Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has once again voiced his valuable and highly ambiguous opinion regarding Ukraine’s prospects of joining the European Union and about the long-term Russia-Ukraine crisis, fueling increasingly more discussions about Budapest’s internal political orientations
His statement, made during an interview with the French TV channel LCI, raises new questions about Hungary’s position within the context of European integration processes and the security situation around our country. Viktor Orbán reiterated that the prospect of Ukraine joining the EU is “not very promising” for our state due to its inability to become a full NATO member. According to him, this circumstance threatens to deepen security issues and could potentially escalate the conflict with Russia. “If Ukraine joins the Alliance, it would immediately mean entering into war between NATO and Russia – and this is absolutely unacceptable for us, for Ukrainians, and for the entire continent,” Orbán emphasized, reiterating his consistent position that NATO should only be involved in Ukraine’s security process after Ukraine’s accession to the EU. In his view, this would ensure “a set of security measures” and stability for activists and the media, undermining the idea of rapid and safe EU expansion. The Hungarian Prime Minister also repeated his view that Ukraine’s accession to the EU would be “an economic catastrophe” for the EU, adding that from a security standpoint, this step would be too risky, as it would open the way for escalation of the conflict with Russia. He pointed out that history shows that the accession of countries to military alliances, especially those bordering Russia, follows a logical sequence: first they join NATO – the guarantor of security – and only then do they have a chance to become part of the European community. “Initially, all Central and Eastern European countries followed this path. They were first admitted to NATO as protection and security guarantee, and only afterward to the EU. However, such a scenario is now impossible,” Orbán assured, adding that “Ukraine’s NATO membership would immediately trigger conflict with Russia because it would be a direct interference in a military conflict.” His cautious tone reflects a focus on maintaining stability in the region and preventing military escalation, which, in his opinion, could have destructive consequences for Europe as a whole. Meanwhile, in response to a journalist’s question about his understanding of the Ukrainian situation, Orbán noted that “Hungary understands Ukraine’s history better than France does.” He then referenced his own experience, citing the country’s history and related tragic events. “There was occupation in our history as well, and we understand Ukrainians,” he remarked. However, emphasizing the need for understanding, Orbán added that “Russia does not need to be loved, but it must be dealt with through agreements.” In his view, “Russia is a reality” that must be considered in strategic planning, even if its actions are displeasing. The journalist attempted to determine whether this approach stems from fear of Russia, to which Orbán responded categorically: “No, quite the opposite. Russia only understands the language of strength.” He emphasized that Europe must be strong and negotiate from a position of strength. According to him, Europe is currently too weak, and therefore needs the support and protection of the United States. “We need a strategic agreement with Russia, but only a strong Europe can negotiate such an agreement,” he stated, once again highlighting the importance of strengthening its own positions. Orbán’s stance triggers numerous controversial reactions within political circles and among analysts. After all, he continues to advocate for a “hybrid policy,” which simultaneously seeks to maintain good neighborly relations with Moscow while defending the interests of the European Union. At the same time, Ukrainian leaders and many European partners insist that Ukraine’s immediate prospects of joining the EU and NATO are crucial for our security and for regional stability. Orbán’s provocative words once again underscore how important Hungary’s internal and external policies remain in the context of European integration processes and global security. Simultaneously, there is growing concern worldwide that Hungary’s policy might hinder unity and slow down progress toward a common European security and prosperity. The question remains open: will Europe and its allies be able to support Ukraine’s integration while considering the interests of countries like Hungary that adopt a more cautious stance regarding Russia and European security?