prosperity vision.” Commitments of this scale cannot be decided over the heads of national governments and citizens. Hungary stands firmly on the side of national sovereignty and the interests of the Hungarian people.

This is not a matter of opinion. This is a documented fact supported by meeting records and internal files. An official report released by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee provides clear evidence that, under the pretext of the Digital Services Act (DSA), the European Commission has deliberately built a digital censorship apparatus over the past several years — one that targets not criminal activity or violence, but lawful speech.

It has done so by exerting institutional pressure on social media platforms, particularly during election periods. Why? To suppress political content challenging the ideological priorities and the EU power structure in Brussels.

What kind of content are we talking about exactly?

Content that an unelected Brussels elite — constrained not by democratic fair play, but by its own ideology — considers “inconvenient” and threatening to its power.

The report also details how Brussels built this censorship machine. It developed a so-called “Borderline Content” handbook, drawing political boundary lines between what may still be said without undermining the narrative they seek to impose, and what must be buried by social media platforms in compliance with official expectations. Such content included:

· narratives labeled by them as “populist”

· EU-critical and elite-critical positions

· migration-critical views

· content critical of gender ideology

· political satire and memes.

The content targeted by these elite in the digital space is, after all, exactly the set of issues on which Hungary’s patriotic government has drawn a clear red line against Brussels for years — and in which it has consistently prevented them from interfering in Hungary’s sovereign national decisions.

· On migration, Hungary has refused to yield to pressure: the country spends €1 million per day in an EU-imposed fine, for the sake of protecting its external borders in order to preserve its cultural and demographic character. This is the price of refusing mass illegal migration and of not forcing Hungarian society to bear the security and social consequences that have become routine in Western Europe. Despite this, pressure from Brussels continues to intensify. · The EU’s Migration Pact, set to enter into force in this summer, uses the language of “solidarity” to prepare the institutionalization of a quota system and the further narrowing of national sovereignty — a framework against which Hungary continues to resist.

· The same applies to child protection. Hungary has drawn a clear legal boundary: in 2021, the patriotic government adopted a legislative package that prohibits the promotion of homosexuality and gender ideology to minors, thereby safeguarding parents’ primary right to raise their children. This policy was overwhelmingly reaffirmed by Hungarian voters in the 2022 child-protection referendum. Brussels responded not with political debate or respect for a sovereign national decision, but with legal and financial pressure. The EU launched infringement procedures, and Hungary was hauled before the Court of Justice of the European Union — · just as it was in the case of migration.

How does the censorship apparatus operate?

The key lies in reclassification. Criticism of mass migration, for example, was consistently labeled as “violent right-wing extremism.” Once an opinion receives this label, suppressing it no longer appears as a political decision, but as a legal necessity.

This is how the silencing of dissent becomes an administrative routine: instead of engaging with opposing arguments, they are simply banned.

The same mechanism was applied in the case of gender ideology. Statements grounded in biological reality and emphasizing the protection of children — such as that there are only two genders, that children cannot “change sex,” or that the sexualization of children must be stopped — were classified not as opinions, but as “hate speech” in the periods leading up to elections.

What yesterday represented the position of the social majority is today deemed “problematic content,” with no place in the public sphere they control.

This is no longer about sensitivity or inclusion, but about the imposition of norms — a process that excludes dissenting views from the democratic (digital) space.

The Last Obstacle: Why Brussels Wants a Government Change in Budapest

The report of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee also reveals that the election interference operations were by no means isolated incidents. The same method was applied in the Netherlands, Romania, Ireland, France, and Slovakia. To be clear: in the periods leading up to elections, the boundaries of the political playing field were secretly established through the “fine-tuning” of the digital public sphere. In total, this concerns eight (!) elections across six European countries.

There is no reason to believe that similar measures are not being imposed on Hungary ahead of its upcoming parliamentary elections.

Today, moreover, there is a single serious obstacle standing in the way of Brussels’ and Kyiv’s pro-war agenda: Budapest’s patriotic government. Ours is a government that rejects escalation, refuses to make Hungarian families pay the cost of war, and rejects a financing model based on new taxes and austerity measures.

For this reason, the objective is clear: a change of government in Budapest. Brussels doesn’t even try to hide it. Manfred Weber, the German president of the European People’s Party — the political force standing behind EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, to secure her power — is openly campaigning for Péter Magyar and the Tisza Party, the principal challengers to the patriotic governing parties, Fidesz–KDNP.

Their program is no secret either. The goal is to install a Brussels- and Ukraine-friendly government — one that does not debate issues, but imposes regulations, whether the people of a nation want it or not.

· It aligns on migration policy and opens the borders to mass migration in line with the European Commission’s expectations;

· it accepts the gender-ideological demands of the Brussels elite;

· it supports Ukraine’s accession to the European Union even against the will of the Hungarian people;

· and it participates in financing the war through tax increases and austerity measures.

Should a Péter Magyar government come to power, it would not serve as a counterweight to EU demands, but rather as Brussels’ enforcer.

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán put it plainly: today in the European Union, only one narrative about the Ukraine war is permitted to appear in the public sphere. A Brussels regulation explicitly suppresses alternative viewpoints. The question, therefore, is not who supports which position, but who believes they have the authority to decide what citizens are allowed to think and say. Europeans have the right to hear all arguments and draw their own conclusions. What we are witnessing is not regulation, but an Orwellian censorship regime masquerading as regulations to promote safety.

In this context, the role of globally-coordinated, Brussels-driven digital censorship becomes fully intelligible. This is not a mere bureaucratic issue, but a potent political weapon — deployed precisely where voters’ choices do not guarantee the outcome desired by the European elite.

By distorting the public sphere and rendering debates invisible, they seek to produce results that they cannot secure through political competition.

Hungary’s parliamentary elections, however, are not a Brussels project.

They will not be decided by foreign-directed campaigns, by algorithms, or by political pressure from abroad.

The right to decide belongs to the Hungarian people.

And we will not give up that right.

So far, Europe has provided approximately €195 billion to Ukraine, and last December 24, Member States also agreed on an additional €90 billion package of war-related loans, again through joint borrowing—an arrangement from which, after considerable effort, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary ultimately managed to remain outside. This now comes on top of the European Commission’s newly disclosed $800 billion reconstruction package, while the Ukrainian government has also put forward a further military financing request of approximately $700 billion. According to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, this is a clear sign of ‘European commitment and solidarity’.

“We are talking about $1.5 trillion in total,” Prime Minister Viktor Orbán emphasized last weekend at an anti-war rally held in Kaposvár, in southern Hungary. As he put it, this is a level of debt that “ would be paid not only by our grandchildren, but even by our great-grandchildren.” Based on the figures, one conclusion is clear: this represents a long-term, open-ended financial commitment that would fundamentally shape Europe’s future.

The Commission document also treats Ukraine’s accelerated European integration as a natural corollary. As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently stated, “we want the 27th year. We are talking about a specific date when Ukraine will be ready. That is, technically, Ukraine will be ready in the first half of 2026 to open all clusters.” EU accession in 2027 thus appears not as a distant prospect, but as a realistic political objective—despite the fact that there is no consensus among EU Member States on this issue. Indeed, the reality is that Hungary is the only EU country that has asked its own citizens about this question through a nationwide consultation. The response was unambiguous: 95 percent of Hungarians rejected Ukraine’s EU accession and said no to Brussels’ pro-war, reckless policies.

In other words, reconstruction, war financing, and EU accession are merging into a single political and financial package. The consequence is not only mounting debt, but also Europe’s increasingly deep involvement in the war.

Moreover, all of this is being presented as a “Ukrainian prosperity plan,” while the prosperity of European citizens is conspicuously ignored. This affects those who are paying ever higher prices for energy, food, and everyday necessities—citizens who are urged to show solidarity while their own security and future are continuously pushed further down the list of political priorities.

A Clear Message to Brussels: Hungary’s National Petition

For Hungary, the European Commission’s proposed financing package would have tangible consequences. Based on the EU’s allocation principles, Hungary’s share would amount to approximately $16.1 billion, translating into an average burden of around $4,300 per household over the coming years. This is not a political claim, but a financial calculation: a commitment that would significantly constrain the country’s room for maneuver for a long time to come.

According to Viktor Orbán, if Europe continues down this path, Hungary too could be drawn into a military and financial spiral. The Prime Minister warned of this at the anti-war rally in Kaposvár, stressing that the decisions being taken now are not only about the present, but about the future of the next generations. It is in this context that the stakes of the 2026 parliamentary elections become clear: whether Hungary can maintain its policy of staying out, or whether it will be pulled into a system of debt and risk spanning generations.

This is why the patriotic Hungarian government has launched a national petition. The objective is to send a clear political message to Brussels: we will not pay. The petition allows citizens to take a clear position on three questions:

· We will not pay for the financing of the Russia–Ukraine war.

· We will not pay to keep Ukraine running over the next ten years.

· We will not pay higher utility bills as a consequence of the war.

Europe’s future does not lie in unlimited indebtedness and the financing of war. As long as Hungary has a national, patriotic government, Hungarian taxpayers’ money will not be used to fund someone else’s war, nor to build new “golden toilets” in Kyiv. That is why we launched the national petition: to allow Hungarians to send an unmistakable message to Brussels.

Peace as a Strategic Interest – Hungary’s Role in the New Board of Peace

Last week in Davos, an international Board of Peace was established at the initiative of U.S. President Donald Trump, with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán also signing its founding charter. By doing so, Hungary became one of the first countries to join a new format whose declared objective is the prevention and de-escalation of conflicts, as well as the promotion of sustainable peace. The timing of the initiative could hardly be more relevant. The world is in turmoil; we are living in an age of growing dangers. In this context, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán stated that the existing international institutions have failed, which is why there are so many dangerous situations and so many war-torn regions.

The war processes of recent years—from Ukraine to the Middle East—have made it clear that the current international institutional system is, in many cases, incapable of offering meaningful solutions. At best, it attempts to manage the consequences of crises through bureaucratic means. According to Viktor Orbán’s assessment, this is precisely why an increasing number of dangerous situations and persistently unstable regions are emerging around the world. “If we continue like this, there will be more and more wars. That is why we need to stop doing what we have been doing so far and create new institutions,” Orbán said.

Behind Hungary’s peace policy lies a clear foreign policy logic. Our country has learned that the existence and survival of a nation are never self-evident, especially when it operates continuously in the orbit of great powers. This experience gave rise to the connectivity-based strategy, under which Hungary maintains relations with every major center of power and shapes its foreign policy in a way that makes the great powers themselves interested in Hungary’s success. In connection with the Board of Peace, Viktor Orbán emphasized that Hungary participates in such initiatives because development requires predictability and security.

This approach fits into a connectivity-based foreign policy that does not think in terms of blocs, but rather focuses on maintaining connections and preserving room for maneuver. According to Viktor Orbán, if we want fewer wars and greater security, new institutions are needed, along with political initiatives such as the one launched by Donald Trump with the Board of Peace. In this sense, the establishment of the body is not a formal diplomatic act, but the consequence of a recognition that the current international mode of operation does not lead to peace.

The Board of Peace represents an attempt to create an organized political alternative to the logic of war, with the aim of achieving peace as soon as possible. As Viktor Orbán put it: if we want a world with fewer wars and more security, we need the American president and new institutions—and with the establishment of the Board Peace, a step has been taken in this direction.

The EU’s Failure on Illegal Migration and the Need for Legal Change

A new study titled Take Back Control From Brussels – The Renationalization of the EU Migration and Asylum Policieshas been published as a joint initiative of the European Studies Workshop of the Mathias Corvinus Collegium, the Migration Research Institute, and the Polish Ordo Iuris Institute, highlighting close cooperation between Hungarian and Polish research institutions. The report examines why the European Union’s migration and asylum system has failed and identifies the legal and institutional flaws that have made this failure structural. It highlights judicial activism, constraints imposed by international law, the dysfunction of deportation systems, and the collapse of quota mechanisms, while outlining a clear alternative: the return of competences to the Member States, the restoration of sovereignty, and stronger democratic accountability.

At the presentation of the study, I emphasized that over the past decade the European Union has failed to stop illegal migration. Between 2015 and 2025, nearly ten million illegal migrants entered the EU — roughly one million per year. This is not a technical failure, but a political one.

Brussels does not treat migration as a national security threat, but as a phenomenon to be managed. Those countries that have successfully defended their borders did so not with EU support, but despite it. Hungary is a clear example: through a legal and physical border protection system, it reduced illegal migration to ZERO. Yet EU institutions impose a daily one-million-euro penalty on Hungary — a price paid for protecting our borders.

The core problem lies in the current international legal framework. The Geneva Convention and the broader system of humanitarian law were created in a different historical context and are no longer fit to address mass illegal migration. Instead of deterring it, the system incentivizes it by signaling that illegal entry followed by an asylum claim is the most effective path into the EU, while deportation remains unlikely.

As a result, pressure on Europe’s borders continues to grow, while the internal security consequences of mass migration are becoming increasingly visible. Parallel societies, rising national security risks, and near–civil war conditions in major Western European cities are no longer exceptional. These developments inevitably affect Central Europe as well, including Hungary.

At the same time, in the leading power of the Western world, an immigration-critical government is now in office. Under President Donald Trump, the United States is serious about border protection, deportations, and addressing the root causes of illegal migration. This creates an opportunity for a transatlantic legal alliance willing to fundamentally reform — and replace — the current migration-promoting international legal order.

Trusting that the patriotic forces will win the parliamentary elections scheduled for April, and building on this fresh mandate and on the international community taking shape through conferences such as this and similar events, the groundwork can be laid for joint action to transform international law and European law, removing all pro-migration elements from them. This is the task and direction of the period ahead.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen made this unambiguous: “We will support their fight for survival for as long as it takes. Because Ukraine’s security is our security.” According to European Council President Antonio Costa, “Ukraine must be supported for as long as necessary,” while the other German, Manfred Weber, who leads Ursula von der Leyen’s political stronghold, the European People’s Party, put it this way: “We will do what is necessary… whatever it takes.” The statements convey the same message: there is no upper limit to Ukraine’s financial support.

The problem, however, is that the European Union has none of its own money. The Brussels institutions do not generate resources, and the member states do not possess inexhaustible reserves. If the financing of the war is unlimited, then the bill is inevitably paid by European citizens. Thus, while the Americans, by decision of President Donald Trump, have closed the door on further financing of Ukraine, Europe is not slowing down, but accelerating.

A recent report also reveals how Brussels intends to generate the money to finance Ukraine: the EU elite expects tax increases and austerity measures from Hungary and other European member states to make the financing of Ukraine sustainable. The logic is simple: while there is no upper limit on war-related expenditures, ever more resources are being withdrawn from families, workers, pensioners and businesses.

Moreover, even European decision-makers themselves cannot say precisely how great a burden they intend to place on the shoulders of their own voters. Ukraine has submitted a financing request of 800 billion dollars for the next ten years. This is four times the amount that was previously expected to be raised from the confiscation of Russian assets. This is only the “overhead”, the amount sufficient to cover the expenditures strictly necessary to keep the state running; it does not include war expenditures, nor does it cover the full costs of reconstruction. The Ukrainian side has therefore already put a bill on the table that would represent an order-of-magnitude increase compared to the current level of financing.

The upward spiral of costs is also confirmed by international estimates. According to the joint Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment report by the World Bank, the United Nations, the European Commission and the Ukrainian government, the cost of rebuilding Ukraine has risen to 524 billion dollars, nearly three times the country’s annual economic output. This figure has increased significantly compared to earlier estimates, like a bottomless well, the hole continues to deepen. Europe is therefore sawing off the branch it is sitting on with its current war strategy: the amounts to be spent on supporting Ukraine are continuously increasing and, as a result, European leaders are undertaking financial commitments that divert resources away from other areas that underpin Europe’s competitiveness and the well-being of European citizens.

This is the logic Hungary’s patriotic government rejects. Hungary will not subordinate its economy and society to a permanent war-financing model, nor sacrifice the security of families, pensioners, and businesses to Brussels-driven decisions. Hungary’s position is clear: to resist policies that weaken Europe and to defend those that protect the lives and future of its people.

The Numbers Behind Brussels’ War Financing Model

The report “EU Financing of Ukraine and Brussels’ Demands Affecting Hungary”, published by the Ministry for European Affairs (the full report is available here), provides a clear picture of how this system—designed by the Brussels elite—operates. Since February 2022, the European Union and its member states have disbursed €193.3 billion to Ukraine in military, financial, humanitarian, and refugee-related support.

By comparison, Hungary received a net €73 billion in EU funding between 2004 and 2024. The contrast is stark: in just three years, Ukraine has received nearly three times as much funding as Hungary has over two decades as an EU member state.

According to the report, a European Council decision of 18–19 December 2025 commits the EU to provide an additional €90 billion in loans to Ukraine for 2026–2027, raised on international financial markets. This is not “free money,” but debt: the EU borrows today, and European citizens repay it tomorrow—with interest. This war loan is, moreover, intended to secure Ukraine’s operational viability only for the next two years, not to finance the full, decade-long reconstruction programme. In any case, the European Commission’s proposal is being considered under an accelerated procedure by the European Parliament meeting in Strasbourg this week, and will most likely be approved in line with the Commission’s wishes.

The report also notes that the non-military portion of this support would be channelled through a macro-financial instrument requiring only a qualified majority, effectively bypassing member-state veto rights guaranteed under the EU treaties. Once Brussels commits to debt-based financing, decisions are structured—and EU law interpreted—to prevent national opposition from blocking them.

The next stage goes further still. Under the 2028–2034 EU budget proposal, there would be no temporal or financial limits on loans granted to Ukraine—an open-ended commitment. Funding would come from cuts of at least 20% to cohesion and agricultural funds. In other words, while no ceiling is placed on war spending, development and agricultural resources for member states are immediately targeted. Under this framework, Ukraine could become one of the primary beneficiaries of the next EU financial cycle.

The mechanism is clear: financing Ukraine → joint borrowing and resource reallocation → fewer funds for member states → pressure on national budgets → austerity and tax increases.

For Hungary, the report shows that a Brussels-aligned government approving such a plan would face a GNI-based contribution of 1.16%, amounting to $9.29 billion (approx. €8.5 billion)—around €870 per person, or more than €3,500 per household. These are not theoretical figures, but concrete calculations set out in the report.

Why Brussels’ War Financing Agenda Has Become a Central Issue in Hungary’s Election

The financing pressure exerted by the Brussels elite in Hungary converges with the wishlist of the opposition to the patriotic government. This alignment is not accidental: the political orientation of Péter Magyar and the Tisza Party follows the Brussels mainstream. The Tisza Party is affiliated with the European People’s Party, whose direction is shaped by Ursula von der Leyen and Manfred Weber, and which has consistently supported the unlimited financing of Ukraine. As a result, one of the central stakes of the April 12 parliamentary elections is whether Hungary maintains its resistance to Brussels-driven decisions or adopts this financing agenda.

By contrast, the position of Hungary’s patriotic government is clear. The Fidesz-KDNP does not support

· the unlimited financial and military financing of Ukraine,

· the further escalation of sanctions policy,

· or the idea that the cost of a prolonged war should be borne by the Hungarian people.

Despite this, the European Commission continues to intensify pressure on Hungary to secure resources through tax increases and austerity, measures that would directly affect everyday life. These include the dismantling of housing support schemes, higher property taxes, the reduction or abolition of annual pension bonuses, the introduction of progressive income taxation, cuts to family tax allowances, the abolition of regulated household energy prices, the termination of youth worker loan programmes, and reduced support for domestic SMEs—while urging the removal of special taxes on multinational corporations.

These expectations are articulated through the recommendations and country reports issued within the framework of the European Semester, which are prepared by the European Commission for all member states. They clearly indicate that further financing of Ukraine would, across Europe, require a narrowing of national budgetary room for manoeuvre and an increased burden on European citizens. Hungary rejects this approach and does not accept that the financial costs of the war should be shifted onto European families.

The report concludes with a clear warning: if Hungary were governed after the April elections by a government aligned with the Brussels elite, these demands would be implemented—bringing tax hikes, austerity measures, and the redirection of national resources toward financing Ukraine and the war.

The European Elite’s War Policies and Hungary’s National Interest

War is close and knocking at Europe’s door, but Hungary must use all its strength to stay out of it, Viktor Orbán said at an anti-war rally in Miskolc, eastern Hungary, barely 200 kilometres from the Ukrainian border. The war, he stressed, is not distant but taking place in a neighbouring country, making the threat immediate.

According to the Hungarian Prime Minister, European leaders are openly discussing how Russia could be defeated, forced to pay reparations, and made to repay the money sent to Ukraine. These choices are already shaping Europe’s priorities: massive funds are transferred to Ukraine, weapons are purchased, and military preparations are underway across Western Europe.

Viktor Orbán warned that wars do not begin as world wars but escalate step by step. Europe has already committed €193 billion to Ukraine and is preparing an additional €90 billion, pushing total support close to €280 billion. On top of this, Ukraine has requested €800 billion over ten years simply to keep the country functioning—what Orbán described as the cost of maintaining Ukraine, excluding weapons and security spending.

Europe, however, has no money of its own. It is borrowing from banks and passing on loans that will never be repaid, while interest is collected and the real economy weakens. At the same time, the human cost continues to rise: around 9,000 people are killed or permanently injured every week. Financing the war for two more years would mean accepting hundreds of thousands more victims.

From Hungary’s perspective, the only morally correct and nationally responsible position is peace. Hungary must not be dragged into the war, emphasized Viktor Orbán.

With fewer than 80 days remaining until Hungary’s parliamentary elections, this choice is becoming unavoidable. The national government is determined to keep the country out of the conflict and rejects a war-financing model driven by the Brussels elite and its Hungarian proxies.

This is why the government has launched a national petition on Brussels’ war-financing plans, giving Hungarians a direct voice on an issue that affects their security, livelihoods, and future. Hungary’s position remains unchanged: protecting families, preserving national decision-making, and standing firmly on the side of peace come first. Staying out of the war requires experience and firm decisions—this is why, Viktor Orbán concluded, the Fidesz–KDNP alliance represents the safe choice for Hungary.

Viktor Orbán recalled that Fidesz has secured four consecutive two-thirds parliamentary majorities, won every local election for two decades, and prevailed in every European parliamentary election since Hungary’s EU accession. As he stated, rather than following the principle of “never change a winning team,” he believes a political community must be continuously renewed — because, in his words, there is only one thing better than Fidesz: a better Fidesz.

Why Brussels Wants a Government Change in Hungary

The Hungarian PM also explained why Brussels is determined to replace patriots with a puppet government in Hungary.

As he put it: Brussels has decided. European leaders have decided. They are going to war.
According to Viktor Orbán, the EU elite wants to wage war without having the money to do so. The EU has already spent €180 billion and is now preparing an additional €90 billion in war loans for Ukraine. Everyone knows this money will never be repaid. That brings the total to €270 billion.

Orbán argued that this money can only be recovered if Russia is defeated and forced to pay war reparations. Victory, or an ocean of wasted money. And much of this money was borrowed in the first place. If it cannot be recovered through reparations, it will be taken from Europe’s own economies — meaning today’s leaders are spending the future of Europe’s youth.

Meanwhile, Ukraine has submitted another €800 billion funding request for the next ten years, excluding security and war-related costs, which would come on top. Brussels has issued its order: Hungary must also join the European war economy. The demands made of Hungary have been put in writing.

This, Orbán said, is why Brussels wants a change of government. A patriotic government refuses to implement a war economy and the painful austerity measures already visible across Western Europe.

By contrast, the main opposition force, the Tisza Party — affiliated with Ursula von der Leyen’s political stronghold, the European People’s Party, led by the other German, Manfred Weber, would carry out Brussels’ decisions without hesitation. What their political superiors decide in Brussels, they would execute in Hungary.

Irreversible Decisions: War, Migration, and the Struggle Over Europe’s Civilizational Future

Speaking about war, migration, and the gender agenda together, Orbán said that although these issues may seem different, they share a decisive feature: once a wrong choice is made, it cannot be reversed. There is no way back to the point before the mistake.

Migration, he said, is not a theory but a lived experience. Across Western Europe, the consequences are visible. Once countries opened their borders and surrendered to mass migration, they were unable to restore the pre-migration reality — even when voters later elected right-wing, anti-migration governments. The damage had already been done.

Orbán stated that Brussels is relentlessly implementing its plan to turn every non-resisting country into a migration destination. The Brussels bureaucracy does not seek to stop migration, only to manage and distribute it. In his words, Brussels has become an adversary of Europe’s Christian civilization.

He referenced the U.S. national security strategy, claiming that Europe is losing its civilizational roots, but added a correction: Western Europe is not losing its Christian civilization — it is abandoning and replacing it. Yet Europe’s peoples have not lost their faith, their love of country, or their instinct to protect their children. From the liberal elite’s perspective, this makes ordinary Europeans “unreformable.”

According to Orbán, the European liberal elite uses Brussels’ bureaucratic institutions, EU law, and judges in Luxembourg to suppress countries that resist. I spoke about this issue on The Winston Marshall Show as well. I explained that when Brussels seeks to impose decisions through ideological pressure, financial leverage, and legal instruments, this is not cooperation but political coercion. The war in Ukraine is the most severe consequence of this logic: a failed strategy that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, weakened Europe economically, and continues to carry the risk of escalation. Hungary’s position is clear: for us, victory cannot be defined by prolonging or escalating the war, but by stopping the killing and bringing the conflict to an end.

Viktor Orbán argued that this very mechanism of political and legal pressure is what resulted in Hungary being fined €1 million per day. Brussels believed the daily €1 million fine was an amount Hungary could not afford. They were mistaken. Hungary calculated that paying this fine to preserve its Christian civilization is a far smaller cost than the financial burden of becoming a migration country. He also stated that Hungary will recover the money paid in fines.

As a new maneuver, Brussels has now introduced the migration pact, demanding that Hungary build camps for tens of thousands of migrants and immediately take in migrants admitted by Western European states. The Hungarian left-wing opposition supports the pact and repeatedly votes for its accelerated implementation in the European Parliament.

Orbán concluded that one of the election’s central questions is whether Hungary submits to Brussels and becomes a migration country — or continues to resist and repel every Brussels-driven migration initiative, whether backed by the Hungarian left. His message was clear: the resistance must continue.

Orbán concluded that 2026 will be a choice of destiny: peace or war, national sovereignty or submission to Brussels. He made clear that Hungary’s patriotic government cannot be replaced from Brussels, and that Hungarians do not trust foreign-backed proxy candidates.

Meeting the Generation Looking Toward the Future

Over the weekend, I visited the Educatio exhibition, Hungary’s largest annual education event and a central forum for higher education, vocational training, and career planning, where I stopped by the stands of the Mathias Corvinus Collegium and the National University of Public Service. Mathias Corvinus Collegium is a talent development institution that complements university studies by providing outstanding students with additional knowledge, a strong intellectual community, and international perspectives, while the National University of Public Service prepares those who wish to pursue long-term, responsible careers in public service, whether in public administration, law enforcement, or diplomacy. It was a genuine pleasure to meet motivated, forward-looking young people who are already planning their future with seriousness and responsibility.

At his year-opening international press conference, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán made it clear which four key issues will define Hungarian politics through 2026.

1. War or peace?

According to the Prime Minister, the most important question facing Europe in 2026 is the choice between war and peace. He defined the Hungarian government’s task as keeping Hungary away from the dangers of war. Referring to the EU summit last December, he stressed that decisions were taken in Brussels to move toward war. The most vocal advocate of this course is Manfred Weber, President of the European People’s Party. It is no exaggeration to say that the 2026 Hungarian election may be the last election before war. The government elected in 2026 will decide the question of war or peace for Hungary, he stated.

Viktor Orbán also noted that 2026 will be marked by the rise of social movements across Western Europe opposing the pro-war elite. Beyond Hungary, only a few countries currently propose a fundamentally different strategy for the EU — one that rejects the logic of a war economy, war loans, and permanent militarisation. Instead, they advocate peace, stability, peace agreements, and a peace economy, he said. “Recently, there were three of us — and there will be more,” he added.

He also pointed out that, according to Ukrainian government statements, excluding military and security spending, Ukraine is requesting €800 billion over the next ten years, at a time when the European economy is already in decline. Whoever pays this bill will ruin their own people, the Prime Minister warned, adding: “People do not usually allow themselves to be ruined.”

2. The second key issue is energy.

Viktor Orbán stressed that national sovereignty is increasingly dependent on energy supply, which has also become one of the most critical issues of technological development. Those countries that are able to provide affordable energy for emerging industries, such as artificial intelligence, will be the winners of the new era, he said. Hungary’s task, he added, is to ensure strong supply chains, stable infrastructure, and robust national energy companies. He stated that Hungary’s energy supply and energy security are guaranteed, that energy independence is secured, and that the country is capable of producing the energy required to build new capacities. Achieving this, he noted, required a change in Hungary’s previous energy policy and the expansion of Hungarian companies’ presence across multiple regions of the world.

At the same time, he emphasized that certain EU regulations affecting the gas and oil sectors are damaging to Hungary. Hungary is defending itself against these measures through legal means, both because they constitute an abuse of legal authority and because the EU treaties assign energy policy to national competence. In parallel, Hungary is also working politically and indirectly against Brussels’ energy regulations, by seeking to help bring the war to an end by 2027. This would allow energy sanctions against Russia to be lifted. He pointed out that current Brussels price regulations increase energy prices in Europe by 20 percent, while the next round of regulations would lead to even greater price increases.

3. The third major issue is migration.

The implementation of the Brussels migration pact is unacceptable for Hungary. Under the pact adopted by Brussels, Hungary would be required from June onward to process 23,000 applications within a single year. This would only be possible if a migrant camp with a capacity of 10,000 people were established. The Hungarian government’s position remains unchanged: Hungary will not accept a single migrant, will not build refugee camps, will not alter its border protection regime, will not become a country of immigration, and will not accept Brussels dictating with whom Hungarians must live.

Viktor Orbán thanked God that Hungary kept its borders secure and refused migrants during the 2015 crisis. Today, he said, it is entirely clear that “we backed the winning side.” As he put it, many Western European countries would give half an arm to become migration-free.

The PM called it unprecedented that Hungary has been ordered to pay one million euros per day for refusing to admit migrants. He added, however, that Hungary is better off not admitting migrants, and not assuming the financial, social, and societal burdens that come with them.

In conclusion, he said he expects that over the next 10–15 years there will be significant demand for people from Western Europe — “not migrants, but native Europeans, making use of freedom of movement” — to work and live in Hungary. This, he said, will contribute to helping Hungary address its own demographic challenges, adding: “We will not have migrants, but Germans, French, and Italians.” His point was that fellow Europeans can far more easily integrate into Hungarian life than people from outside of Europe.

4. The fourth issue is Hungary’s path to development.

Hungary’s goal remains achieving economic growth and rising living standards, even as much of Europe is forced into austerity. To do this, Hungary must carefully shepherd its own financial resources. Therefore, Hungary will not participate in financing Ukraine, whether through war loans or financial aid. “We will mobilise the economic resources available to us in the interest of Hungarians,” Orbán emphasised.

He continued by stating that Hungary will not accept Brussels’ decisions aimed at shifting Member States’ economies toward a general European war economy. Transitioning to a war economy, he said, serves neither the cause of peace nor the economic interests of Member States.

Hungary will stay out of the war economy and instead build a “peace economy” that enables development. This, he said, is the Hungarian path — in contrast to Brussels’ war-driven approach.

Viktor Orbán concluded by noting that because Hungary is building a peace economy, measures have entered into force as of 1 January that would be unimaginable in much of Western Europe:

· Family tax allowances are being doubled: the more children a Hungarian family has, the greater the tax benefit for parents;

· Full personal income tax exemption from January for mothers under 30 with one child and mothers under 40 with two children; three-or-more-child mothers already exempt

· The minimum wage has been increased by 11 percent,

· A corporate tax reduction of approximately €230 million is being implemented to enhance competitiveness, encourage investment, and support economic growth;

· A 14th-month pension has been introduced, effectively adding two extra monthly payments to annual pensions for retired workers;

· Fixed-interest housing support loans are being continued to support first-time homebuyers,

· Uniformed service members receive a six-month salary bonus in recognition of their service and efforts to safeguard peace.

Hungary will continue to pursue a policy of peace, sovereignty, and development in this new era as well.

What to Expect in Hungary’s 2026 Parliamentary Elections

Responding to journalists’ questions, the Prime Minister also assessed the situation surrounding Hungary’s upcoming parliamentary elections.

· He stressed that in the 2026 parliamentary elections Hungary will have to choose between the Brussels path and the Hungarian path. The options facing the country are clear: either it follows the Brussels path, which leads to war and economic austerity, or it follows the Hungarian path, which offers peace and opportunities for development — enabling a stronger country, a stronger economy, and a better life for Hungarians.

· The Prime Minister said that, in his view, the EU leadership elite has strong interest in a change of government in Hungary. Brussels does not even hide this, he added, noting that he was told “quite bluntly” to “step aside, because new people are now needed — people who will pursue a Brussels-aligned policy instead of a sovereigntist one.” He stressed that this election is of particular importance to Brussels because Hungary demonstrates in practice that there is a clear and workable alternative to the pro-war strategy promoted by the Brussels elite.

· Viktor Orbán said he sees a situation similar to that of 2022, when parliamentary elections were last held. Everything is exactly the same as it was then — an opposition alliance, even if it has now been recalibrated, with the same people, advisers, experts, and economists. “We have to fight the same battle,” he said, “only the stakes are higher, because now there is a war.” He added that the only significant difference between 2022 and the current situation is that the war has since become a defining part of political reality, raising the stakes, and that Brussels-alignment has been expanded with openly pro-Ukraine and pro-war positions.

On the U.S.

The liberal world order has come to an end — the election of Donald Trump delivered the final blow, said Viktor Orbán.

In a previous interview, the PM had stated that in contrast to the Biden years, Hungarian–American relations are experiencing a golden age, with excellent cooperation between the two countries, including at the highest levels of political engagement. There is full alignment between the two governments on the issues of peace and war, the protection of family values, and migration. “This is a comradely relationship, where the American president represents the interests of the American people, and I represent the interests of the Hungarian people,” he said.

He also recalled that since Donald Trump took office, 13 major U.S. investments have come to Hungary — a “remarkable achievement” at a time when Americans are increasingly bringing companies back home. Further significant investments are expected this year as well. All of this shows that there is life beyond Brussels, he added.

On Venezuela

The Venezuelan military operation will have consequences beyond the country itself, Orbán said. Treating it as an isolated event with no impact on global politics would be naïve. Similar developments may emerge elsewhere.

Viktor Orbán said Hungary assumes that the United States may be able to reintegrate Venezuela’s oil resources into global trade. This could increase supply and lower energy prices, in line with U.S. industrial policy interests, and could also be beneficial for Hungary. He added that Donald Trump may be right in arguing that future global power positions will be shaped by control over natural resources. At the same time, he considers it premature to draw moral conclusions or give a final interpretation of the new world order. The postwar liberal world order has ended, but the new era — the Age of Nations — is still taking shape.

The PM stressed that Hungary is not making predictions, but seeking to understand these processes and their impact on our home country. He expressed hope that the United States will succeed in mobilising Venezuela’s resources, establish democratic conditions, and bring an end to narco-state governance. He also recalled that Hungary has taken in several hundred Hungarian-origin families who fled Venezuela and welcomed the changes now underway there, adding that Venezuela has a strong future ahead.

Explaining why Hungary chose not to be part of a joint EU position on Venezuela, Viktor Orbán recalled that under the EU treaties, foreign policy remains a matter of national competence. Coordination is useful, he said, but a common foreign policy is neither necessary nor possible, as there is no agreement — not on Venezuela, nor on Ukraine, nor on the Middle East. Trade policy, he noted, is the only area on which Brussels speaks with authority, under EU rules.

On China

Hungary sees China not as a threat, but as an opportunity, according to the Prime Minister. Hungary consistently pursues cooperation with China — this is not a new direction, but a long-standing practice of Hungarian foreign policy that the government continues. As Viktor Orbán said, within China’s foreign policy classification, Hungary belongs to the so-called “all-weather” category – meaning that the partnership is maintained under all circumstances. This is an exceptional achievement that clearly serves Hungary’s interests.

Viktor Orbán also noted that this cooperative approach toward China is not the majority position within the European Union. Some seek to restrict relations on ideological grounds and label China a “systemic rival.” He considers this approach misguided. In his view, the modern world is not defined by a clash of systems: culture matters more than politics. China is China, Europe is Europe, and America is America — each has a system of governance rooted in its own cultural foundations.

The PM stressed that Hungary does not seek to judge or copy the way others live, but to follow a path that suits the Hungarian people.

Hungary’s Place in a Changing Global Order

Viktor Orbán also said that, in line with the philosophy of connectivity, Hungary should maintain the best, closest, and most constructive relations possible with all major economic blocs of the world.

This applies to the United States, China, Russia, the Arab world, and the Turkic world alike, he stated. He added that, as a member of the European Union, meaningful politics in Brussels is only possible if countries remain sovereign; therefore, Hungary does not wish to take part in any form of federal arrangement, insisting on the rights granted to it under the EU’s founding treaties.

Orbán Viktor emphasized that Hungary envisions its future within the European Union, under the protective umbrella of NATO, while pursuing a sovereign foreign policy and a sovereign economic policy — and that this is both feasible and necessary.

What emerges from Viktor Orbán’s year-opening international press conference is a clear strategic position: in an era of war, instability, and global realignment, Hungary is choosing peace, sovereignty, and development. The Hungarian path is built on connectivity — maintaining open channels with all major powers while preserving national independence. This is how Hungary intends to secure stability and opportunity in 2026.

Why did Hungary choose this path a decade ago? Because we recognized—earlier than anyone else in Europe—that mass migration was no longer a humanitarian challenge, but a growing civilizational threat. Western Europe’s experience has shown that a single mistake is enough. As Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán warned at the time: once illegal migrants from fundamentally different cultures settle in a country, the clock cannot be turned back, and life is never the same again.

The effects of this are especially evident now, during the Christmas period: Western European cities are trying to protect Christmas markets with cordons, concrete barriers, and armed security, which —highlighting the failure of integration attempts— have become regular targets of a radical Muslim population that has proven incapable of assimilation. In Hungary, by contrast, we can enjoy the festive season without extraordinary security measures, without disruption.

This difference is not accidental, but the result of a conscious decision: the outcome of strict border protection and a ZERO-MIGRANTS policy combined with a unique pro-family approach built around Hungarian families.

We, too, had our own direct experience. Ten years ago in Röszke—one of the busiest southern crossing points on the Hungarian–Serbian border—several thousand illegal migrants gathered with the clear intention of breaking through the border. Within just a few days, hundreds of thousands—overwhelmingly young men in their physical prime—passed through the country, leaving behind filth, disorder, and frightened Hungarian families. They attacked Hungarian police officers with stones, sticks, and burning torches, while law enforcement attempted to repel the assault with water cannons at our southern border. The scene was dramatic, but the realization even more so: one of the most serious civilizational challenges of the 21st century was pounding on Europe’s borders with full force and determination.

Ten years later, this same truth is treated as an axiom in the President Donald Trump administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS):“The era of mass migration must end. Border security is the primary element of national security. We must protect our country from invasion, not just from unchecked migration but from cross-border threats such as terrorism, drugs, espionage, and human trafficking.”

For us here in Hungary, it became clear ten years ago at the Hungarian–Serbian border that migration is not an abstract social theory, but a flesh-and-blood reality capable of undermining a country’s public order and sovereignty. This recognition led to the Orbán government’s decision in 2015 to close Hungary’s southern border—first among EU member states—thereby also protecting the European Union’s Schengen border. The message was clear: national sovereignty begins with a nation’s right to decide who may enter its territory.

At the time, almost everyone else was chanting the slogans of “openness” and the Willkommenskultur promoted by then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel, while Brussels and Western capitals fiercely attacked Hungary’s position—as they continue to do today. That is why, through the ideologically driven European Court of Justice, Brussels imposed on Hungary a one-time fine of €200 million and an additional coercive penalty of €1 million per day.

Paying for Safety: A Diagnosis of the EU’s Migration Policy

The absurdity of the situation—and at the same time the clearest diagnosis of the European Union under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission—is that, even under these circumstances, it is still more rational for the Hungarian government to pay a fine imposed by the Brussels elite in an anti-democratic and unlawful manner for Hungary’s border protection in order to keep the country MIGRANTS-FREE, than to force Hungarian citizens to live in fear. In today’s political environment, security comes at a price of €1 million per day—more precisely, the price of protecting Hungarian families from the dangers that have become routine in Western Europe over the past decade: stabbings, street attacks, terrorist acts, and sexual violence.

Hungary has therefore often found itself in the spotlight recently, because many simply find it hard to believe that we are indeed required to pay €1 million every single day for refusing to admit migrants. When I speak about this fine—often with indignation—to American or Western European acquaintances, they usually just shake their heads with bitter humor and say, “It’s worth it. It would cost far more if you didn’t protect your borders and let migrants in.” They speak from experience: they already know the real price of mass migration. And they are right. The daily €1 million fine pales in comparison to the social and security crises caused by failed integration efforts—crises that many Western countries can no longer reverse. It is a great deal of money, but every eurocent is an investment in Hungary’s future.

Brussels, however, has now raised the stakes once again. The so-called “solidarity fund” of the EU’s Pact on Migration and Asylum has been adopted. Although it is being presented to the public as a measure intended to “curb” migration, in reality, this solution—referred to in Brussels’ newspeak as a “solidarity fund”—amounts to the legal codification of the quota system that has been pushed since 2015, based on a flawed policy and an ideologically charged interpretation of the law. The pact adopted in 2024, together with the solidarity fund approved this November as part of it, will enter into force on 12 June 2026. Within this framework, as early as next year, 21,000 migrants are to be relocated within the European Union.

1. The most important element of the migration pact is distribution based on quotas. Every EU Member State is being forced either to take in migrants from other EU countries that have so far been unable or unwilling to protect their borders, or to pay unrealistically high sums for each migrant they refuse to accept. It is as if Washington were to tell the American states that, because of the migratory pressure weighing on the southern states due to the Mexican border, the rest of the country has only two options:

A. either take in migrants arriving at the southern states’ borders,

B. or pay a “solidarity contribution”

— otherwise, they would be accused of violating shared values.

Is this not absurd? Instead of stopping mass illegal migration at the border—or even deterring attempts through strong and coordinated border protection—Brussels leaders are now celebrating the construction of a system in which countries that actually defend the Schengen external borders are punished, while those that in recent years have simply been unwilling or unable to control their own borders are “relieved of the burden.” As Ursula von der Leyen recently put it: “we must open more safe and legal pathways to Europe.”

2. Hungary’s position within this system is particularly telling. Today, Hungary is the only MIGRANTS-FREE country in Europe. However, if Hungary is forced into implementing the migration pact, two things will follow. First, we would be required to build reception capacity capable of accommodating 30,000 migrants simultaneously. In other words, the European Commission expects Hungary to establish a 30,000-capacity migrant camp—a migrant ghetto—on its territory. Second, if a so-called migration “crisis situation” were to arise within the European Union, the new pact would no longer allow Hungary to decide who may remain on its territory; instead, Brussels would distribute migrants among the Member States. The determination of what constitutes a migration “crisis situation” would likewise be made by the European Commission.

The logic is clear: these reception facilities are to be built so that migrants can later be directed into them. While Hungary has been defending Europe’s borders at its own expense for the past ten years, Brussels not only fails to support this effort, but responds with resettlement obligations and financial penalties.

This is an approach in which Hungary cannot and will not be a partner—even if this means having to endure politically motivated attacks and legal proceedings. The reason for this refusal is that the entire interpretative framework can be traced back to international legal instruments created in the aftermath of the Second World War, which were not designed to address the challenges of the 21st century. The original purpose of the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights was to limit abuses of state power, not to manage mass, organised migration that is often driven by economic motives.

The text of these conventions is clear: a refugee is someone who is persecuted on an individual basis for political, religious, or other protected reasons. The regulatory framework does not apply to migrants, does not grant a general right of entry, and does not abolish the right of states to protect their borders. In European practice, however, this distinction has gradually been blurred. Judicial interpretation—particularly by the European Court of Human Rights and EU legal forums—has evolved to the point where the mere intention to apply for asylum has effectively become a legal basis for entry.

This logic has overturned the fundamental principle of sovereignty: states no longer decide in advance who may enter their territory, but are instead forced into legal procedures after the fact. As a result, the Geneva Convention has de facto turned into a migration entry pass—something it was never intended to be.

It is upon this distorted interpretation that the EU’s migration pact has been built, with relocation—the distribution of migrants within the European Union—at its core. The EU’s current legal framework does not allow for the long-term, mass, or closed facilities of irregular migrants, nor does it provide for swift and automatic return procedures. Once a migrant enters the territory of the Union and submits an asylum application, they become a subject of legal proceedings under EU and international law. They cannot be automatically detained, their movement can only be restricted in exceptional cases, and procedures often take months or even years to conclude.

In other words, EU law does not recognise the option of maintaining migrants pending a determination of their entitlement to asylum or to entry into the Union. In this legal environment, relocation is therefore a forced solution. If migrants cannot be kept outside the external borders, cannot be placed in long-term closed facilities, and cannot be swiftly returned or expelled, the only remaining option is to distribute them within the Union.

Rather than revisiting the now outdated interpretation of the Geneva Refugee Convention and the European human rights framework, Brussels has chosen to preserve the existing legal structures and manage the consequences instead. Relocation thus does not represent a solution to the problem, but rather its legally entrenched redistribution within the European Union.

Who Owns the Border? Hungary’s Sovereign Model Against EU Centralization

With the pact entering into force in the summer of 2026, Brussels has further intensified pressure on the Member States and opened a new chapter in Europe’s migration policy. The decision was adopted through legal loopholes: it was approved by a simple majority vote, rather than by unanimous consent of the Member States. In this sense, the new pact—which automatically transfers national competences to the EU level—has effectively become both a textbook example and a contemporary record of the European Commission’s gradual, and at times openly pursued, expansion of powers over the past decade.

This is also the point at which the Hungarian and Brussels approaches and practices sharply diverge. In 2016, Hungary held a referendum and asked its citizens whether they supported the admission of large numbers of foreign populations into the country. An overwhelming 98 percent of Hungarians rejected the Brussels quota plans, in a referendum whose turnout surpassed that of Hungary’s EU accession vote—leaving no doubt about the strength of the mandate. Hungary was, in fact, the only country in Europe to ask its people this question.The Hungarian government used this mandate to establish both physical and legal border barriers, an approach that has since been followed by an increasing number of countries.

By contrast, Hungary has adapted its legal system and border protection practices to the changed realities of the 21st century. In recent years, we have spent approximately €2 billion on protecting the Schengen external borders, while receiving no meaningful financial or operational contribution from the European Union toward these efforts. Yet we operate a border protection system along our border with Serbia that also safeguards the EU’s external border, specifically along the Western Balkan migration route into the Union.

The principles underlying Hungary’s border protection system are most closely comparable to Australia’s strict migration policy introduced under former Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Elements of this approach are also reflected in the migration policies pursued by Donald Trump’s administration. More recently, Hungary’s model of border protection has been identified as a point of reference by Chile’s president-elect, José Antonio Kast. According to this approach:

· external borders must be protected;

· asylum applications must be processed outside the external borders;

· those not entitled to protection must be sent home politely but firmly;

· human smugglers must be confronted and dismantled;

· and countries of origin must be supported locally.

In line with these principles, after hundreds of thousands marched through Hungary in the very first days of the 2015 migration surge, the Hungarian government introduced both physical and legal border barriers and established transit zones at the borders. The aim was clear and consistent with the Geneva Convention: no one should be allowed to enter the country automatically until it was determined whether they were entitled to protection. This practice, however, ran counter to the EU’s ideologically driven legal interpretation, which classified transit zones as “detention.” As a result, Brussels launched infringement proceedings against Hungary (C-808/18), leading to a one-time fine of €200 million and—until the legislation is changed—a coercive penalty of €1 million per day. This amounts to an unprecedented financial punishment in EU history for protecting Hungary’s southern border and, by extension, the EU’s external border.

As a consequence of this infringement procedure, Hungary was forced to close the transit zones. It then introduced a system under which asylum applications could be submitted only outside the country, at Hungarian embassies abroad—an arrangement that once again triggered infringement proceedings from Brussels.

Brussels also initiated infringement action because, with the 2018 “Stop Soros” laws, the Hungarian government restricted by statute the activities of NGOs linked to George Soros’s network, which not only assisted but actively encouraged and organized illegal migration. The legislation criminalized the organization and facilitation of illegal immigration, including support for unlawful entry and the preparation of abusive asylum claims. Brussels treats this as a civil law issue; Hungary regards it as a matter of sovereignty—the right to decide who may enter the country.

Further infringement proceedings were launched because Hungary rejected the Brussels-imposed quota system aimed at redistributing migrants among member states and refused to take in migrants from Italy and Greece. In the quota case, Hungary challenged the European Union Council’s mandatory relocation decision jointly with Slovakia, with Poland’s support, while several Western European states—including Belgium, Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Luxembourg, and Sweden—intervened on the Council’s side against Hungary, thereby legitimizingBrussels’ pressure.

Investing in Families Rather Than a Doomed Integration Policy

All of this makes clear that Hungary has treated the situation as a matter of security and sovereignty, because what was at stake was the protection of our borders (and the EU’s borders) and the stability of our communities. The globalist elites in Brussels, by contrast, saw not a crisis in these migration flows, but an opportunity—to deepen integration and take another step toward an “ever closer union.” Within this framework, a demographic logic also emerged: globalists seek to offset Europe’s declining population through immigration. In their view, even in the case of “brain surgeon” or “nuclear physicist” migrants, the costs of a new life need only be advanced “temporarily,” to be repaid later through their labor.

Hungary chose a different path. We decided to invest the resources that would otherwise be spent on migrant integration into a family-support system that is unique in the world and built around Hungarian families. The core of our family policy is to strengthen our own communities, encourage childbearing, and reinforce national identity as a sustainable response to demographic challenges—rather than relying on an imported population that can be mobilized by external political interests.

This is an approach in which Hungary neither can nor wishes to be a partner. This is not the Europe we envisioned, nor do we want Hungary to follow the path already taken by many Western European countries. Instead, we choose to invest in a comprehensive, Europe-wide unprecedented family support system:

· fixed-interest housing support loans to help young Hungarians purchase their first homes;

· full, lifelong personal income tax exemption for mothers raising two or three children;

· extended income tax exemptions for • mothers under 30 with one child, and • mothers under 40 with two children;

· additional tax exemptions covering maternity, adoption, and childcare benefits.

Taken together, these measures constitute the largest tax reduction programme in Europe, strengthening Hungarian families—and Hungary’s future—rather than financing an integration model that has demonstrably failed in the West. We have made this position clear in Brussels and continue to stand by it: on migration, there is NO compromise. They may threaten and fine us, but they will not break the Hungarian people.

When Elites Lose the People: Why a Patriotic Turn Is Inevitable

The Brussels elite has been forced to tone down its rhetoric, and now packages the nail in Europe’s coffin as “solidarity.” Yet it still refuses to address the root causes, choosing instead to attack those who say it plainly: mass immigration is a dead end.

They have no other option. If they admitted that their strategy so far has failed, Europeans—worn down by the everyday consequences of illegal immigration and spending Christmas behind cordons and among soldiers—would sweep them aside politically.

The earlier, openly pro-immigration messages have faded because a broad social backlash against mass migration has intensified across Europe. This now has politically measurable consequences that directly threaten the power of the globalist elite. One need only look at the rise of Alice Weidel’s AfD in Germany, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France, the FPÖ in Austria, Geert Wilders’ party in the Netherlands, Chega in Portugal, or Vox in Spain.

This is precisely what they fear—and why they seek, through legal proceedings, institutional pressure, and unfair means, to prevent patriotic, right-wing forces from coming to power. The same logic explains why they want the parliamentary elections scheduled in Hungary next year to replace Viktor Orbán’s patriots with a puppet government subordinated to Brussels—one that would reliably vote alongside them in their bureaucratic madness.

We, however, are stepping into this fight. We believe that political will, backed by societal support, can change the fate of nations. For this very reason, the Hungarian government has taken legal action before the Court of Justice of the European Union against the Court itself. Such a step has never been taken in the history of the European Union. And we did not do so because we expect a ruling in our favor from an EU court that—like other EU institutions—has become paralyzed by ideology, but to make one thing unmistakably clear: we are fighting for our right.

Across Europe, voters in a growing number of countries are rejecting centralized, ideology-driven decision-making and demanding a more sober, sovereignty-based direction. This shift in voter sentiment is steadily reshaping the balance of power—already clearly visible in the composition of the European Parliament, where the Patriots political family has become the third-largest group, and, with the return of Andrej Babiš, now has two patriotic prime ministers represented in the European Council.

The most important question is not what happened over the past ten years, but what will happen to Europe in the decades ahead if this course is not stopped now. According to Eurostat, in 2022 alone the EU registered 5.1 million immigrants from non-EU countries, followed by 4.3 million in 2023—on top of roughly one million asylum applications each year across the EU+ area.

For this reason, a political change of course is finally needed in Brussels. This is also underscored by the U.S. National Security Strategy, which states: “The larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent (...)”. Europe can only become strong again if decisions reflect not the centralizing logic of the Brussels elite, but the will of national communities—and if the future of the continent is finally shaped by patriotic leaders who put nation-state interests first.

This erosion of direction is evident even in how Europe is assessed from the United States. Washington’s newly released National Security Strategy devotes an entire chapter to Europe, concluding that Brussels poses a threat to the very foundations of European civilization. Its core assessment is unequivocal: Europe is in a serious crisis — and EU-level policymaking bears primary responsibility.

In political terms, a civilization’s “soul” is the internal guiding principle that helps a community understand who it is, where it comes from, what values it considers fundamental, and what goals it seeks to pursue. Once this compass disappears, Europe can no longer act based on coherent principles, cannot properly understand its own condition, and loses the reference points needed to navigate the future. This is the essential diagnosis: Europe has lost its sense of self — and with it, its sense of the future.

This search for direction stood at the center of one of this year’s most important conservative gatherings on the continent, the Battle for the Soul of Europe conference — and the story of the event itself offers a striking snapshot of Europe’s condition. Last year, left-wing politicians and Antifa activists attempted to shut down the NatCon conference. The fact that this year’s event, organized by the Brussels hub of the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC), proceeded smoothly is why organizers described it as “a victory for common sense and free speech.”

More than six hundred participants — Members of the European Parliament, researchers, analysts, and young leaders — gathered not only to assess Europe’s current trajectory, but to debate how the political, cultural, and economic forces pulling the continent off course might be reversed. The conference was therefore more than a professional forum; it carried a clear message: across Europe, a growing number of citizens and thinkers believe it is time to reclaim the initiative and redefine the principles on which the continent should operate.

Brussels as a Problem — and as a Symbol of Decline

One of the conference’s strongest political messages came from Václav Klaus. In his view, Brussels has, since the 1990s, “become the embodiment of everything a European democrat must oppose.” The former Czech president and prime minister argues that the EU’s institutional system has evolved in a direction that undermines nation-states and the basic principles of the market economy. On migration, Klaus warned that Europe itself created a demand for immigration, effectively incentivizing the process, and that a worldview has since taken hold which treats migration as natural and legitimate — steadily eroding national frameworks.

This critique was echoed by Ryszard Legutko, one of the leading philosophers of Poland’s Law and Justice (PiS) party and co-chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). Legutko described the EU system as an “oligarchy” that pursues deeper integration under the banner of an “ever closer union,” without meaningful democratic consent. He did not spare the Commission’s president, Ursula von der Leyen, remarking pointedly: “the fish stinks from its head.”

According to the MCC Brussels’s John O’Brien, many Europeans who only a few years ago were afraid to speak openly about migration, environmental extremism, or Europe’s economic mismanagement are “really finding their voices” today. As he put it, “the last few years have shown again and again that Europe is dirty — and it needs cleaning up.”

The New Conservative Blueprint for Europe: Restoring Borders, Identity, and Democratic Balance

In the migration debates, border protection and returns policy emerged as central themes. Fabrice Leggeri, former director of Frontex and now an MEP for France’s National Rally, called for a return to “the original meaning of international protection”: Member States must have the sovereign right to decide who qualifies for refugee status and who does not. He reminded the audience that “millions of migrants are already here,” arguing that far stricter and more effective return mechanisms are required.

The non-European perspective & transatlantic alliances were also cultivated: Patrick Deneen, a leading political thinker of U.S. conservatism around JD Vance, applied the slogan “Make America Great Again” to Europe & opened a philosophical–spiritual perspective on Europe’s self-hatred and how it might be overcome. Europe’s soul is unwell. And as Deneen reminds us, a soul needs dignity — not demanded, but given. Without it, resignation sets in, followed by the seven deadly sins of our age.

Pedro Frazão, vice-president of Portugal’s Chega party, argued that “Europe is finally waking up from a long sleep” — and that the conference served as “a warning to the Brussels elites, not a courtesy event.” He described a continent that is militarily and economically dependent, culturally fragmented, and politically paralyzed. In his words, Europe today suffers from “total dependency,” and while strong partnership with the United States is necessary, “two adults should be sitting at the table — today the U.S. is the adult, Europe the dependent teenager.” His core message was simple: “sovereignty matters.”

Jerzy Kwaśniewski, president of the Ordo Iuris Institute, criticized the selective application of EU “rule-of-law” procedures, noting that the withholding of EU funds from Hungary illustrates the double standard most clearly. “Our moment has come to speak with people and take back control at the national level,” he argued. The EU’s future, in his view, can only rest on a universal respect for national sovereignty.

Young conservative leaders — including France’s Édouard Bina, Poland’s Daria Malec, Portugal’s Sara Silva, and Belgium’s Lennert Van Hauwermeiren — emphasized their generation’s responsibility: to speak openly about identity, borders, and national interests, and to reject the linguistic and conceptual framework imposed by the liberal mainstream. They do not seek to complain, but to build institutions, reach young people, and “reprogram the public conversation.” As one closing panel summarized it: Europe’s future belongs to those “who dare to speak clearly about identity, borders, and national interest.”

Reclaiming Europe’s Soul: A Conservative Diagnosis of Europe’s Fourfold Crisis

The two-day conference hosted by MCC Brussels ultimately offered a clear diagnostic of what Europe’s conservative and patriotic actors believe is at stake in the battle for “Europe’s soul”: the restoration of national self-determination, effective border protection, cultural identity, economic rationality, and freedom of speech — all in opposition to a system that simultaneously undermines each of these foundations. Europe’s future is not yet determined, but those who believe in nation-states, culture, and liberty must now seize the moment to reclaim the continent’s soul.

In my remarks, I explained that Europe faces overlapping crises — not isolated phenomena, but mutually reinforcing processes that compound one another.

1. Migration is one of the central drivers of this crisis.
Since 2015, roughly one million new arrivals have appeared in Europe every single year. This is not a one-time shock but a sustained, structure-shaping pressure. The relevant question is no longer whether the 2015 border closure was the right decision — for Hungary, it demonstrably was — but what will happen in the coming years and decades. The European Union still fails to protect its own borders. Unlike most of Europe, Hungary sealed its southern frontier in 2015, and today there are zero illegal migrants in the country. And yet Brussels imposes a €1 million daily fine on us for protecting not only our own border but Europe’s as well. This reveals both the impotence and the perverse incentive structure of the EU institutions: those who defend common security are punished, while those who refuse to act receive political protection. The issue is no longer the past — it is what this means for Europe’s demographic, social, and security future.

2. A second dimension of Europe’s crisis is economic.
Here even figures from very different political traditions — such as Mario Draghi, former President of the European Central Bank and one of Europe’s leading economic thinkers, and Prime Minister Viktor Orbán — share a common assessment: stagnation is draining Europe’s growth reserves, competitiveness is eroding, and more and more companies are relocating their headquarters outside the EU — to the United States, China, or the Gulf. The consequences are clear: fewer jobs, lower wages, and weakening social stability. Meanwhile, Germany spends 5–7% of its GDP annually on migration-related integration — an effort that shows little evidence of success despite enormous spending. Hungary, by contrast, directs these resources toward Hungarian families: for example, lifetime personal income tax exemption for mothers with two or more children — a tangible investment in those who build the nation’s future.

3. The third crisis unfolds in the political sphere.
Sensing rising public dissatisfaction, the Brussels elite does not respond by correcting its mistakes but by deploying instruments of power. Legal proceedings are launched against Member States and against popular political leaders; intelligence operations target Germany’s most supported political force. These are not isolated occurrences but symptoms of a systemic political crisis: instead of seeking renewed democratic legitimacy, the elite turns to further centralization as its solution. The recurring corruption scandals surrounding the EU’s foreign service illustrate this dynamic vividly, as does the recent €120 million fine imposed on X and Elon Musk — a politically motivated act of censorship thinly disguised as an “enforcement of transparency rules.”

4. And layered on top of all this is the fourth, particularly grave element: the war between Russia and Ukraine.
Russia attacked Ukraine, violating international law. The war has now entered its fourth year; hundreds of thousands have lost their lives, the country lies in ruins, and it has become completely dependent on external financial support. Without sustained aid, Ukraine would collapse immediately.

The War as a Federalist Mandate: How Brussels Uses Conflict to Demand More Power

In the shadow of the tragedy of the Russia–Ukraine war, a new political narrative has taken shape in Brussels. The war has become the latest justification for the federalist project. The old argument once promised: transfer more sovereignty, and you will receive economic benefits in return. That offer has now vanished. Today the logic runs as follows: transfer more sovereignty because war is inevitable, and Europe must prepare for a direct conflict with Russia around 2030. According to this view, such preparation requires joint debt issuance, a shared foreign policy, and deeper centralization.

This shift reveals something fundamental: Europe no longer grounds its decisions in its own identity or strategic traditions. The continent is drifting from crisis to crisis without a compass.

I spoke about this over the weekend at a full-house anti-war gathering in Kecskemét, where I emphasized that Brussels has, in effect, already outlined the roadmap toward war:

· Ukrainian accession in 2029,

· military confrontation prepared for 2030.

The most important question of the coming period, therefore, is how we can restore Europe’s soul — meaning its ability to define itself. How do we restore normality, security, economic stability, democratic oversight, and the capacity for Europe to act according to its own interests?

This struggle is political, cultural, and philosophical at the same time. The stakes are immense, and the years ahead will be more consequential than any period in recent memory.

I believe this patriotic renewal is possible — but it requires courage, endurance, strategic thinking, and the strength of those communities now emerging across Europe, one of whose most vibrant expressions was heard last week at the MCC Brussels Battle for the Soul of Europe conference.

As I noted in my remarks at the Tranzit Conference, Europe’s political establishment is now facing three simultaneous crises — social, economic, and political:

1. The migration crisis is far from over. Millions have entered Western Europe and are now living on the continent. Integration has failed, costs have skyrocketed, and crime rates are rising. Some analyses even suggest that the risk of civil conflict in Western Europe is significant. Western European leaders have no credible answers to manage the situation.

2. The economy is in decline. As Mario Draghi — former President of the European Central Bank and one of Europe’s leading economic thinkers — highlighted in his widely discussed report, the combination of high energy prices, a deep competitiveness crisis, the ideologically driven green transition, and declining innovation is paralyzing Europe. Ideology-driven foreign policy toward Europe’s economic partners further exacerbates the problem.

3. Brussels and its allies offer no solutions to any of the above, which is why new resistance movements have emerged across the continent. The European elite has responded to this challenge with anti-democratic measures, censorship, and attempts to sideline patriotic forces in order to preserve its own power.

Europe’s leadership has now reached a point where it can mask its political and economic failures through only one instrument: war. They view war preparation as the key to their political survival. And their emerging strategic doctrine follows precisely what international strategic studies describe as an “escalation spiral.”

· Phase one is diplomatic maneuvering — Europe passed that point long ago. Between 2014 and 2022, there were eight summits and countless unsuccessful negotiations.

· Phase two is crisis manufacturing: sanctions regimes, deliberate enemy-making, suppression of anti-war voices, and enforced unity against a “common adversary.” This is where Europe stands today.

· Phase three, the direction in which Europe is now moving, is intense crisis: transition to a war economy, reintroduction of conscription, and the centralization of EU decision-making.

Every step pushes Europe closer to open confrontation, while the public is gradually conditioned to accept the idea that war is not avoidable, but inevitable. This narrative aligns seamlessly with the plan to admit Ukraine into the European Union by 2029 — still within Ursula von der Leyen’s current term — a move that would allow Brussels to invoke the EU’s mutual defense clause and deploy European troops to the Ukrainian front.

Ursula von der Leyen has not only spoken openly about the need for “rearmament,” but also sent an official letter to the leaders of all 27 member states — including Prime Minister Viktor Orbán — urging them to agree, ahead of the December 17–18 European Council Summit, on a financial framework that would provide €135.7 billion for Ukraine’s military and financial needs in 2026–27.

€135.7 billion. That is the sum the head of the Brussels bureaucracy seeks to mobilize for Ukraine — immediately after the eruption of the Ukrainian “war mafia” corruption scandal. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s chief of staff resigned last week following a police raid on his home; he is suspected of involvement in the Ukrainian wartime corruption network, suggesting that the scheme may reach directly into the president’s inner circle.

Yet von der Leyen — as if nothing had happened — continues to demand that European member states hand over an additional €135 billion to Ukraine.

While Washington Opens a Peace Track, Brussels Stays on a War Track

Ursula von der Leyen’s letter to the heads of the member states — published by Politico — makes one point unmistakably clear: Brussels intends to build a war economy, financed either through member states’ money, further EU-level indebtedness, or the risky use of frozen Russian assets — even though not all member states agree to any of these. It is evident that Brussels is steering the entire European continent onto a war footing.

And it was into this atmosphere that news of the Washington peace initiative arrived. President Donald Trump and his administration presented a still-evolving peace plan aimed at resolving the Russia–Ukraine war — the first framework placed on the table that both warring sides have, at minimum, considered an acceptable starting point. In principle, it could serve as the basis for halting the fighting and initiating a negotiated settlement. This moment represents a historic crossroads for all of Europe: the continent must now decide whether to pursue diplomacy and peace, or continue down the path of escalation.

The Brussels elite, however, immediately chose the latter. Kaja Kallas, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy — effectively von der Leyen’s chief diplomat — responded to the American proposal by saying: “everyone welcomes the United States push for peace (...) but how it ends also matters. We must keep in mind that there is one aggressor and one victim.” → Translation: only a “peace” fully aligned with Brussels’ and Kyiv’s maximalist conditions is acceptable. The moral framing simply serves to justify rejecting any diplomatic compromise (and incapacity).

Kallas also made it clear that they will not back away from their plan to finance Ukraine using frozen Russian assets — even though not all EU states support this approach, and even though it threatens to undermine the American peace initiative. Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot told Politico that the EU’s failure to find a clear way to financially support Ukraine by now is not Belgium’s fault but a product of the bloc’s “obstinacy” in insisting on using the Russian assets “without knowing how to do it nor understanding the risks that come with it.” Prévot went on to describe the reparation loan as a direct obstacle to the ongoing negotiations aimed at ending the war: “It is now clear that the assets can play an important role in a peace plan … Our action must not create obstacles to a peace plan.”

Europe Arms Up — Hungary Shields Its Security

The Brussels elite and its allies now speak openly about the need for Europe to prepare for war, and in parallel, the continent’s economic structures are being reshaped accordingly: decoupling from Russian energy, subsidizing military production, expanding wartime financial support for Ukraine, escalating sanctions, and introducing war-related austerity measures.

· Member states are reintroducing conscription, one after another, and an increasing number of strategic documents reference 2030 as the projected date for a potential military confrontation with Russia.

· Emmanuel Macron’s top general recently stated that Europe must prepare to “lose its children” and accept severe economic sacrifices because of the war — a striking illustration of how detached strategic thinking in Western Europe has become from reality (video).

· A 1,200-page operational plan drafted by the German military — leaked to The Wall Street Journal — outlines in detail how up to 800,000 German, American, and other NATO troops would be transported eastward in the event of a war with Russia. This is not a theoretical defense exercise; it is a full-fledged war preparation program.

· Manfred Weber, leader of the European People’s Party behind Ursula von der Leyen, has openly argued that European soldiers must be sent to Ukraine. He also told a German newspaper that he rejects the American plan — refusing even to call it a peace plan — insisting instead that peace must be achieved “by force.”

· German Chancellor Friedrich Merz just posted on X: “Europe has a clear course: no dictated peace imposed on Ukraine”.

Amid an increasingly heated atmosphere of war rhetoric across Europe, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán opened November in Washington and concluded it in Moscow. In the span of these weeks, he faced the task of securing two strategically crucial agreements.

The first took place in the United States, where—following his discussions with Donald Trump—PM Orbán successfully secured an exemption for Hungary from the American sanctions imposed on Russian energy carriers. As a landlocked country, Hungary is in a fundamentally different position from most European states, and our national energy security simply cannot be maintained if the two key pipelines supplying the country remain subject to sanctions. This is why we asked President Trump to exempt Hungary from these measures.

The impact of Washington’s exemption has already proven tangible: just last week, we saw Serbia’s oil supply collapse within a single day when shipments through the Croatian pipeline were halted due to U.S. sanctions and the finances of NIS, the country’s strategic oil company, were frozen.

The second agreement had to be reached in Moscow, where Hungary needed guarantees from Russian President Vladimir Putin that—regardless of developments inside Russia—the contracted volumes of gas and oil would continue to arrive throughout the winter and into next year. The Hungarian PM and the Russian head of state reached an understanding that ensures Hungary can maintain Europe’s lowest household energy costs at a time when, due to the fourth year of the Russia–Ukraine war and the sanctions imposed in response, energy prices have soared across the entire continent.

For Hungary, the national interest remains the primary guiding principle—and we will not abandon it merely to satisfy political expectations from Brussels or to align ourselves with a rhetoric that fuels escalation. The Hungarian government has made it unmistakably clear: we will not sacrifice economic stability, affordable energy, or the security of Hungarian households on the altar of a confrontational strategy that weakens Europe’s ability to function while offering no real solutions to the continent’s underlying challenges. And this is precisely what PM Viktor Orbán explained in his response letter to Ursula von der Leyen.

Where the Hungarian Majority Draws the Line: Peace, Security, and Sovereignty

From a Hungarian perspective, war is not an abstract debate. The Russia–Ukraine conflict — and the international responses to it — has become part of everyday life. This is why Hungarian public opinion reacts with particular sensitivity to every signal that may influence the trajectory of the conflict. This reality is reflected in the nationwide response to the October signature drive launched by the patriotic governing parties, Fidesz–KDNP, against Brussels’ war plans: hundreds of thousands have already joined. People stand in long lines at signature stands to send a clear message to Brussels: Hungarians refuse to mortgage the future of their children and grandchildren in order to finance an unwinnable war in Ukraine.

The same firm, pro-peace sentiment is evident at anti-war rallies across the country, which have drawn exceptionally large crowds — demonstrating that the social base for peace is broad and stable. By contrast, the events organized by the Brussels-backed opposition, Péter Magyar and his Tisza Party, attract far smaller audiences — revealing a deeper political reality: in Hungary, the social majority consistently aligns with the pro-peace position. The opposition’s hidden—then leaked—program, including progressive tax hikes, the abolition of utility price cuts, conscription, & a pro-war stance, fundamentally damaged trust in Péter Magyar. It became clear that his program aligns precisely with Brussels’ recommendations—the same ones the Hungarian government has long resisted in defense of the middle class & families.

This sentiment was on full display at the most recent anti-war rally held over the weekend in Nyíregyháza, just 60 kilometers from the Ukrainian border.

Among the speakers was the sister of the Ukrainian man from Transcarpathia who died this summer during Ukraine’s forced conscription drive. She said her brother’s tragic fate exposes the brutality facing the Hungarian community in Transcarpathia. As she put it: “My younger brother did not plan to die this way; he never intended to become part of a senseless war. He did not want to die for foreign interests — not as a Hungarian, not as a Hungarian citizen — especially not so young, at 45.” What is happening in Ukraine today is not ordinary conscription but a systemic manhunt, a process that tramples basic human rights with alarming force. This is particularly troubling in the case of a country that now stands on the threshold of accession to the European Union. We Hungarians do not observe the Russia–Ukraine war through the glass walls of Brussels offices, but from a border where its consequences have been felt every single day for nearly four years. We experience this conflict on our own skin — and we know exactly what is at stake.

Speaking before a packed audience, PM Viktor Orbán said that it has become obvious that European leaders want to go to war. He added that in his view, the war is interpreted through three completely different narratives — a Western, a Russian, and a Hungarian one — and these divergent stories fundamentally shape what each actor considers a “solution”:

· According to Orbán, the Western narrative rests on the belief that Russia attacked Ukraine, holds military superiority, and that if Ukraine falls, other European states will be endangered. This logic forms the basis of the West’s current strategic thinking.

· By contrast, in the Russian narrative, after the collapse of the Soviet Union the West broke its earlier promises: it admitted multiple countries from the former Soviet sphere into NATO and now seeks to integrate Ukraine as well. Ukraine may have international rights, they argue, but Russia also has a “right to security” and refuses to accept a NATO member on its border — this is how Moscow sees the situation.

· The Hungarian position, as outlined by Orbán, is that Europe needs a new security balance: a set of power relations that ensures Hungary can live in peace, free from military threats, and can pursue economic development unimpeded by war. This is why a new European security architecture is necessary.

The Hungarian PM underscored that war is also a business — and business circles tied to the defense industry are exerting growing influence over European politics. To Hungary’s west, leaders believe that Russia could now be defeated on Ukrainian territory — and that this would bring strategic advantages. First came money, then weapons, and now, Orbán noted, “if absolutely necessary, even soldiers” are being discussed.

And in this war-driven climate, Hungary remains the last to say NO.

As Orbán explained, Brussels is not yet ready to admit that this war has been fundamentally mishandled — but that moment will come, just as it eventually came on the issue of migration.

This is precisely why The Economist writes that many European leaders are rooting for the left opposition in Hungary — not because they care about Hungary itself, but because a change of government would eliminate the last obstacle standing in the way of Brussels’ war strategy. In this context, it is hardly surprising that from Ursula von der Leyen to Manfred Weber, the Brussels elite openly supports Péter Magyar and his Tisza Party, since they promise to carry out the very measures the Hungarian patriotic government has refused to implement: higher taxes, austerity, the abolition of utility price cuts, and redirecting the resulting funds toward war preparations and Ukraine.

The stakes could not be clearer: will Hungary have a government capable of keeping Hungarians out of the war, or one that yields to external pressure and joins the pro-war canon — thereby removing the last remaining barrier to Brussels’ war plans?

Hungary, however, needs a balance of power in Europe that ensures: Hungarians can live in peace; no military threat hangs over the country; and economic development is not obstructed by war. Without peace, there is no economic stability or growth. Without low energy prices, there is no competitiveness or prosperity. As Orbán put it: in Washington, we secured exemptions from American sanctions; in Moscow, we guaranteed energy security; and we won yet another battle against soaring energy prices. “And in Nyíregyháza, we reaffirmed that Hungarian interests come first — and that despite all pressure from Brussels, Hungary will remain the voice of peace in Europe.”

The election scheduled for next year will be the last in Hungary before 2030 — meaning that the government sworn in after 2026 will carry the responsibility for guiding the country through the most consequential strategic decade in recent European history. This is why, now more than ever, all eyes are on Budapest.

Over time, this ideological fault line has evolved into a civilizational-scale conflict. The social experiments of the progressive-liberal camp — the dissolution of identity, the relativization of the family as an institution, and the ideal of borderless societies — have all contributed to the erosion of the West’s former sense of security and stability. One might say that this divide has become more than a matter of political debate; it is now a test of the West’s capacity for self-preservation. Uncontrolled migration, demographic decline, and the transformation of public safety are all tangible symptoms of this deeper process. As Prime Minister Viktor Orbán put it: “Those political forces that have remained within the European, Western, Christian tradition — let’s simply call them the right — must win this contest and bring our world back within the framework of those values and principles.”

A Reset in U.S.–Hungarian Relations After the Biden Years

Last Friday in Washington, PM Viktor Orbán and President Donald Trump met as two leaders who clearly understand the stakes of this broader civilizational debate — and who, in their political decisions, consistently stand for the defense of traditional values against progressive-liberal ideological ambitions. Both leaders’ political visions are defined by a commitment to national sovereignty, the protection of family and borders, and the strengthening of cultural identity. In this sense, the meeting at the White House was about far more than diplomatic protocol.

Since President Trump’s inauguration in January, several European leaders have already visited the White House — yet these meetings have largely reflected the continent’s waning sense of strategic confidence. Most discussions did not focus on Europe’s own security interests, but rather on sustaining the war in Ukraine, securing new weapons shipments and financial aid — an attempt by the continent to compensate for its growing strategic inertia through Washington. Instead of engaging in a serious dialogue about the prospects for peace or Europe’s independent strategic interests grounded in national priorities, many European governments continue to view confrontation as their only viable path.

Hungary’s foreign policy, however, is built on a different foundation. President Trump has brought new dynamism and decisiveness to international politics — a style of leadership in which the America First principle signifies not isolationism, but the consistent assertion of self-determination, economic strength, and national interest. This outlook naturally resonates with Hungary’s connectivity-based foreign policy strategy, which regards stability, sovereignty, and partnerships founded on mutual benefit as the key organizing principles of international cooperation.

It is upon this shared foundation that the renewed dynamic of cooperation between the two nations rests — and it is likely this genuine sense of political “chemistry” that enabled Hungary to become one of the first European countries to establish strategic bilateral agreements with the new American administration. The Washington meeting was therefore more than a diplomatic gesture; it marked a validation of a connectivity-driven foreign policy strategy that envisions the future of transatlantic relations on the basis of sovereign partnerships, value-based decision-making, and mutual trust.

That hasn’t always been the case... In recent years, the ideological experiments of the Biden administration have severely tested the natural order of U.S.–Hungarian bilateral relations. During the tenure of the Democratic leadership, Washington undertook a series of politically motivated actions driven by ideological hostility, aimed at exerting pressure on Hungary. These measures, inspired more by political revenge than by strategic reasoning, inflicted serious damage on the bilateral relationship between the two countries.

· For instance, the Biden administration appointed David Pressman as ambassador to Hungary with a mission that was not to strengthen diplomatic relations, but to undermine the national government — fitting neatly into the global liberal agenda that seeks to shape the internal affairs of sovereign nations through political interference. Pressman acted not as a diplomat, but as a political activist, representing the interests of liberal Democratic circles in the United States.

· The Biden administration’s frustration with Hungary also stemmed from Budapest’s consistent refusal to be drawn into the war logic surrounding the war in Ukraine. While most European capitals yielded to Washington’s pressure and followed its pro-war agenda, Hungary stood firm in upholding its sovereign, peace-seeking stance.

· Hungary was also removed from the U.S. Visa Waiver Program, restricting visa-free travel for Hungarian citizens.

· A number of politically motivated sanctions were introduced against Hungarian entities and officials.

· And perhaps most notably, the Biden administration’s policies forced the suspension of the Paks II nuclear power plant project — a development of strategic importance to Hungary’s long-term energy security.

With Donald Trump’s return to office this January, a new era began in U.S. foreign policy — and with it, in U.S.–Hungarian bilateral relations. Since then, Washington has taken several meaningful steps to repair the damage inflicted during the Biden years and to restore mutual trust between the two allies.

One of the most symbolic gestures came when Hungary was reinstated as a full member of the U.S. Visa Waiver Program in September, restoring a privilege unjustly withdrawn under the previous administration. Another milestone was announced shortly before the Washington meeting: Kari Lake, Acting Chief Executive Officer of the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM) under the Trump Administration, declared that the organization would end funding for Radio Free Europe’s Hungarian-language service Szabad Európa.

Originally established to deliver free, uncensored information behind the Iron Curtain, Radio Free Europe once served as a beacon of liberty during the Cold War. Over time, however, the outlet drifted away from its founding mission, evolving into an ideologically driven platform promoting liberal activism — including gender campaigns — across Central and Eastern Europe. Under the Biden administration, this ideological shift deepened further, as the service became a conduit for politically motivated narratives aimed at discrediting Hungary’s democratically elected government. As Kari Lake wrote on X: “The Globalists are more than welcome to hate our ally Viktor Orbán. What they are not entitled to is the use of American taxpayers’ money to destabilize the Hungarian government via taxpayer-funded programming on Szabad Európa. We’re putting a stop to that.”

From Words to Deeds: The Strategic Outcomes of the Washington Summit

The primary and openly stated goal of the recent consultations was the full reconstruction of bilateral relations — restoring cooperation between the two nations and elevating it to a higher strategic level. As PM Orbán remarked before his working lunch with President Trump: “Over the past ten months, we have been deeply grateful for what you have done. You have restored the previous level of our relationship, strengthened our bilateral ties, and repaired the damage caused by the previous administration. We are now in a strong position to open a new chapter — let’s call it a golden age — in relations between the United States and Hungary.”

The personal trust that has developed between Viktor Orbán and Donald Trump is not measured merely in gestures or meetings, but in tangible outcomes. Bilateral economic cooperation has gained new momentum, while fresh opportunities have emerged in education and innovation. Most importantly, both leaders reaffirmed that the friendship between Hungary and the United States is now stronger than ever. According to President Trump, Hungary is “doing an excellent job”: Prime Minister Orbán represents the politics of peace, order, and sovereignty — and, as Trump put it, “Brussels should show more respect toward Hungary and its leader.”

The ideological hostility that characterized the previous U.S. administration’s approach toward Hungary has now been replaced by efforts grounded in mutual respect and shared interests. The Washington talks produced several concrete and measurable outcomes, which can be summarized as follows:

· From Hungary’s perspective, the most immediate and significant outcome is that the country has received full exemption from U.S. sanctions on Russian energy imports. This means that Hungary can continue to purchase natural gas and crude oil from the sources most favorable to its national interests. Without this exemption, the energy bills of Hungarian households would have tripled — a burden that has now been averted thanks to President Donald Trump’s support and his understanding of Hungary’s landlocked position and energy security constraints.

· In addition, a new agreement between MVM (Hungary’s state-owned energy company) and the Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC) will ensure the supply of American nuclear fuel to the Paks Nuclear Power Plant within three years. This development represents not only diversification but also a long-term strategic guarantee. Moreover, this marks the first time American companies will play a direct role in Hungary’s energy sector — a breakthrough that will bring U.S. technology and expertise into the country.

· As part of the broader agreement, the Trump Administration has lifted the sanctions and restrictions previously imposed on Hungary’s Paks II nuclear power project by the Biden Administration.

· The meeting also opened a new chapter in economic cooperation. Hungary and the United States are establishing fresh frameworks for financial collaboration, while new American investments are expected to arrive in Hungary — creating new jobs and boosting local industries.

· Looking ahead, defense industry cooperation between the two nations will be further strengthened. Hungarian companies will also participate in the development of a new commercial space station. As the global economy stands at the dawn of a new technological era, this partnership offers Hungary the opportunity to prepare for the next phase — building a 21st-century modern economy driven by space technology, defense, and high-tech innovation. Together, we are stepping into the future.

· The U.S.–Hungarian defense partnership has reached a new level. Hungary is now acquiring some of the world’s most advanced systems — including the HIMARS missile defense platform — reflecting a commitment to technological excellence and credible national defense.

Most importantly, PM Viktor Orbán and President Donald Trump agreed that the peace initiatives aimed at ending the war in Ukraine must continue, as the conflict can only be resolved through political and diplomatic means. Behind closed doors, both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to peace. PM Orbán also conveyed to the U.S. President that Hungary remains ready to support his efforts to achieve peace and stands prepared to play an active role in any international initiative that serves to end the war. As part of the ongoing diplomatic processes, a potential Trump–Putin meeting in Budapest remains on the agenda — to take place when the time is right and circumstances allow.

A Shared Foundation: Building Cooperation on Conservative Values

At the invitation of U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, we had the opportunity to join Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Gladden Pappin, President of the Hungarian Institute of International Affairs, and Rod Dreher, Director of the Danube Institute Network Project, for informal drinks in the Vice President’s study. Our discussion focused on Hungarian–American bilateral relations, the preservation of the Western community of values, and the challenges facing the West today. As VP Vance emphasized in his internationally noted Munich speech, the gravest threats to Europe do not come from Russia or China, but rather from within—because the continent’s leaders have drifted away from the fundamental values that once bound together the Judeo-Christian foundations of the West. In this context, PM Orbán remarked to the devoutly Catholic Vice President that Europe’s renewal will remain impossible until it rediscovers its ancestral Christian faith — the spiritual source from which its culture, institutions, and freedoms once drew their strength.

A Shared Stand: Zero Tolerance Toward Illegal Migration

We agreed that the restriction of free speech—particularly the silencing of ideas that diverge from mainstream opinion—and illegal migration are among the greatest threats facing Europe today. From the United States, many now look on with alarm at what has become of Europe under uncontrolled migration: hundreds of thousands continue to arrive, reshaping cities, communities, and societies, while creating severe cultural and security risks. The American leadership recognizes that since the onset of the migration crisis, Hungary has been the only European Union member state to maintain a consistent and rational stance, upholding a “zero-tolerance” policy toward illegal immigration—thereby preserving the nation’s safety, stability, and cultural character.

Thanks to the firm rejection of mass migration, Hungary faces none of the daily challenges of ghettoization, antisemitism, or terrorism that plague parts of Western Europe. Hungary’s consistent migration policy is widely viewed as an example of sober self-defense and may serve as a model for a more responsible, value-based European future. Yet, the migration crisis itself is only one symptom of a deeper malaise: due to the policies of the liberal Brussels elite, Europe is now confronting internal crises that erode the very foundations of its identity, community, and sovereignty.

Amid this political headwind from Brussels, Hungary has spent the past fifteen years consistently building a socio-economic model rooted in Christian values and national sovereignty, centred on family, and work. The recent meeting in Washington made it clear that this approach aligns in many respects with the political direction of the Trump-led United States — whether in the policy of zero tolerance toward illegal migration, the protection of borders, or the steadfast defense of national interests.

All this demonstrates that Hungarian–American cooperation now rests on shared strategic foundations. Value-based thinking and the defense of national interests serve as guiding principles for both nations, promising lasting political stability and enhanced economic collaboration. The achievements of recent months show that this partnership has not only been restored but has reached a new qualitative level — indeed, the golden age of U.S.–Hungarian relations has begun.

In the second half of this week, we are traveling to Washington, where PM Viktor Orbán will meet U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House on Friday. The purpose of the meeting is to reaffirm and strengthen bilateral relations, which significantly deteriorated during the Biden administration due to the rise of the Democratic Party’s characteristic moral imperialism and woke ideology. In contrast, cooperation with the Trump administration has been defined by mutual respect and a shared commitment to national interests—an approach that now offers a renewed opportunity to reinforce strategic cooperation between the two countries. In addition to bilateral relations, the agenda will certainly include discussions on the international situation and the war in Ukraine, as Prime Minister Orbán recently noted: “Those who want peace make peace,” and today it is the United States and President Donald Trump who show the strongest willingness to move from the logic of war toward the path of peace.

Europe’s ‘Coalition of the Willing’ Plays With Fire — Hungary Chooses Peace

Hungary does not take sides in this armed conflict, and despite intense pressure from Brussels, we refuse to participate in the logic of war. According to PM Viktor Orbán, Europe today is “staggering dizzily” toward a situation that poses an increasingly direct risk of war. In such circumstances, he said, we must consciously “dig in our heels” and remain firmly on the side of peace—making it clear in advance that we will stay out of every seemingly small decision that could eventually drag us into the middle of a war.

The Hungarian Prime Minister assessed that Europe’s leaders fail to realize they are playing with fire. They do not see that their decisions—more money for Ukraine, more troops, even talk of conscription—could combine into a dangerous mixture that might suddenly explode. Orbán believes that the main obstacle to the U.S. President’s current peace efforts is the group of European countries calling themselves the “coalition of the willing.” These leaders are “willing” to send others to war to die—because for now, they themselves are not going, they are only arming.

Brussels’ War Budget: Europe’s Citizens Pay, Ukraine Receives, Peace Delayed

A war requires three things: money, weapons, and soldiers. Yet Brussels does not intend to finance these from its own resources, but from those of the EU member states—meaning, among others, from the Hungarian people’s contributions as well. Therefore, anyone who supports Ukraine—and by extension, the continuation of the war—is also supporting tax increases and the withdrawal of funds from national governments, because Brussels itself has no money. As PM Viktor Orbán pointed out, behind any common EU borrowing, the member states stand as the ultimate guarantors. So when Brussels says it is “sending money to Ukraine,” it is, in fact, always the member states’ money. He added that in the next seven-year EU budget, more than 20 percent of the funds pooled by member states would be sent to Ukraine through direct or indirect channels—while, as he put it, “we don’t have a single coin to spare for that.”

The money Brussels uses will come from austerity measures, tax increases, and pension cuts imposed on European citizens and businesses. Thus, those who support Ukraine are effectively taking money out of the pockets of Europeans—including the Hungarian people.

The Cost of War in Numbers: One in Every Five Euros Would Go to Ukraine

In its article, The Economist perfectly articulated the illusion that continues to fuel the pro-war leaders of the European Union. As the British magazine put it: “Indebted, fractious Europe needs to find the money to keep Ukraine in the fight. But it would be a terrible mistake to see this cash call as merely a painful exercise in annual budgeting. Instead, it is a historic opportunity to shift the balance of power between Europe and Russia (…)”.

According to The Economist’s estimates, between 2026 and 2029, Ukraine will need approximately 389 billion U.S. dollars—or around 360 billion euros—in cash and weaponry to sustain its war effort. The overwhelming majority of this amount would have to be provided by Europe.

Based on the magazine’s calculations:

· The European Union and its member states would contribute 328 billion U.S. dollars (≈ 305 billion euros);

· The United Kingdom would provide 61 billion U.S. dollars (≈ 55–57 billion euros).

The European Commission’s new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF)for 2028–2034 foresees a total budget of 2 trillion euros. In this context, the European contribution estimated by The Economistwould consumenearly 18 percent of the entire EU budget—meaning that roughly every fifth euro would go toward financing the war.

This is not merely a budgetary issue, but a strategic shift in direction: Europe’s financial system is increasingly being shaped by the logic of war. While the continent’s economy stagnates, competitiveness declines, and households bear mounting burdens from inflation, energy prices, and austerity measures, Brussels is preparing to allocate hundreds of billions more to prolong the conflict.

Moreover, the proposed sources of funding raise serious concerns. Brussels intends to finance these expenditures partly through the EU budget and partly via a 163-billion-dollar “reparation loan” backed by frozen Russian state assets. In the end, however, it would be European taxpayers who repay this debt. Belgium has already voiced its opposition, and heated debates are underway among EU leaders over the risks and political consequences of the plan.

And that’s not all: according to the Kyiv Post, Ukraine’s budget deficit has doubled compared to previous estimates, reaching 53 billion dollars, while the country is seeking a new IMF program and a 140-billion-euro interest-free loan to be provided by the EU and the G7 nations.

All this makes one thing clear: Brussels wants us to pay Ukraine’s war bill, even as Europeans are struggling with a worsening cost of living, slowing economies, and a historic decline in competitiveness.

Hungary’s position is clear: we do not want more debt, nor do we want an armed conflict — we want peace. Hungary stands for the security of the Hungarian people; it does not serve the geopolitical interests of others. It must be understood that this position is not against Ukraine, but for Europe — for ensuring that the continent does not become the victim of war, but once again restores peace and security for itself.

A Hidden Program of Austerity: How the Brussels-Backed Tisza Party Would Make Hungarians Pay for the War

This will also be the focus of the parliamentary elections to be held next spring. Brussels has one goal: to finally achieve a regime change in Hungary and to replace the patriotic, national-interest focused Orbán government with a puppet government that is willing to implement Brussels’ diktats without question or resistance. They have found the perfect pawn for this in Péter Magyar, who, in line with the demands of the EU elite, would have no problem implementing the austerity measures, tax hikes, and cuts to welfare benefits requested by Brussels. It is likely no coincidence that they reveal nothing about their plans to the public—at least intentionally! As Magyar Péter’s right-hand man and deputy, Zoltán Tarr, put it at a forum: “First, we must win the election, then we can do anything.”

Never before has a party in Hungary tried to win an election while deliberately concealing its program and the identities of its candidates from the voters. Yet, this is exactly what is happening now. However, more and more information is leaking from internal forums, where Magyar Péter’s closest circle, including his deputy, program writer, and pension expert, have been discussing their plans. There have even been instances where they accidentally revealed their intentions during television interviews. The credible evidence, leaked internal documents, statements from the Tisza Party’s own experts, and Magyar Péter’s hysterical reactions to the leaked plans provide a clear picture of what they intend to do:

· They would impose a 10-20% tax on pensions, abolish the 13th-month pension, eliminate the Nők40 program that allows women to retire early, and raise the retirement age.

· They would introduce a progressive tax system, with income tax rates of 15%, 22%, and 33%, which would impose higher taxes even on average wages. This would mostly burden the middle class and families – precisely those who the patriotic Fidesz government has consistently supported in recent years. Interestingly, the European Commission has been demanding the abolition of Hungary’s flat tax system and the introduction of a progressive, higher-tax model in its country-specific recommendations since 2011.

· They would also eliminate the utility cost reduction, which the patriotic government has maintained since 2013, despite repeated criticism from Brussels. This reduction has been a pillar of Hungarian social stability: thanks to it, Hungarian families pay the lowest energy prices in the EU, while in Western Europe, households face prices that are three to five times higher.

The IMF has also aligned itself with the Tisza Party, demanding radical austerity measures for Hungary. The IMF’s expectations include a 3.5% reduction in budgetary expenditures, cuts to social spending, market-driven increases in energy prices, pension reductions, and tax hikes. These measures closely mirror the Tisza Party’s program, which seeks to fulfill international demands at the expense of protecting Hungarian national interests.

National Security and Data Breaches: The Tisza Party’s Dangerous Ties to Ukraine

It is not surprising that Ukraine has a strong interest in influencing the outcome of next year’s Hungarian elections. It has now become clear that Ukraine is attempting to advance its interests through the Tisza Party, as the creation of a Brussels-backed puppet government in Hungary would naturally remove any obstacles to Ukraine’s European Union accession, and Hungarian taxpayers’ money would be directed to Ukraine.

It has long been known that the Tisza Party maintains close ties with Ukraine. Péter Magyar and his closest circle are deeply intertwined with Ukrainian intelligence services and high-ranking officials in the Kyiv government. This is not only supported by the party’s political stances but also by its concrete actions. As a member of the European People’s Party (EPP), the Tisza Party firmly supports Ukraine’s EU membership, and Ukrainian leadership regularly praises this support. The party also has its own Ukrainian affiliate organization in Transcarpathia, which actively recruits party sympathizers.

The Tisza Party’s involvement with Ukraine goes beyond politics and into military matters. The party’s defense policy spokesperson, following the rhetoric of Brussels, has called for the reinstatement of compulsory military service and openly boasts of maintaining close relations with Ukraine’s chief of staff. These entanglements, coupled with the party’s questionable Ukrainian connections, are particularly concerning as they raise not only issues of national interest for Hungary but also serious national security concerns.

The latest development is this week’s data breach scandal, which revealed that personal data (name, address, email, constituency) of nearly 200,000 Hungarian citizens who registered with the Tisza Party’s recruiting app were leaked online. This marks the second major data breach within three months, raising further questions about the party’s data management practices. Complicating matters further, the Tisza Party’s app was developed by a Ukrainian company, PettersonApps, led by Oleh Ostroverh, an open supporter of President Zelensky. Ostroverh is also a member of the supervisory board of Defence Robotics UA, a Ukrainian nonprofit organization closely aligned with one of the Ukrainian army’s prominent combat units, the Da Vinci Wolves. According to the company’s official website, their main client is the Ukrainian army, and it was established specifically to support military technology and drone development for Ukraine’s armed forces.

Moreover, according to leaked conversations among the Tisza Party’s IT staff, it appears that Péter Magyar and his team have been aware of the data breach since early October but did nothing to prevent the loss of this sensitive information. Instead, they launched false accusations against the media outlets reporting on the data scandal while recklessly mishandling the personal information of 200,000 Hungarian citizens. The data could have been accessed by Ukraine, a country currently at war, which, through the Tisza Party and its supporters, gained direct access to this sensitive information.

Suppressing the Truth: The Tisza Party’s Censorship Agenda

Meanwhile, the party’s leaders hypocritically demand censorship against media and public figures who dare to report on the issue. After Péter Magyar and his party were exposed, and their plans for tax hikes and pension cuts were revealed, they did everything in their power to silence those who dared to speak out about their leaked plans in the Hungarian public sphere. For example, they sued the most widely-read online news portal for publishing their leaked plans, and they also sued me for featuring statements made by their experts at Tisza events and during televised interviews about their proposed austerity measures in an AI video—thereby importing to Hungary a Western-style suppression of free speech.

However, the Hungarian people have the right to know what to expect before they place their trust in a political force. We will not allow Brussels’ puppets to import Western-style censorship to Hungary in the name of secrecy. It is unacceptable for the Tisza Party to conceal their planned austerity measures from voters!

These statements point to a deliberate economic policy direction — one that serves Brussels’ agenda over Hungary’s national interests, seeking favour with the Brussels elite instead of defending the Hungarian people. This pro-Ukrainian policy, driven by Brussels’ pro-war logic, would impose heavy burdens on Hungarian families and pensioners — precisely the social groups that the national government has consistently protected in recent years. And all this would serve one purpose: to align with Brussels’ pro-war logic and secure the funds needed to prolong the conflict.

That is the difference between them and us. We want peace instead of war, stability instead of uncertainty, and a stronger nation instead of austerity.

From the heart of Europe, Budapest once again sent a message: Hungary defends today what it has always defended — peace and sovereignty.

The scale and significance of the Peace March made it clear that the pro-peace stance articulated by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán on international platforms is not merely a political position, but the expression of the Hungarian people’s collective will — a will that the democratically elected, patriotic government has consistently represented and will continue to uphold. The demonstration reflected a political reality: when a nation refuses to accept what Brussels demands, it does not comply — it resists.

Speaking to the crowd in front of the Hungarian Parliament, PM Orbán declared: “You are the largest patriotic movement in all of Europe, the largest political community capable of defending its homeland against the oppressors in Brussels.” His words captured not only the scale of the moment but its essence: a united nation reaffirming its right to peace, independence, and self-determination — principles that remain at the core of Hungary’s European identity.

Hungary Refuses to Be Drawn into Brussels’ War

PM Viktor Orbán, addressing the crowd gathered at Kossuth Square, praised the Hungarian people for their perseverance and strength: “You have managed, for sixteen years — and who knows for how much longer — to keep in power Europe’s only Christian, conservative, and national government. You have defended Hungary’s borders and preserved our homeland as the only migrant-free country in Europe.”

He continued: “You were the only ones who stood up against the entire Brussels snake pit to protect your families — to drive LGBTQ activists out of the schools, to defend your children from ideas and teachings that run contrary to the laws of nature and of creation.”

Orbán added that today, millions of Europeans — from Portugal to Germany to Lithuania — long for such a political force and movement of their own. “They would give their right arm to live in a migrant-free country; they would give years of their lives to drive the deranged gender activists away from their children and out of their schools.”

On the war in Ukraine, he reaffirmed Hungary’s position: “We will not go to war, and we will not die for Ukraine — but we will live for Hungary!”

The Prime Minister continued: Brussels has decided to go to war, and the pro-war countries have already formed a war alliance which, with “inimitable elegance,” they call the coalition of the willing. “They are willing to send others to die. They are ready to send even more weapons and even more money to Ukraine. They have declared the Russian–Ukrainian war to be their own, and by doing so they have stepped into it. They are in it up to their necks,” he added.

He argued that if Brussels were not obstructing the American President’s peace mission, the war would already be over. “Everyone knows that if Donald Trump had been president, the war would never have broken out. And if he were not being blocked, there would already be peace,” he emphasized. Viktor Orbán also made it clear that Hungary stands on the side of peace.

The Russian–Ukrainian war is not our war. Tens of thousands of soldiers are falling on the front lines, and although this war is not ours, it still torments our lives. The war is blocking economic growth in both Europe and Hungary. One hundred and eighty-five billion euros have been poured into this hopeless conflict, and now they want to take tens of billions more from the pockets of Europeans — including ours. European citizens’ money is flowing into Ukraine without restraint, and in return, what we get are sky-high energy prices, war-induced inflation, national economies balancing on the brink, and padlocks on the gates of once world-famous European factories.

“As long as the war continues, there will be no economic growth in Europe,” the PM declared, calling it “a miracle” that Hungary is still able to sustain both Europe’s largest home-building programme and its greatest tax-cutting revolution at the same time.

Hungary resists blackmail and stands firm on its own path

Brussels has now run out of money — that is why they want to raise taxes, tax pensions, and dismantle household utility price cuts. They want to bring war into Europe and take money out to Ukraine.

PM Viktor Orbán also said that Hungary is helping Ukraine to achieve peace, as this is demanded by Christian morality and common sense. At the same time, he emphasized that while Hungary wants Ukraine to be connected to the European Union and to have a strategic partnership, it does not want — and will not — belong to the same federal system as Ukraine, neither a military nor an economic one.

Prime Minister Orbán has repeatedly pointed out that one of the fundamental causes of the war is the breakdown of the international balance of power: Ukraine’s aspirations for NATO and EU membership were unacceptable to Russia, and this directly contributed to the outbreak of the conflict. From the very beginning, it has been clear that Russia must take responsibility for violating international law in its actions against Ukraine. Russia attacked Ukraine — that is beyond dispute. But the crucial question remains: what should be done now, and how can the conflict be resolved?

From this perspective, it is more important than ever to think realistically — and for this reason, Hungary cannot support Ukraine’s EU accession. A potential NATO membership would not bring stability; on the contrary, it would create unpredictable security risks by dragging the entire alliance directly into the war.

Regarding the planned peace summit in Budapest between the American and Russian presidents, the Prime Minister explained that Hungary is the only country in Europe where peace can be brokered and secured — and Hungary is ready to make it happen. He added: “Those who say no to war are with us. Those who are Hungarian want peace. Those who are Hungarian want to live. We will not give our money, we will not hand over our weapons, we will not go to war, and we will not die for Ukraine — but we will live for Hungary.”

Referring to Italy, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Poland, he noted that the forces of peace are gathering, and that “the President of the United States is with us,” while “the ground is shifting beneath the feet of the European liberal elite.” “And we are here as well,” he continued, stressing that in 1956 Budapest was the capital of European freedom, and in 2025 Budapest will be the capital of European peace.

Viktor Orbán stated that the cooperation of Europe’s nations has, for centuries, been one of the greatest ideas — yet it has turned into Brussels’ oppression. “There is no negotiating with them. They know only submission. Whoever bargains with Brussels has already surrendered — surrendered to migration and to the plans for war. There is no golden mean. Yes to the European Union, no to Brussels,” he declared.

He went on to say that next year Hungarians must show the world that there is a nation in the heart of Europe which is not afraid to follow its own path, does not yield to blackmail, and does not retreat in the storms of history. “This is who we are — the Hungarians, the wanderers of freedom. And as long as we stand here, in this square, and as long as there is even a single Hungarian left on this Earth, there will be someone to say: there will be peace, because we want peace; there will be freedom, because we were born for freedom,” the Prime Minister emphasized.

The Spirit of 1956 Lives in Hungary’s Stand Against Pressure and for Peace

The commemoration of the 1956 Revolution was attended by heroes who had actively taken part in the uprising and the fight for freedom. They were not only witnesses, but makers of that defining moment when Hungary raised its voice before the world for liberty and national independence — proving that the Hungarian people would rather fight than surrender their self-determination and dignity. And what was their message?

According to the patriots of ’56, the revolution was about freedom, national sovereignty, and comradeship — a reminder that being Hungarian is not merely a matter of birth, but of spirit, something that cannot be erased from the heart. The flag with a hole still speaks today: oppression can be resisted — and must be resisted.

“What matters most is that the Hungarian nation endures,” said the veterans of ’56. They believe that today’s Hungarian youth can draw strength from the courage of the “boys of Pest” — who gave their lives for freedom. Now it is our turn to guard what they once fought for.

History has shown that oppressive ideologies always end in failure. The Brussels elite — much like the late communists — is once again trying to preserve a system of power that seeks to impose ideological control over nations. History also shows that pressure on Hungary always backfires. The Brussels elite — now by amplifying the political role of opposition figure Péter Magyar — hopes to weaken the patriotic government, yet the Peace March demonstrated the exact opposite: the stronger the external interference, the stronger the national response.

Hungary recognizes these patterns of oppression from historical experience. Viktor Orbán, speaking at the commemoration of the 1956 Revolution, pointed out that when the Hungarian heart beats, the whole world can hear it. It did so in 1956 — and not only heard it, but trembled with it. The entire world of communism was shaken, because Budapest set an example for the captive nations: it gave hope to those living under oppression. It broke the chains of fear that held souls captive and taught the world that freedom is not a gift or a privilege, but a right earned through struggle.

He declared that without the Hungarians, communism would never have fallen. Without the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, there would have been no Prague ’68, no Polish Solidarity, the Berlin Wall would not have collapsed, and the ceiling of the socialist world order would not have come crashing down in 1990.

He underlined that Hungary has learned the lessons of history — it will not be dragged into war. “In 1956, Budapest was the capital of freedom; today, Hungary is the voice of peace,” said Viktor Orbán. “Then, the choice was between freedom and submission — today, it is between war and peace. In 1956, they came with tanks; today, they come with financial sanctions. But as long as even a single Hungarian lives, there will always be someone to say: we want peace.”

The EU Energy Council’s decision on Monday, aimed at the gradual phase-out of Russian energy imports, perfectly illustrates Brussels’ political approach, which disregards the real economic needs of Europe. Despite the opposition of Hungary and Slovakia, a political decision was made that overlooks energy security and the impact on the EU economy. Mario Draghi, former President of the European Central Bank, warned a year ago of the gravity of the situation. In a report published last September, the former Italian PM sounded the alarm, highlighting that Europe suddenly lost its most important energy supplier, Russia, while geopolitical stability is diminishing, and the continent’s vulnerabilities have become exposed. Recently, Draghi stated that the situation is even worse now, a view supported by a study from the influential Washington-based Center for the Study of Democracy, which found that European companies are still paying vastly more for energy than those in the U.S. or China. While energy-intensive European industries are paying 14% more this year compared to the previous year, energy prices in China and the U.S. have barely increased. Additionally, according to Draghi, energy demand from data centers in Europe could rise by 70% by 2030, and energy already makes up as much as 40% of operational costs.

Brussels, in its rhetoric, claims to aim at weakening Russia’s war machine, yet in reality, it is plunging its own economy deeper into crisis. The sanctions imposed on Russia are doing far more harm to the EU than to Moscow — taking Hungary as an example: Hungary’s oil and gas purchases account for only a tiny fraction of Russia’s GDP — barely 0.2%. It is hard to imagine that such a negligible sum would have any significant impact on Moscow’s ability to wage war. Meanwhile, the EU advocates for peace opportunities, but through its military and financial support, it is effectively encouraging Ukraine to continue fighting. Furthermore, it keeps pushing for the acceleration of Ukraine’s EU accession, despite the lack of consensus on this issue within the Union.

Meanwhile, political pressure in Brussels is intensifying for every member state—regardless of its circumstances—to abandon Russian energy. These demands ignore national specificities and seek to impose a one-size-fits-all sanctions regime on all of Europe, regardless of the damage it inflicts. For Hungary, however, the national interest comes first: we cannot accept commitments that would undermine our people or our economy. Security and competitiveness are the two guiding principles, since only these can guarantee predictable, low energy prices for businesses and protected household tariffs under the utility cost reduction scheme.

The Price of Sanctions: Hungary Cannot Afford Brussels’ Energy Gamble

While Brussels treats Ukraine’s interests almost as its own political priority, it completely disregards the interests of two EU member states, Hungary and Slovakia. It is abundantly clear that Hungary, as a landlocked country, can rely solely on pipelines. Thus, like Slovakia, its diversification options are more limited compared to other EU member states. Neither gas nor oil can arrive by sea, which means pipelines are the sole guarantee of supply. This geographic fact is the alpha and omega of every Hungarian energy decision—and also the reason why the “alternative realities” imagined in Brussels negotiating rooms, detached from physical constraints, so often bear little resemblance to everyday life in Central Europe.

While many aspects of the IMF’s most recent report on Hungary can be debated, one conclusion is beyond dispute: the full EU embargo on Russian energy planned for the end of 2027 would pose a grave threat to Hungary. According to the Fund’s calculations, a complete break from Russian gas would hit Hungary harder than any other EU member state, potentially causing losses exceeding 4 percent of GDP.

PM Viktor Orbán noted: “That would be a catastrophe. It would bring the Hungarian economy to its knees. This is not a distant risk: hundreds of thousands of families would face immediate hardship, with energy prices soaring multiple times over.” His words underscored that a drastic surge in household utility costs and fuel prices would not only make everyday life impossible for Hungarian families but would also shake the very foundations of the national economy. Security of supply literally depends on a handful of pipelines – and this is not an abstract debate, but the everyday reality of Hungarian families.

These realities are understood in Washington. This was underscored by Donald Trump at a joint press conference with Volodymyr Zelensky last Friday, where he emphasized that he fully grasps Hungary’s situation — the country’s geographic location simply leaves it with no real alternatives. The U.S. president had previously stated publicly that neither Hungary nor Slovakia should be blamed for this dependence, as it is not the result of a political or ideological choice but a consequence of geography. The conclusion from his words is clear: for Washington, the real problem does not lie with those countries whose energy security depends on Russian supplies, but with those that do have alternatives and still continue to import. Hungary, by virtue of its geography, is not among them. While diversification remains a key strategic objective for Budapest, it cannot replace the existing infrastructure.

What is Hungary doing to diversify? Quite a lot.

Criticism often arises suggesting that Hungary could simply replace Russian crude oil via the Croatian pipeline. The reality, however, is different: the Hungarian oil and gas company MOL Group, together with Croatia’s JANAF, has carried out several tests on the Adria pipeline – most recently at the end of September. The results showed that the system cannot operate at sufficient capacity for longer than one to two hours. MOL summarized the findings in a statement: at present, the pipeline is unsuitable to supply Hungary and Slovakia on a long-term basis.

As Viktor Orbán put it: “The Adria pipeline is fit for its current role, namely to function as a supplementary route, while the Friendship [Druzhba] oil pipeline ensures the supply of Hungary and Slovakia.” This was reinforced by Robert Fico during his meeting with Viktor Orbán at the ceremony marking the 130th anniversary of the Mária Valéria Bridge linking Hungary and Slovakia. The Slovak PM emphasized, “I will not enter an ideological contest just to please someone by giving up Russian gas. Every other solution would be more expensive,” Fico said, adding that after the United States, Russia is the second-largest LNG supplier to Western Europe.

Diversification Deals Are Milestones, But Not Game-Changers

Currently, two oil pipelines supply Hungary (the Adria pipeline and the Druzhba pipeline), and Brussels wants one of them to be discontinued in the name of diversification. But how can the elimination of one pipeline be called diversification?

Hungary is taking numerous steps within its own capacity to promote diversification. For example, Hungary has contributed to the development of a new supply route from Serbia. These efforts are advancing a north-south energy corridor that strengthens regional energy security – but even so, the Adria pipeline alone could not secure the supply for the entire region.

Regarding natural gas imports, although Hungary remains highly dependent on natural gas imports, producing just 1.9 billion cubic meters annually, while consumption ranges between 8–10 billion, significant progress has been made in energy diversification over the past few years. For example, Hungary’s ten-year agreement with Shell, signed in September, guarantees the delivery of 200 million cubic meters of natural gas annually starting in 2026. While this improves supply security, it doesn’t change the fact that Hungary’s economy and society rely heavily on pipelines. Natural gas remains vital, as it’s essential for heating, hot water, industry, and energy production. Political calls for Hungary to replace Russian oil unilaterally are unrealistic.

Fortunately, Hungary has established gas interconnections with all its neighbors except Slovenia. However, this is only effective if energy is available at competitive prices. Transport capacities depend on compressor stations and network pressure profiles, which are often one-directional (mainly designed for east-to-west flows from Russia into Europe). Even when pipelines exist, they cannot always deliver the same volumes in reverse. Over the past decade, the state has acquired domestic storage capacity, completed the Slovak-Hungarian gas interconnector, and established bidirectional gas flows with Croatia and Romania.

Recently, we marked another milestone: the Hungarian energy company MVM signed an agreement with France’s Engie, under which Hungary will receive a total of 4 billion cubic meters of liquefied natural gas between 2028 and 2038.

European energy sovereignty is, however, limited compared to that of the United States or China, since Europe imports around two-thirds of its energy resources. This roughly corresponds to the situation in Hungary as well.

This reality defines Hungary’s strategic room for maneuver. Budapest does not reject diversification—on the contrary, it is continuously working on it. Here are the examples:

· Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó is currently in Washington, engaging in discussions to significantly expand Hungarian-American cooperation across various sectors, including energy. As part of these efforts, the plans include incorporating a strong nuclear component, with small modular reactors using American technology expected to help Hungary achieve some of the lowest energy costs in Europe for households, families, and businesses.

· Several Turkic countries are key to Hungary’s diversification efforts. Hungary imports natural gas from Türkiye via the TurkStream pipeline, which is essential after Ukraine halted Russian transit. Additionally, Hungary purchases nearly 600,000 tonnes of crude oil from Kazakhstan, accounting for 8% of its total supply.

· Natural gas deliveries from Azerbaijan started last April, enhancing Hungary’s energy diversification. MOL and MVM now partially own major oil and gas fields in Azerbaijan, marking Hungary’s emergence as both a buyer and seller on the international energy market.

· The Hungary–Serbia oil pipeline, set for completion by 2027, will boost energy security for both countries and the region.

· Hungary leads Europe in solar energy production, with 30% of its electricity generated from solar, three times the global average, as highlighted by the Ember think tank.

· Hungary also leads in solar power generation, with solar plants accounting for 30% of its electricity in the first half of this year, well above the global average of 8.8%.

· Moreover, Hungary, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, and Romania are collaborating on the Green Energy Corridor, a groundbreaking project to import green energy from the Caspian Sea to Europe. This project includes the world’s longest undersea power cable, improving Central Europe’s competitiveness by reducing energy costs, which are currently much higher than in the U.S. or China.

Energy supply has always been a critical issue in the Central and Eastern European region, where countries have made, and continue to make, significant efforts to diversify their sources. In this region, energy supply is a matter of national security. The infrastructure, however, is historically determined: west–east networks are far more developed than north–south connections. As a result, the region can realistically bring in alternative sources only gradually and at very high cost.

Hungary’s approach to diversification is clear: it means securing energy from a wide range of sources and through multiple routes — not paying more for less reliable supplies from fewer providers and limited pathways. In recent years, Hungary has taken numerous concrete steps to broaden its energy supply structure and will continue to do so in the future: the aim is to expand the variety of sources and routes, not to increase vulnerability.

This is why Hungary maintains its position: we cannot allow others to decide on the energy supply of the Hungarian people. Strengthening energy independence is an important objective, but the transition can only be achieved gradually, through the development of realistic alternatives.

And this is precisely why the recent decision by the EU Energy Council on the gradual phase-out of Russian energy sources is utterly unacceptable. Moreover, it is clearly a sanctions-related measure — one that, under EU rules, would require unanimous consent from the member states. Brussels, however, circumvented this requirement by framing the issue as a matter of trade policy, where only a qualified majority is needed.

We, however, will defend Hungary’s energy security and the achievements of our utility cost reduction program.We will not allow Brussels to impose brutal price hikes on Hungarian families. Nor will we accept a situation in which, because of Ukraine, Hungarians are forced to pay several times more for their household energy bills than they do today. That is why we will use every political and legal instrument at our disposal to block the adoption of this regulation.

It also clearly demonstrates that, thanks to its consistently pro-peace stance and a connectivity-driven foreign policy rooted in sovereignty, Hungary can now serve as a venue where diplomacy, mediation, and political will have a real opportunity to work toward ending the war. Trump also revealed that he had an extremely productive phone call with the Russian president, who congratulated him on the Gaza peace agreement — a diplomatic breakthrough that opens new horizons for global stability and peace, and after which Europe’s security challenges may now move to the forefront of international diplomacy.

The peace summit held earlier this week in Sharm el-Sheikh once again confirmed that Donald Trump is, indeed, the “President of Peace.” Peace in the Middle East was once considered unattainable — yet under the leadership of the American president, historic agreements have demonstrated that even the most entrenched conflicts can be transformed through strategic vision and determined diplomacy. The lesson for Europe is equally clear: security is not born of escalation, but from the political courage to choose dialogue even when confrontation seems inevitable.

This is a lesson the European Union, too, must (or should) apply in addressing its own historic challenges. By now, it has become evident that the war in Ukraine cannot be won on the battlefield — its resolution requires political will, diplomatic initiative, and an environment of trust. Hungary has already demonstrated the latter: while EU decision-making in recent years has increasingly narrowed to following Ukraine’s wartime logic — with Brussels often acting more as a political agent of one side than as a mediator — Budapest has consistently kept the door to dialogue open to all relevant actors. It is precisely this approach that has enabled Hungary to play a distinctive role within the EU by providing a diplomatic environment where the conditions for a Trump–Putin negotiation could realistically take shape.

As Prime Minister Viktor Orbán put it after the Sharm el-Sheikh peace summit: “President Trump has achieved something that few would have thought possible just a few months ago. His success shows that peace negotiations are not a sprint but a marathon. A setback at the negotiating table is not a reason to give up — on the contrary, it is a reason to continue.”

According to the Hungarian PM, this perseverance is precisely what is missing from European politics today. “If something doesn’t go as expected, they take offense and walk away. That’s not how it works. It works the way President Trump does it: you try again and again, and eventually you succeed. Time to get to work, dear Europeans,” he added.

The reality is that the key to a political settlement of the war in Ukraine is currently in Washington’s hands. The European Union, by contrast, has failed to heed the call of the times: the continent’s global weight is visibly declining, and if a peace agreement is eventually reached, there is a real risk that European leaders will not even be invited to the negotiating table. Hungary, however, has clearly defined its national interests even in this situation and continues to represent them consistently under all circumstances.

PM Viktor Orbán will take this same approach with him to next week’s European Council summit. He will travel to Brussels directly from a national commemoration marking the 1956 revolution — beginning with a tribute to the heroes of October 23 — and from the Peace March, which is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of people. The march is not only an act of remembrance but also a clear political message: Hungary remains ready to defend its sovereignty and freedom of decision, and continues to insist that its fundamental national interests in peace and security cannot be sacrificed on the altar of wartime logic.

In this context, it is more than symbolic that Budapest will host the upcoming peace talks. This decision itself is a political message: it signals that the logic of war can be transcended, and that diplomacy and connectivity have the power to build bridges across even the deepest divisions.

If a breakthrough can be achieved, it would mean not only the end of a war but also clear proof that the chance for peace is not created by Brussels’ declarations or sanctions packages, but by diplomacy — the kind that advances dialogue between opposing sides through mediation.

By protecting Ilaria Salis’ parliamentary immunity, Brussels has made it clear whose side it is on: the side of criminals, not the victims. This case is a perfect example of how the European Parliament no longer safeguards the security of Europeans, but serves the interests of the elite.

Antifa is a terrorist organization. This is why we followed the example of the United States

The Hungarian government’s position is clear: parliamentary immunity cannot serve as a refuge for violent criminals. Justice must prevail, because when Brussels exonerates extremists on political grounds, it undermines not only public safety but democracy itself.

Unfortunately, we live in a time when left-wing political violence is once again gaining ground worldwide. This makes it even more important to take a firm stand: no one should face intimidation or attack simply for believing in traditional values, the importance of family, Christian principles, or pride in their homeland.

Protecting citizens against such threats is not merely a matter of security—it is one of the fundamental guarantees of democracy. That is why Hungary recently decided, following the example of the United States, to designate the Antifa movement as a terrorist organization. Terrorism is violence or the threat of violence used to instill fear and achieve political or ideological goals—exactly what Ilaria Salis and Antifa carried out in Budapest.

Hungary vs. Brussels: Péter Magyar, the Elite’s Handpicked Leader

After the European Parliament defended the immunity of an international Antifa terrorist, it is hardly surprising that, alongside Ilaria Salis, the EP also protected the immunity of Hungary’s newest opposition leader, Péter Magyar. An investigation was launched in Hungary against Péter Magyar on suspicion of theft after he was thrown out of a downtown luxury nightclub last summer for scandalous behavior, and forcibly took the phone of a man who had recorded the incident before leaving with it. Later, according to eyewitnesses, he allegedly tossed the device into the Danube. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán reacted to the EP’s decision by stating that the Brussels political elite is willing to shield anyone who can help divert Hungary from pursuing its own nationally focused political path.

As he stated, there is only one thing standing in the way of Brussels and Kyiv in carrying out their war plans: Hungary. That is why they are working with full force to bring about a change of government in Budapest. Their goal is clear: to install a Brussels- and Ukraine-friendly government in place of the patriotic government — one that will blindly follow orders, including tax hikes and austerity measures intended to finance Ukraine.

Ukraine’s Influence, Brussels’ Agenda: National Security at Risk in Hungary

In May, the first concrete evidence of Ukrainian influence in Hungary emerged. According to military reports, Romulusz Ruszin-Szendi, military advisor to the Tisza Party and former Chief of Staff, represented the Ukrainian narrative at NATO forums instead of Hungary’s official position, often closing his speeches with the slogan “Slava Ukraini”.

The former Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi and Romulusz Ruszin-Szendi

This influence is also detectable at the technological level. Hungarian media reported this week that the mobile application of Péter Magyar’s Tisza Party was developed by a Ukrainian company, PettersonApps. Nearly 300,000 Hungarian users’ personal data were leaked from the application. Péter Magyar initially denied the data breach, calling the allegations “government lies.” Liberal media outlets, typically focused on discrediting the government, rushed to assist him, but the outcome was not as expected: individuals contacted based on the leaked database — publicly accessible online and containing names, phone numbers, email addresses, and in some cases home addresses — recognized themselves in the dataset.

The head of PettersonApps, Oleh Ostroverh, is openly a political supporter of Volodymyr Zelensky. He also serves on the supervisory board of Defence Robotics UA, a Ukrainian nonprofit organization that collaborates closely with one of the Ukrainian army’s most prominent combat units, the Da Vinci Wolves. The company proudly states on its website that its main client is the Ukrainian army, noting that Defence Robotics UA was established specifically to support robotics development and drone technologies for the Ukrainian armed forces.

This represents not only a data privacy concern but also a national security risk. Personal data of Hungarian citizens, collected for political purposes, may have fallen into the hands of actors openly cooperating with a military force from a country at war. Furthermore, the Tisza Party’s Ukrainian branch is led by Roland Tseber, a person previously banned from Hungary for espionage.

No coincidence that Péter Magyar found his place in the European People’s Party (EPP) in the European Parliament — the party family that forms Ursula von der Leyen’s main support base, and whose 2024 Manifesto states:

· “The EPP will remain a leader in mobilising much-needed EU support and assistance until Ukraine’s decisive victory.”

· “Ukraine must win the war. This requires certainty regarding the long-term financing of Ukraine for its economic and social recovery, modernisation and reconstruction.”

· “It is of paramount importance that the European Union remains committed and united in its support of Ukraine. Europe must, in cooperation with its allies, find ways to amplify its support to Ukraine.”

Given this context, it was hardly surprising that in November 2024, on the 1000th day of the Russia-Ukraine war, Tisza Party MEPs applauded in Ukrainian-flagged shirts during the European Parliament session. Nor is it surprising that supporting Ukraine with weapons and financial resources is far from the only policy point in the Tisza Party program that eerily mirrors Brussels’ diktats, which are often forcefully imposed on member states. Their support for the Migration Pact and publicly disclosed tax hike plans further indicate that the Tisza Party is nothing more than a Brussels-backed government-change project.

Brussels Circles the Wagons — But the Sovereignist Wave Is Unstoppable

As expected, the same left-liberal elite that defended Antifa terrorist Ilaria Salis and, behind the shield of Brussels-granted immunity, the unscrupulous Péter Magyar on Tuesday, also protected Ursula von der Leyen on Thursday. This was not the first motion of no confidence against the President of the European Commission — and it is hardly surprising. Viktor Orbán remarked: “The record is long: she has strangled European industry with green madness, signed a trade agreement with the Americans that is disadvantageous for Europe, opened the doors wide to migrants, and her gravest mistake is pouring money into the Russia–Ukraine war for more than three years.”

That is precisely why pro-sovereignty forces are gaining ground: citizens are rejecting an elite that protects allies instead of upholding rules. Driving out the Brussels elite is only a matter of time: the trend is clear that the members of Patriots for Europe continue to grow stronger in their own countries. Since the founding of the party family last year, our member parties have won every election — most recently, we congratulated Andrej Babis, one of the Patriots’ founding members, on his overwhelming victory in last weekend’s Czech elections.

And this is only the beginning! We will bring an end to the dominance of the Brussels elite and build a peaceful, secure, sovereign, and competitive Europe.

Collecting Signatures to Keep Hungary Out of War

Hungary remains consistent and unwavering in its stance of not wishing to participate in the war in Ukraine. However, this position runs counter to the interests of Kyiv and the war-supporting Brussels leadership. To reinforce this policy, the government has launched a nationwide petition drive: a democratic instrument to demonstrate that Hungarian society is not willing to abandon its fundamental interests in peace and security for the sake of a war-driven logic.

In this context, sovereignty means that Hungary shapes its future based on its own decisions. The stakes of the signature campaign are nothing less than the defense of Hungary’s sovereignty and peace. Therefore, each signature is a clear choice for peace over war.

Years of Accusations, Two Words from Merkel: “Absurd” & „Nonsense”

It is quite the twist that the narrative carefully constructed for years by the domestic opposition and their loyal anti-government media — portraying Viktor Orbán as “Vladimir Putin’s Trojan horse” — was directly refuted by Angela Merkel herself, and notably, in an online program that has received “financial support” from civil organizations with proven ties to George Soros.

The former German chancellor visited Budapest last week on the occasion of a book launch. During her visit, she not only met with Viktor Orbán in his office for a one-on-one discussion but also gave an interview to the openly anti-government YouTube channelPartizán.

When asked by journalists whether the Hungarian PM had ever been Putin’s “Trojan horse” within the European Union, Merkel emphasized: “No, that’s nonsense. We’re not falling for that. We would never fall for such things. I find it absurd.”

Yes, it is. Precisely because the Hungarian government is not concerned with the interests of either Russia or Ukraine. Hungarian foreign policy is guided by a single principle: what serves the interests of the Hungarian people.