The story of one transformation
Ukraine will begin negotiations on joining the European Union, but will not receive the long-promised 50 billion package of financial assistance from the European Union. In any case, in the near future and in such an agreed format. It will not receive due to the position of one of the EU countries, which imposed its inexorable veto on the decision, approved by 26 of the 27 EU member states. More precisely, because of one person.
Photo: Global Look Press
There is a great temptation to intrigue, to pause: they say, is such improbability possible, and who is this David? who dared to challenge the many-headed European Goliath? But no intrigue will come of it. There is such a person, and everyone knows him. Who doesn’t know, who hasn’t heard about the Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban?
This name is heard so often today that a person far from European affairs may think that Mr. Prime Minister has the honor of leading one of the European supergrands. If not Germany, then at least Italy. But Viktor Orban’s global fame is completely unrelated to the size of his state’s economy, much less its geographical scale.
The scale, of course, by Russian standards and among the giants is not so great. As the hero of “Formula of Love” rightly said about one of them, the aforementioned one: “I saw their Italy on the map: boot with boot — and that’s all.” But you won’t find Hungary on every map.
About cases of such meaning “not according to height” people say: “Small, but brave.” True, this is what they say about daredevils for whom they feel sympathy. In other cases, another expression is used: “A small bug, but a stinking one.” The assessment of Orbán’s achievements on the world stage also entirely depends on likes and dislikes. True, not so much to Hungary itself, but to Ukraine and Russia.
This person and the country he leads play such a big role in history because they found themselves, as they say, in the right place at the right time — at the intersection of the interests of the parties to the global confrontation. Hungary: a) a full member of the collective West (since 1999 — in NATO, since 2004 — in the European Union); b) despite all this, he does not hide his disposition towards Moscow and dislike towards Kyiv.
Hungary stands for the lifting of sanctions imposed on Russia and against the admission of Ukraine to the European Union and NATO and the provision of any military assistance to it. It does not even allow the transit of weapons through its territory. It seems that he has no objection in principle to the allocation of financial assistance, but in fact he is blocking this too.
The blocking is accompanied by a demand to “unfreeze” the 30-billion-dollar aid package that Brussels provided to Hungary itself, but was not shipped in view of its » bad» behavior, inconsistency of the political system built by Orban with European standards: claims relate to the judicial system (the degree of its independence), respect for LGBT rights, rights to asylum, etc.
Orban is playing approximately the same game with regard to Sweden’s entry into NATO: in principle, he is for it, but the parliament, what a misfortune, keeps postponing the vote on the ratification of the relevant agreement. True, the counter-demands here are more vague: Budapest is not satisfied with unfair reproaches from Swedish politicians for violating the principles of democracy and the rule of law.
In general, it’s like no other: a stranger among one’s own. However, everyone is well aware of this. It is no secret how Viktor Orban, as they say, came to live this way: details of his political path can be found in a huge number of sources.
Nevertheless, there are mysteries in Orban’s biography, for which not a single source provides an exhaustive explanation. It is believed that the basis for his rapprochement with Russia and its current authorities is the similarity of ideological positions. In the European system of coordinates, Orban’s views qualify as right-wing conservative. Orban is, to put it mildly, not a liberal. What he himself talks about a lot and with pleasure.
Here is his direct speech: “The new state that we are building in Hungary is not a liberal state… This is a form of government that is better suited to do a successful nation… Hungary must abandon the dogmas and ideologies adopted in Western Europe.» The winners in the world race for the most successful, effective form of government, according to the Hungarian Prime Minister, are Singapore, China, India, Russia and Turkey.
However, Orban began his political career as an inveterate liberal. Moreover, from 1992 to 2000 he was vice-president of the Liberal International, an international political organization uniting the liberal parties of the world (headquarters in London). Accordingly, the Fidesz-Hungarian Civil Union party, led by Orban, was also a member of the Libertern.
In order to understand more clearly and visually the nature of this international structure, let us clarify that its Russian participant is the Yabloko party. The founder of the party, the chairman of its Federal Political Committee, Grigory Yavlinsky, is the honorary vice-president of the Liberal International.
But already in the 1990s there was a change in ideological and political banners. What was the root cause of the drift to the right is not known for certain, but it moved quickly and non-stop. In 2000, Fidesz and Orban left the Libertern and joined the European People's Party, which includes the center-right, conservative forces of the European Union. Here Orban, by the way, also becomes one of the vice presidents.
And the right turn did not end there. As time went on, Orbán and the Orbáns moved further to the right, and eventually they disagreed even with their fellow European conservatives: in 2021, Fidesz left the European People's Party.
However, even taking the conservative path, Orban at first had no sympathy for Russia. For example, in 2008, he harshly condemned the Russian military operation in Georgia and spoke out for the speedy admission of Georgia and Ukraine to NATO. But then a reassessment of values took place here too. Even more rapid and even more difficult to explain.
In November 2009, Orban, at that time the leader of the opposition, who had previously pointedly avoided traveling to Russia, appears as a guest at the United Russia congress, held in St. Petersburg. It was there, on the sidelines of the congress, that it is believed that he met Vladimir Putin, who then held the post of head of government.
The following year, Orban again took over as prime minister (his first term was 1998-2002). And in the same year, 2010, he came to Russia in an official capacity. In 2013 — another visit, in 2014 — again. Then — Putin's return visit… In general, it went on and on. And so far, as we see, it doesn’t stop.
There are different versions and rumors about what then prompted Orban, no longer a liberal, but still a “Russophobe,” to change his view of Russia. Some evil tongues claim, for example, that Orban’s epiphany happened after some compromising material fell into the hands of the Russian special services.
However, this version has no evidence. Well, besides the fact that the authority figure in history is indeed closely connected with Hungary and really gained freedom in that very turning point of 2009. But these coincidences, of course, cannot be taken into account.
In addition, the transformation can be explained without any conspiracy theories. Orban simply realized all the advantages of the situation, which is quite accurately described by the Russian proverb: “A gentle calf sucks two queens.” Although it probably has a Hungarian analogue. In other words, being friends with Russia, being a member of NATO and the European Union, is much more profitable than just being friends or just being a member.
What benefits does Budapest derive from this ancient, as the world, but ever-living scheme? The benefits are obvious. From Russia — energy resources, oil and gas, at divine prices (despite all the sanctions, Hungary still regularly receives them) and other trade and economic preferences, bonuses and goodies.
As for the EU and NATO, here, in addition to all the obvious benefits for a country that is not gigantic, to put it mildly, but is so rich from being in a large and generous community — economic, military-political, social — there is another obvious advantage. The peculiarities of the national foreign policy of small but proud Hungary force its partners in the European Union to treat it with much greater respect.
This was clearly demonstrated at the recent Eurosummit. Having blocked the release of financial assistance to Ukraine, Orban unexpectedly conceded on the issue of starting negotiations on Ukraine’s accession to the European Union. He condemned, criticized, branded, but did not veto. And according to the most common and most plausible version, such complaisance was shown not “for free”, not for free, but for unfreezing part of the above-mentioned Hungarian European package.
The Russian benefits are also quite obvious. In today's times, a “friend” in Europe is worth a lot. Well, relatively speaking, it’s clear, “our own”. “Ours” compared to the rest. But the background is such that this is just a godsend.
In short, there is no need to be picky. Although there is certainly something to reproach Orban and the “new state” of Russia that he created. Yes, Budapest and Moscow have very similar views on modernity. But as far as history is concerned, primarily the history of the Second World War, there is no trace of harmony.
“The specificity of Hungary is the constitutional consolidation of the thesis about the interruption of state sovereignty from March 19, 1944 (the entry of Hitler’s troops as part of Operation Margarita, the establishment of the Nilas regime led by F. Szalasi) to May 2, 1990 (the formation of the first government after the change building), that is, in fact, the idea of the “double occupation” of the country by Nazi Germany and then the USSR. At the official level, the message is cultivated about the complete identity of the communist system and the Nazi regime from the point of view of “guilt for crimes against humanity.” Moreover, along with the swastika, signs SS and Nilas crosses, the symbols prohibited in Hungary are the “red five-pointed star” and the “hammer and sickle.”
This is a quote from the fresh report of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, published on November 30, “On the situation with the glorification of Nazism, the spread of neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to the escalation of contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.» And our foreign policy department greatly pitied our Hungarian partners.
One could also, for example, remind the partners of the monuments to Miklos Horthy and his honoring in modern Hungary as a national hero. For reference: the dictator, who bore the title of “regent of the Kingdom of Hungary” (despite the fact that there was no king in sight), brought the country into the war with the USSR on the side of Nazi Germany. Moreover, the reputation of the Hungarian occupiers on the Soviet territory they occupied was no better, and sometimes even worse, than that of the Germans. The Hungarian fascists often gave their “big brothers” a head start in terms of atrocities.
We can also recall the participation of an “outstanding statesman” — the definition of Viktor Orban — and his regime in the Holocaust. And also the relatively recent call of the Hungarian government to fellow citizens to honor the memory of “our grandfathers, the heroic Hungarian soldiers who fought to the end at the bend of the Don,” made on the anniversary of the defeat of the 2nd Hungarian Army during the Battle of Stalingrad. In general, you can remember a lot of things.
But here the eternal dilemma arises: “with checkers” or “to go”? And for now, it looks like we are choosing the latter option.
Свежие комментарии