Menu
Zsolt Törőcsik: “We do not want our children to be sent to the Ukrainian front and return from there in coffins.” This was Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s reaction to an interview with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a Hungarian newspaper, in which the Ukrainian president said that the Hungarian prime minister’s policy was anti-Ukrainian and anti-European. In the next half hour we’ll be talking, among other things, about the exchange of messages between the two leaders, as my guest in the studio is Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Good morning.
Good morning.
When you said, as I referenced in my introduction, that you do not want our children to return from the Ukrainian front in coffins, you were conveying a very strong image – which many people have said is too strong. In the meantime, we see that Zelenskyy is asking for – and receiving – support from countries with far greater military forces and financial resources than we have. Why would he need Hungarian soldiers at the front?
This is what membership of the European Union comes with. So if we bring the Ukrainians into the European Union, we’ll bring in the war. Imagine if the European Union were to comply with the request of the Ukrainian president – who has actually threatened us – and admit Ukraine to the European Union. In that event, today we would have a member on our eastern borders that is at war. It would only be a matter of time before all the EU Member States would be involved in this war, because then it would be our war. And we don’t want the Russo–Ukrainian war to be our war.
In one of your speeches this week you also said that in accession negotiations the Brussels approach used to be that the Eastern countries should first become NATO members, settle their various disputes and then join the European Union. What’s the reason for the change of attitude in Brussels compared with twenty to twenty-five years ago?
They want war. So let’s talk straight. In the west of Europe, three years ago the governing leaders jumped into a war. Even then we said that this wasn’t our war, it was a war between two kindred Slavic nations. We said it needed to be calmed down, de-escalated, isolated and contained: a ceasefire needed to be achieved, and it needed to be prevented from spreading further or causing the long-term destruction of the European economy. This was the opposing Hungarian position – let’s say the only pro-peace position. By contrast, the Westerners said, “But this is our war, Russia is a threat, they must be defeated, and it’s better to defeat them on Ukrainian territory than closer to our borders or even on our borders – and so Ukraine is actually fighting for European security.” That was their concept. I always thought that was a mistake, because Ukraine, which hadn’t been a security risk for Europe, suddenly became a security risk for Europe. And everything that threatens the Ukrainians now – and has threatened us since the war started – is because we haven’t removed ourselves from it, we haven’t isolated ourselves, but we’ve allowed it to spread, and we’ve even joined in this war. Therefore, because the Ukrainians are actually unable to maintain their own state, we’re paying the pensions of Ukrainian pensioners, we’re paying the salaries of state employees, we’re maintaining the functioning of Ukrainian public services, and we’re maintaining their army. So, without us, without the West, Ukraine wouldn’t survive for a day: it not only couldn’t wage war against Russia, but it couldn’t survive, it couldn’t exist. That’s the situation! Now, to admit such a country into the European Union means taking on all those problems – which is something we don’t need.
You’ve mentioned the fact that the European Union is effectively paying for the functioning of the Ukrainian state, and we’ve talked a lot about how much it would cost the EU to admit Ukraine – but where would Brussels and the Member States get the money to do that?
Well, money is indeed a factor here – but I underline, I repeat, that the most important thing is that Europe mustn’t get involved in this war. We’re already more involved than we should be – at least up to our waists in it. If we admit Ukraine to the European Union, we’re also admitting war into our midst; if we admit war, then there will be military action, there will be armed clashes, soldiers will have to be deployed, soldiers will go to the front, soldiers will die, and they’ll come back in coffins from a war that’s nothing to do with us. Sometimes a country may have to carry out military actions that involve human sacrifice. But it must be closely, clearly, strongly, undeniably, inextricably linked to our national interests. It’s not in our national interest to send even a single Hungarian to Ukraine, and for even a single Hungarian to die there. That’s by far the most important thing, and after that comes the money. Credit: that’s the EU’s answer to the question of how we’ll finance Ukraine. This is because we ourselves have no money, because the entire European economy is stagnating, because a considerable proportion of European Member States – from France through Italy – are in debt at a rate higher than their annual national economic output. The German economy is also sick and coughing. So there’s no money in Europe either. Meanwhile we want to maintain another state – and even satisfy the demand of that other state, because the Ukrainians are asking us European Union countries to finance a Ukrainian army of one million. What’s more, the Americans have more sense, because they’re no longer doing this since the United States came under the leadership of a businessman, who can divide, multiply, calculate, subtract and add. He says that it makes no sense, that America will not gain from this, but lose out. So he’s leaving the whole mess to us, hanging the whole fiasco around our necks. And we have no money. If politicians want to be there, if they want to continue to get involved in the Ukrainian war, they’ll have to give money; and if they don’t have money, they’ll have to take out loans. And we’re heading down the slope leading to the financial collapse of Europe, with ever bigger giga-loans round our necks.
Let’s go back to Zelenskyy’s interview, because there were also comments on Hungarian–Ukrainian bilateral relations. He said that he doesn’t want to threaten anyone, but that they really do have everything in their possession – while adding that there’s no problem if the parties respect each other. In this situation, who do you think is disrespecting whom?
First of all, I’d say that when a Ukrainian tells you that he’s not saying something to threaten you and he doesn’t want to threaten you, you can be sure that you’re being threatened. So the Ukrainian president has threatened Hungary. What’s more, he’s done so on the basis of “facts” and documents that are unknown to us. So what we can say to him is that if he has something to say about Hungary, or there’s something about our policy he doesn’t like, or there’s something he’s found that’s offensive to him, he should make it public, and he shouldn’t send us messages or make threats. That won’t work in Hungary. That’s the way to achieve results in Western European countries which are falling on their knees in recognition of the difficult situation Ukraine is in; but Hungary isn’t a country that falls to its knees before Ukraine. We acknowledge their difficult situation and their heroic efforts, but we won’t behave like the Western Europeans, who swoon whenever the Ukrainian president speaks and whatever he says. We know exactly who the Ukrainian president is, we know the Ukrainians very well, and we know exactly who they are. So here they shouldn’t act like moral heroes, because they have no authority to do so, and they can’t talk down to us Hungarians from a high horse. I’m not saying that Hungarians are blameless, but hold on a second! We have a basis for comparison between Ukraine and Hungary – if you’re in trouble and you get help, just as Ukraine is in trouble and it gets help from Hungary. Because we’ve let people from there in, we’ve let them work here, we’ve given them jobs, we’ve fed their children, we’ve educated their children, we’ve kept them safe. And we haven’t said a single sentence asking them to thank us for this. Now, it’s a bit much to hear them talking about disrespect. So I think that President Zelenskyy must understand that Hungary belongs to the Hungarians, and that he cannot make demands and talk down from a high horse. If he wants something, then he can come here with all due modesty and say what he wants. And we’ll give him an answer. On the contentious issue between us, the Hungarian answer is clear. Ukraine shouldn’t demand that Hungary support its membership of the European Union, because that would destroy Hungary and endanger the lives of our children. So we don’t want to take them in. And they have no right to join the European Union. They have the right – just as we had the right – to apply for membership of the European Union. And we have the right to say “yes” or “no”. The Hungarians are now forming their opinion, and they’ll have their say on this in the context of Voks2025. The fact that he has friends in Hungary – which he says he has – and that there are pro-Ukrainian parties, means that in Hungary this debate is a live debate on how to deal with Ukraine. And there are pro-Ukrainian parties in Hungary: Both Tisza and DK are openly pro-Ukrainian parties. But, even though he has friends here, this doesn’t give President Zelenskyy the right to talk to Hungary the way he does.
It’s very interesting that you mentioned that the Hungarians are now forming their opinion on this issue in Voks2025, because in this interview Zelenskyy also said that your position doesn’t reflect the position of Hungary as a whole. On what could he have based that statement?
He based this on the fact that he has friends, and his friends have already organised a referendum in Hungary within their party: this has happened, as Tisza organised a vote on what its own supporters think about Ukraine’s accession to the European Union. And the supporters of the Tisza Party, who are friends of Zelenskyy, clearly said – by about 60 per cent – that they’re in favour, that they want Ukraine to be a member of the European Union. They see the threat of war to our children differently, and they see the financial consequences differently. I think that they have the wrong view, and I’d like to persuade them to change their minds and think again. But in the meantime, there’s also a non-partisan, nationally-based vote, Voks2025, which has generated a huge amount of interest. I see the numbers every day, the number of responses coming back – we’re at over two million! So more than two million people have expressed their views on this issue, and they’ve felt that it’s important that their voice, their opinion, should be included in the Government’s decision. This is a fantastic success. I can’t remember the last time there was a national consultation or a vote – a referendum-like vote – in which so many people took part. There are eight days to go, and the countdown starts now. So I’d urge everyone to appreciate the seriousness of the situation, read the Zelenskyy interview, and look at the Hungarian domestic political debate on this issue. There are pro-Ukrainian and pro-Hungarian forces, the dividing line is very clear, and it’s very important that they – and therefore every single Hungarian citizen – express their opinion on this issue.
About a week after the vote, there will be a summit of NATO – and then EU – heads of state and government. How might the outcome of Voks2025 influence your position at these meetings?
The fact is that a serious battle is about to begin on Monday. Hungary will be involved in an international battle that will last two weeks. On Monday, foreign ministers from EU countries will meet to discuss a proposal from the European Commission. It calls for a ban on anyone buying oil, gas and nuclear fuel from Russia. This will kill the Hungarian economy, it will bring us down: if they succeed in pushing this through, Hungary will have to pay two or three times – maybe four times – as much for energy as it has been paying. We’ve protected families from higher energy costs for the last two or three years, even during the war, but this would be a financial burden that I simply don’t see any way of removing. So we have to think not about correcting the consequence of a wrong decision, but about preventing the wrong decision from being made. This is the only chance we’ll have to defend the reductions in household energy bills, to defend families, to defend families’ monthly budgets, and families’ wallets. So Minister Szijjártó will start that battle on Monday, it will go on all week, and the following week it will be the prime ministers’ turn – that’s when I’ll have to finish the job that Minister Szijjártó will have started.
Speaking of the reductions in household energy bills, yesterday – or this week – the Commission drew up a list of so-called country-specific recommendations for Hungary, in which it calls on the Government to phase out the reductions in household energy bills. But it also mentions the profit margin freeze, family support measures, and the interest rate freeze. Will the Government accept what’s written in that document?
Out of the question! If we did what Brussels is asking us to do, about half of all families would be ruined. So what Brussels is asking isn’t just anything. By the way, this won’t be the first battle we have to fight – it’s asking for the interest rate freezes to be lifted. Today interest rate freezes protect 300,000 Hungarian families who have mortgages to repay – the interest on which has soared. If we were to lift the interest rate freeze, the majority of these families would surely be on the brink of ruin. They’re saying that we should terminate the profit margin cap. I understand that this is a problem for the big multinational chains because they’re making lower profits, but it also means that Hungarians are paying less in the shops. We’re still paying a lot, we’re paying an unfair amount, but if it weren’t for the profit margin cap, we’d be paying a lot more. So here the question is whether we’ll listen to Brussels, or whether the Government will protect people against unaffordable prices. The same is true for housing support measures. In Hungary we have a housing support system that benefits tens of thousands of people. Brussels says this is too generous and not targeted, and distorts the housing market – meaning that people can get access to housing more cheaply than if the Government didn’t do it. They’re also attacking the work-based economy, saying that there are better arguments for a welfare-based economy than for a work-based economy. And they also say that the reductions in household energy bills aren’t effective enough. They say that far fewer people should be benefiting from the reductions than are currently benefiting from them. There are a host of such requests that I have to receive every year in a report produced in Brussels, called a “country-specific recommendation”, which is put to the Member States. I’m not at loggerheads with Brussels because I’ve got nothing better to do, or because I’m a quarrelsome type. If you can’t cooperate with me, you can’t cooperate with anyone. We’re cooperative to the point of meekness. I simply have to defend the interests of the Hungarian people. When I read such documents, the only answer I can give is to close them and say, “Thank you very much, all these things are the business of the Hungarian people and they’ve got nothing to do with Brussels, which has no authority to interfere in these matters.” I see this as just an opinion, while Hungary goes its own way, trying to protect jobs and family budgets.
But what is Brussels’ aim with these measures, or these requests?
If I add it all up, it means that EU companies operating in Hungary can take more money out of the country. It’s all about that! Abolishing taxes on multinationals, and taxes on banks: it’s about them not being able to take the amount of money out of Hungary that they want to take. Well, that’s life: there are natives here too, and this is our country after all.
Let’s talk about another EU issue. On Monday this week, the Patriots for Europe held a rally in France. Briefly put, the aim of the party family is to transform politics in Brussels. What’s the root of the problem in the European Union? What do you think should be changed?
The basic problem is that in the European Union bureaucracy is out of control. This is why I don’t talk about the European Union, but about the bureaucrats in Brussels. There are more than 30,000 people working there. This is after the political leaderships of the major European states have been weakened: France is in a precarious position; in Germany, after a confused parliamentary election, following a confused run-up, a coalition has been formed – and it’s not clear how stable it is; and the British have left. Under these circumstances, European leaders are quite simply so preoccupied with their own domestic problems that they don’t have enough time, attention or energy for pan-European affairs, and can’t set strategic directions. And it’s then that the Brussels bureaucracy rises up – this is an empire after all, it’s an imperial centre. We’ve seen it before in Hungarian history. So what I’m talking about now is in the costume of Brussels, but we’ve seen it before with the names of other royal courts: not to mince my words, we’ve seen it before with Vienna 150 years ago. So at times like this bureaucracy gets out of hand, and becomes a law unto itself. And their only aim is to take as many powers as possible away from the Member States and, like all bureaucracies, to siphon off as much power for itself as possible. And this is why there’s a constant battle going on. The Brussels bureaucrats want to take powers away from the Member States – powers that have nothing to do with them. For example, reductions in household energy bills have nothing to do with them. LGBTQ, the education of children, schools – these things have nothing to do with them. Unemployment benefits or child tax credits have nothing to do with them. Whether or not there’s a thirteenth month’s pension – this has nothing to do with them. But they’re constantly interfering, meddling, and taking powers out of the pockets and hands of the Member States, out of the territory of the Member States. And the number of matters they want to decide on in Brussels is increasing, with the end result that they’re telling people in the Member States how they should live – for example telling us how Hungarians should live in Hungary. We didn’t set them up for this purpose: we set them up to coordinate and harmonise the work of the Member States, not to sit on our heads or on our shoulders and tell us from above that we should let migrants in. That’s one of the biggest problems they have with Hungary. They’ve told us to let them in, and we’re not letting them in. But this has got nothing to do with them. So the biggest problem – and this is felt all over Europe, and this is why the Patriots were created – is the undermining of national powers. And together what we want – all of us, the French, the Italians, the Hungarians, the Poles – is for them to give back the powers that have been unconstitutionally taken from us in the past, and not to interfere in matters that we in Hungary have to resolve at Member State level. This is a pan-European movement: return powers to the nation states!
So, how can they achieve this? Because what we see is that in many countries these parties aren’t in power or not in government – even in countries where they win elections.
In politics, goals have to be achieved through strength, and strength comes from persuading people. So politicians have nothing. Politicians are just skeletons, bodies without clothes. It’s people who dress politicians, and they put muscles on us. So the job of politicians is to convince people on certain issues, to consult them and then to represent the joint position that’s been reached. And if enough people support a group of politicians who represent a particular idea, for example the Patriots, then they’ll get results in Brussels. The first step was successful, because we didn’t exist before, and now we do. A person’s birth is their first great success. It’s the same in politics: the Patriots have been born. We’ve emerged from the birth canal, and now we’re here in the fresh air, breathing, showing signs of life; and our weight at birth was high, because we’ve immediately become the third largest party family in Europe. And there are other sibling party families – I won’t say twins, but perhaps that wouldn’t be an exaggeration. For example, the Italian prime minister is leading such a movement, and the leader of the party that won the Dutch election is leading such a movement. In Germany, too, this movement has started. So the way I see it, everywhere in Europe the next two or three years can be described as patriotic. The word “nationalist” is now banned, because for some reason it’s considered a dirty word, but in every major country in Europe in two or three years’ time patriotic, nationalist governments will be in place – such a majority will emerge in Europe. This isn’t bad, this is good. And it’s not simply happening: this is what we want, this is what we’re doing, and it will be good.
Now we’re bringing patriotism down from the European level to the local level, because this week Parliament passed the law on local identity. One of the Government’s commitments for this year is to strengthen the countryside and small settlements. How does this legislation fit in with that objective? What’s its purpose?
Indeed, our villages must be protected, as there are areas of the country where villages are being depopulated. I won’t mention counties, but we have several of them. These are serious problems. We must help people so that those who want to live their lives where they were born can do so. So no one should feel that they have to leave their village. Of course, those who want to go should go, and it’s good to see the world, and there’s life outside the village. But don’t do so because you feel that you can’t live there, that it’s the middle of nowhere, that you have no access to public services, that there are no jobs there, that there’s no income there. So we must preserve the Hungarian village. The Hungarian village is a very specific Hungarian phenomenon, and very few countries have the network of small villages that Hungary has. It’s a great asset, and it’s how we populate the country. We mustn’t allow any corner of the country to be depopulated. This is why we’re helping them with very simple things: we’re supporting small shops, we’re supporting pubs, we’re renovating cemeteries, we’re renovating churches, we’re trying to keep schools alive, and so on. Now the Hungarian government and the local authorities have embarked on an interesting experiment, and we owe thanks to Parliament for supporting it; because there’s a phenomenon whereby villages are becoming towns without the people there actually wanting it. This is the problem of those who move out or move in, what in our villages is called the “blow-in” problem. There’s a phenomenon – especially in the surroundings of larger towns and cities – whereby people and families who didn’t live somewhere before appear in such large numbers that it completely transforms the lives of the people who live there. I’ve been in many, many villages where they’ve specifically asked us to give them the means to protect themselves against this. We don’t want to interfere in this: each municipality has to decide for itself whether it wants to defend itself, what it wants to be, how big it wants to be; but there’s been a legitimate demand to give them the means to be in control of their own lives, to decide how big they want to be. And now Parliament has given them the rights to do that – and small communities, elected leaders, have the means to protect the original character of their communities if they want to.
I’ve been asking Prime Minister Viktor Orbán about topics including discussions on Ukraine’s EU membership, the European Commission’s economic recommendations, and the goals of the Patriots for Europe.
More news
