Menu
By Meret Baumann and Ivo Mijnssen
When Viktor Orbán gives an interview, his team leaves almost nothing to chance. It all starts with the location: the interview takes place in the library of the Carmelite Monastery of Buda, high above Budapest. Since 2019 this has been the official headquarters of Hungary’s prime minister. From the window there is a stunning view of the Danube and of the Parliament building. The library comprises two storeys, which are connected by a wrought-iron spiral staircase, and shelves of antique books cover every wall. His staff are even quick to place a large national flag next to the table at which the interview is taking place. Then the 61-year-old Prime Minister enters; he shakes hands and poses for a photo in front of a wooden globe almost as tall as we are. It depicts the world before the First World War – and above all imperial Europe, including Greater Hungary. But before the photographer can press the camera’s button, Orban, showing great presence of mind, turns the globe to the right, so that the USA is visible. “Everyone will be outraged again if you can see historical Hungary behind me”, he says. “America is more forward looking”.
Donald Trump returned to power ten days ago. You’ve supported him since 2016, and have always hoped for his return. What does this mean for you now?
At other times it has taken years for the world to change as much as it has in these ten days (smiles). This is the Trump tornado. But for Hungary it’s simple: we were under simultaneous pressure from Brussels and Washington. When a country of ten million people has two boots on its chest, it’s barely survivable. We were the black sheep of the West. Now it turns out that what Trump’s doing – or what we’ve been doing for the last fifteen years – is the future. We’re happy and feeling calm.
In what specific ways do you hope to improve relations with the US?
The Democrats hated us. We took opposing positions on issues like migration, gender issues and the war in Ukraine. They supported every organisation and media outlet in Hungary that was against me. Trump has stopped this. We also hope that Americans will invest more in us again. Lately even China has outperformed them in this.
You’re the prime minister of a small country in a geopolitically unstable region. Trump wants to focus more on Asia, at the expense of a military role in Europe. What are the implications for Hungary’s security?
The Americans will stop providing us with security if the Europeans don’t make them a good offer of cooperation. Sitting and waiting isn’t the answer. We have to come up with ideas. Europe is rich, but at the same time it’s also weak. And this is the most dangerous combination. We’ve enjoyed the benefits of peace for a long time. Under Trump we’ve lost them.
The geopolitical situation is dividing the world. But Hungary is seeking good relations with the West, with China and with Russia. Isn’t there a danger of being crushed between these blocs?
No, on the contrary. I grew up during the Cold War. My experience was of the two big powers always coming to an agreement. The problem is always with the third and fourth players. The Americans will come to an agreement with the Chinese. So it won’t be a problem for Hungary to have good relations with both Beijing and Washington. The situation with Russia is more difficult. We want to keep all business relations open, but the EU is against that. The US position isn’t clear yet. We’ll have to wait a little longer for that.
It sounds as if you’ve already come to terms with the idea that Hungary must find its place in a world where the West has lost its dominance.
I do indeed think so – even though it sounds harsh and provocative. Economically, we live in a world without Western dominance. The EU is continuously losing ground in competitiveness. It has no strategy and no leadership. What’s happening here is awkward. The dynamic centres of the world economy are in the East, and now back in the US. China is growing at a breakneck pace, and India likewise. It would be insane for Hungary to build economic relations solely with Europe.
But what does this mean for security policy?
It means that we Europeans must be modest. The EU talks about being a global player, but it can’t even control events in its own neighbourhood. We couldn’t prevent the war between Russia and Ukraine, and we couldn’t integrate the Western Balkans. No global player behaves like this. A common foreign policy would only be realistic if Germany and France had strong political leadership and the others went along with them. But that’s not the case at the moment.
Yet it’s your country that repeatedly delays or blocks decisions, such as the recent extension of sanctions against Russia.
We’re against sanctions. Over the last three years we’ve lost 19.5 billion euros because we’ve had to restrict trade and because energy prices have risen. Sanctions have harmed Hungary more than they’ve harmed Russia.
But then why do you always end up voting for an extension – most recently, for example, at the end of January?
It’s because we’ve reached an agreement with the European Commission on energy issues. Oil and gas from Russia are vital for the Hungarian economy. And we’ve been given assurances that Brussels will take steps to restart gas transit through Ukraine, continue to allow oil shipments through the Friendship oil pipeline, and prevent disruptive actions by Kiev/Kyiv.
These are rather vague guarantees, aren’t they? Mainly because in several of them the Commission has no competence.
This is better than nothing. However, the point is that the European Commission represents our interests in relation to Ukraine. Landlocked countries such as Hungary and Slovakia need Russia to supply them with oil and gas.
But energy has hardly been affected by the sanctions. Gas isn’t covered by sanctions at all, and they’re very cautious with oil, for fear of high petrol prices.
Yes, but do you know why? Because we said that if sanctions were imposed on those things we’d veto them. That’s the only reason.
Why has Hungary made itself so dependent on Russian energy? In 2021 you signed a gas supply contract that covers half of Hungary’s consumption for fifteen years.
In recent years we’ve invested in upgrading pipelines to almost all our neighbours. Soon we’ll be receiving more gas and oil from Romania, Azerbaijan and Türkiye. We’re also promoting renewables and electrification. But we need Russia as a supplier. So we want to return to normal economic cooperation.
Isn’t this an illusion after 24 February 2022?
We’ve never seen sanctions as a suitable way of ending the war. But at the time Joe Biden said this: “Putin must fall”. The West wants to use Russia’s aggression against Ukraine to weaken and contain the country. It wants to bring Russia to its knees and force it to abandon its military objectives in Ukraine. This simply hasn’t worked.
But, as you’ve said, Russia is the aggressor.
This is the official position of the European Union. And I’m loyal to it.
Do you personally see it differently?
Hmm… (hesitates) Let’s leave the assessment of that to the historians. I’m a politician, and we have an EU decision. It obliges me to talk about “Russian aggression”.
But why do you keep criticising the EU for pursuing a “pro-war policy”?
Because we made a big mistake in February 2022. We should have immediately isolated the conflict, forced a ceasefire and started negotiations. It was clear from the start that a Ukrainian victory wasn’t possible unless we embarked on total war. That wasn’t an option. Today we can only help Ukraine through a ceasefire and peace.
But that’s something the Ukrainians should decide on.
Indeed, we’re not in a moral position to decide on behalf of a country under attack. But it was a mistake to make it believe that we would stand by it until victory. That isn’t the case.
What would a ceasefire look like? Should Ukraine make territorial concessions?
That would have been much easier at the beginning. In the meantime so many Ukrainians have lost their lives defending their homeland. So now what did they die for? This is a serious moral dilemma – fortunately not for me, but for those who supported this insane war strategy.
Perhaps your criticism of the West’s indecisive strategy may be justified. But then why didn’t it give Ukraine everything it needed to win?
No amount of weapons would have been enough. The West can only win this war by sending its own soldiers into Ukraine. And we’ve ruled that out. The Ukrainians simply don’t have enough soldiers. This is why Trump is needed now.
What can he do?
When you’re faced with a Gordian knot, you have to cut it. You need a strong man with a sword. It’s no longer a question of what ideas we have. Trump needs to sit down with Russia and Ukraine and say to them, “People, let’s have a ceasefire. That’s the only solution.” Weak leaders start wars, strong ones make peace.
What makes you think that in the event of a frozen conflict Russia would be content with its conquests? Putin has said so many times that he considers Ukraine to be an artificial nation with no reason to exist.
Nobody knows what Putin’s thinking. There’s no point in speculating. But we need diplomacy. Europeans think it’s moral not to negotiate. That’s nonsense! In war, that’s what you do! Otherwise the war will continue to the point of annihilation and Ukraine will become the Afghanistan of the European Union.
You’ve met Vladimir Putin several times, most recently in July 2024. Do you trust him?
In 2009, when I was preparing to govern again, I met him and we agreed to focus on the future. I realised that it was in Hungary’s geopolitical interest to have good relations and close economic cooperation with Moscow. We’ve concluded a number of agreements. Putin has always kept his word. The experience of the past fifteen years shows that Hungary can trust Russia.
Ukraine has a different experience.
Yes, that’s definitely true! But for us, this is the case.
You claim that Putin would never attack a NATO member country. But if you look at Putin’s proposals in 2021, before the war, he also called for a reversal of NATO’s eastward expansion. This would directly affect Hungary.
I asked him directly if he had a problem with Hungary’s membership of NATO. He said no, because there are no weapons on our territory that Russia considers to be a threat. He’s concerned about long-range tactical weapons. It’s hard to imagine the Hungarians invading Moscow (laughs).
Nevertheless, your friendly attitude towards Russia is surprising. You launched your career in 1989 by calling for the withdrawal of Moscow’s troops from Hungary.
And that happened (laughs). But I’m not pro-Russian; I’m pro-Hungarian.
However, the historical relations between Hungary and Russia are problematic, as Russian troops put down national uprisings in 1849 and 1956.
And let’s not forget the First World War! The Tsar said he wanted to spend Christmas in Budapest. Historically, Hungary lives within the Moscow–Berlin–Istanbul triangle, and we’ve had negative experiences with all three. But I agreed with Putin that we’d leave the history of our two countries to the historians. I don’t want Hungary to be invaded by any country. No great power should tell Hungarians how to live. But today Russia is neither a threat to our freedom nor to our sovereignty.
From your speeches, it seems that you consider Brussels to be a greater threat than Moscow.
From a different viewpoint – but yes, that’s the case. It’s easy to reach a rational agreement with Russia. With the people in Brussels it’s almost impossible. Domestically, they only support my opponents. I’ve had to win against Brussels and the NGOs. It’s difficult to negotiate with people who want to destroy you in every election. And look at migration: our interpretation of European rules is that we must defend the Schengen external border against illegal border crossings. We’ve done that. And we’re being penalised on the grounds that this is incompatible with EU law. The Poles recently did exactly the same thing – but in a more brutal way – and everyone said: “No problem.”
You often deal with problems that many people are grappling with. Yet within the EU Hungary is isolated. Why can’t you make alliances? Last year, an initiative you’d promoted to unite all right-wing parties into a single parliamentary group failed.
On the contrary! The Patriots for Europe [note: the new group in the European Parliament, which includes Fidesz, the Rassemblement national, Lega and the FPÖ] and other populists are once again in the mainstream. Like-minded parties govern in Italy, Slovakia and perhaps soon in Austria. For me, the message from above is, “Viktor, you’re on the winning side.” We’re getting stronger, and soon we’ll have a majority. After the war in Ukraine, a grand alliance on the Right is possible. The only thing standing in the way is a different attitude towards Russia. Europe will look different in a few years from now.
You started your career in the Liberal International, and later spent many years in the conservative People’s Party group [EPP]. Most recently, last year, you co-founded the Patriots for Europe group. Has the political arena become more left-wing, or have you moved to the right?
Fidesz was made up of anti-communist freedom fighters, as were the liberals back then. After our first election victory in 1998, Helmut Kohl invited me to join the EPP. At that time it was indeed a move from the centre to the right. We stayed there, although we left the conservatives four years ago. They were the ones who moved – to the left.
One of Orban’s colleagues, who has been listening from the gallery of the high-ceilinged room, descends the narrow spiral staircase and hands the Prime Minister a note.
“Óh! Merz has lost”, Viktor Orbán says, reading out the result of a vote on the asylum law which had just taken place in the German Bundestag. “Some CDU members rejected the bill. Even with the votes of the AfD, Merz had only 338 votes. Less than a month before the elections! Poor Merz”, says Orbán. “If you want to break a taboo, you have to be successful. But if the taboo is stronger, you look weak.” He is speaking analytically, but he seems to show surprise rather than Schadenfreude. “It’s a problem.”
The election in Germany is important for the whole of Europe. You seem to sympathise with the AfD, but the Patriots don’t want them in their parliamentary group. Why not?
The AfD is more of a movement than a party. Crazy people and ideas can emerge within it – a risk that Rassemblement national didn’t want to take. We have no experience of the AfD and no contact with them. Their programme sounds good for Hungary: tax cuts, rethinking the Green Deal, a return to nuclear energy, a tough migration policy. But I don’t want to interfere in German affairs.
Do you also think that there are crazy people in the ranks of the AfD?
I can read (laughs). There are statements that simply can’t be part of 21st-century political culture. But I myself led movements against the communist regime in Hungary. There, too, crazy people emerged. When you institutionalise politics within a party it becomes more boring, but also more predictable.
How should a political system relate to such a party?
There’s no firewall in Hungary. If a party gets votes, we take it seriously. That doesn’t mean that we’ll work with them, but we’ll sit down and negotiate. A firewall renders political thinking primitive. Alice Weidel called and asked for a meeting. I’ll see her next week in Budapest. AfD could win 20 per cent of the vote. If their leader wants to talk to me, why should I say no? If Olaf Scholz called me, I’d see him too – but there’s no danger of that (laughs).
You’ve been governing with a two-thirds majority almost continuously for fifteen years. Recently, however, a serious political rival has appeared out of nowhere, whose name you never mention publicly: Péter Magyar. Are you worried about this?
In a democracy one must always be prepared for political opponents. Even if someone – like us – wins almost half of the votes, the rest goes to someone else. This isn’t unusual. In the last election, in 2022, all the opposition parties joined forces on a common list. That wasn’t successful, and now they’re trying again.
But is the rapid rise of such a candidate not a sign of dissatisfaction with your government?
The answer to that is yes, it is. The war and sanctions have created a very difficult situation over the last three years, with high inflation, increased energy prices and low growth. I don’t like war for many reasons, including economic reasons.
Have you also made mistakes – for example, with price caps on certain foods?
The price cap was intensively discussed. I still think it’s a good idea, but there are arguments against it that are worth considering. Croatia has just decided on price caps for a number of products. This wouldn’t happen if it was a stupid idea. But of course no government does everything right. At least the last quarter was satisfactory. We’re no longer in recession, and growth this year could be twice the European average.
The Opposition accuses your government and those close to it of corruption, and the EU has frozen billions in cohesion funds on rule of law grounds. What do you say to these accusations?
Corruption is the Opposition’s favourite subject. I always say: show me specific cases. If there are violations of the law, they should be investigated in court. But there are no such complaints. I can’t say that there’s no corruption in Hungary, and something must be done about it. But we’re no worse than other EU countries. Just look at the World Bank figures.
Many suspicious cases aren’t investigated by the Prosecutor’s Office. Why is Hungary the only EU country that refuses to join the European Public Prosecutor’s Office? It would create more trust.
Unlike in most other EU countries, in Hungary the Prosecutor’s Office reports to Parliament and not to the Government. This is also a matter of sovereignty. I will never accept a legal system in which Hungarian citizens are prosecuted by non-Hungarian authorities. The Constitution even makes this impossible. When we lived under Soviet rule, we had to give up sovereignty over criminal proceedings. For us this is a matter of principle. Hungary has a right to the money frozen by Brussels. A tranche of more than 12 billion euros has already been released. I will continue to negotiate. We need unanimous decisions in Brussels, especially on budgetary issues. But I shall never agree to a new financial framework if it’s not fair for Hungary and doesn’t address the losses we’ve suffered in the current period. We shall get every cent we deserve.
During your long period in government, there’s been a concentration of power and economic resources among those around you. Don’t you think this is a threat to democracy?
As far as economic resources are concerned, the opposite is true. My government has cut taxes, so less money is going to the state, and it stays with the public and businesses. I have indeed centralised some things, but I have also decentralised in other areas. For example, we’ve privatised universities – there is no more state control.
But now they’re under the control of foundations run by people close to you.
Everyone is close to me! I’m the country’s prime minister (laughs). When people accuse me of being close to someone, I say: “Of course, how could it be otherwise!” Of course, in the business world of a country of ten million people, I know all the big businesspeople personally. But you’re right: being in power for a long time has its risks. That’s why I reshuffle the Government every four years and replace people.
You’re the EU’s longest-serving head of government. Are there no signs of fatigue in office?
The question is this: For how long will the party think that I’m the person most likely to win the next election? Currently my support among the population is still higher than that of the party. As long as this is the case, I’ll continue to lead the fight.
Don’t you want to give up politics after a while?
After my football career failed due to a lack of talent, a career in academia initially seemed the most attractive option. After reunification, the second option was the business world, which offered many new opportunities. But I fell in love with politics. And I soon realised that it was a definitive choice, one which I would remain loyal to for the rest of my life – as long as people voted for me. I want to stay in Parliament for as long as I am mentally able. I think about how good it will be, as an old, respected man, to sit on the back benches, while the younger generation come to me for advice. And to see the results of what I have done in my political career. Because even if I’m criticised for it, I’ve achieved something in historic times.
