Gergő Kereki (Mandiner): Hi everyone, good afternoon. I warmly welcome everyone here at the MCC Feszt in Esztergom. This is now the fifth MCC Feszt. The importance, power and significance of this festival is demonstrated by the fact that this year the Prime Minister accepted an invitation from the festival’s directors and organisers. Thank you very much for coming. We’ll be talking with the Prime Minister for roughly sixty minutes, so I won’t waste any time. Let’s get started! This is the festival’s third day, with sold-out concerts and countless performers, but there haven’t been any chants of “Filthy Fidesz” – only “Down with Trianon”, “Ria, ria, Hungária!”, and [the Hungarian song] “Nélküled”. What kind of festival have you come to, Prime Minister?
Hello, everyone. Actually, I should have come to the previous ones as well. I’m not saying that as a boast, but to explain that I’m an honorary citizen of this city, which is a great honour. I received that honorary title for feats of arms and similar exploits in my youth, when – during the first civic government – we rebuilt the Mária Valéria Bridge. Let’s not rush to conclusions about whether there will be any “Filthy Fidesz” chants: the evening is still young, and tomorrow’s another day. We’ll see. There are various fads circulating in parallel, and I hope everyone has a good time.
How do you explain, Prime Minister, the anti-government attitude causing such a stir at summer festivals so far among some young festival-goers – but especially among some of the performers at the festivals?
This is a mystery that can be interpreted in several ways, and the interpretation one chooses is a matter of taste. There are conspiracy theories: there’s money behind everything, and some people are being paid. That’s one. I don’t engage in that craft, because although it may be true, it simplifies people’s thinking and it’s not beneficial. It’s worth looking deeper into things. The other possible explanation is that this is the case everywhere whenever elections are approaching. During the US election campaign, all the liberal artists said they wanted to see President Trump in hell, and slung mud at him. This may be a Hungarian version of that. The third thing is perhaps a little more serious, and perhaps young people should be taken more seriously. Obviously, due to their life situation, rebellion is somehow a natural part of life. And knowing many young people, I see that in Hungary there are two types of rebellion, because young people are just like adults: some are liberal, while others have nationalist sympathies. And the liberal young people are visibly rebelling against the Government, and against everything that represents power – and as we’ve been in government for over a dozen years, we’re the ones in the crosshairs right now. Another group of young people – nationalist-minded young people – are also rebelling; but they’re rebelling against global networks, the Soros Foundations, Brussels, and international forces that generally want to oppress the country. So let’s not misjudge this: it’s not that some young people are rebelling and others aren’t, but that one group’s rebelling against this and the other against that. And I think that there will always be such things for as long as there are young people in the world. And it’s our job as parents to understand this. After all, even if these young people shout rude things at us, we’re still the ones who raised them. This is important. Let’s never forget that these young people are our children, and we raised them. It doesn’t hurt to sometimes remember what we did at their age, what we thought, and what we yelled here and there – and then maybe everything will somehow fall into place. So in this matter I recommend parental wisdom and composure.
And are there any musicians whose performances on stage were particularly painful for you? I mean, musicians whose music you or your children love, but who struck a nerve?
There are always such cases. It’s not because they strike a nerve, as people don’t listen to musicians because they agree with them politically – in most cases, we don’t even know that, but we listen to them because they make good music. But when someone lays into you, you don’t feel like listening to them any more. That’s understandable, perhaps. For example, when I’d go home in the evening in a bad mood – and that happens sometimes – I’d sometimes put on a song by a young man called Azariah that I listen to when I want to cheer myself up. I can’t sing along because it doesn’t make sense, it’s “rampapapam”, but it always cheered me up. But to be honest, ever since that artist called all Fidesz voters “protozoa”, I haven’t felt like listening to it anymore. That’s how it is. It’s a loss and I’m not happy about it, but that’s life.
There has been a long-standing public debate about what Fidesz can still offer young people, whether young people have turned away from Fidesz, whether or not it has a “youth problem”. Entire generations have grown up with you as Prime Minister of Hungary since they reached adulthood and gained the right to vote. Many people may want to look elsewhere – say, towards the Tisza Party – because they’re tired of you being Prime Minister. What can you say to them about that…
Yes, there’s not much I can do about what I’m like.
But if you sat down with such a young person, what are the government measures that you’d say have had a significant, positive impact on their life, and that – despite the monotony of the long time spent in government – make it worth voting for Fidesz or sticking with Fidesz after all?
We could have such conversations, I could say a lot of things, and I could say them here if you want – but it wouldn’t help. It’s not easy, as I’m 62 years old. But let’s try to remember ourselves as we were when we were 18. As a young person, most of your problems are with life in general. Of course you’ll then express them in the form of opposition to someone else, but the real big question is that you’re about to enter adulthood, and you don’t want to be treated like a child anymore. I didn’t want that even at 16, but now at 18 you’re legally an adult. I remember how many times I told my parents what things would be like when I was an adult. So you enter adulthood, and suddenly there are a lot of questions. First of all, you have to make a living or continue studying, and you have to live somewhere. Then you’re grown up, others can’t have a say in who you go out with and when, they can’t really have a say in that anymore – and the girls and the boys come along. You also have to figure out what’s right, what’s wrong, what’s acceptable, how it all works, and how this will ultimately lead to some kind of happiness, don’t you? Because ultimately that’s the question. These are very difficult issues. And the fact that those who can’t find the answer are taking it out on the Government is, I repeat, something we need to understand. But let’s not think that if I read out the programme for young people, which I’ll do in a moment, then this debate will come to an end, or the negative feelings will disappear. I can tell you that. Those who want to study get student loans. Those who go to work get worker’s loans. You don’t pay income tax until you’re 25. If you’re a woman and you have a child before you turn 30, you don’t pay income tax until you’re 30. Something that applies only here and nowhere else in Europe is that if you’re 18 years old you can get a home loan with repayments that are cheaper than rent or a private rental, you can become a homeowner at the age of 18 and start building something for yourself – or buy your own home with the repayments. And then, if you have children, you don’t have to pay tax, or you get a tax break for one child, two children, or three children. We’re currently doubling this, and if you’re a woman who’s given birth to two children, from January you won’t pay income tax until the end of your life. So when I tell Americans this, when I spell it out for them, they ask, “OK, but then all the young people will vote for you, right?” My answer is “No, no, not at all.” Because the election isn’t just a matter of reason, nor is it just a matter of what a government offers young people; there are many other factors at play. So I don’t think it’s our programme for the young that will make us more attractive to young people. Perhaps it’s much more worthwhile to always strive for what we should do as parents. This is even though – and I think this is even truer with grandchildren – there’s a big age difference, and we should try to understand one another. First of all, there may be something in what they say that we should consider. There’s certainly something to consider in what we say to them, but we have to say it well so that they understand it and are on the same wavelength as us. This isn’t easy. I have many children and grandchildren myself, who are obviously patriotic young people, so there’s no great divergence there; but it’s not easy for them to get on the same wavelength on every matter – especially in conceptual matters. So I prefer peaceful, calm, understanding conversation: “Let’s go, let’s get into one another’s thoughts and somehow connect.” If we succeed in this, then young people will be much more likely to rebel against the enemies of the country rather than against the national government that’s protecting the homeland. I see an opportunity in this.
Over the past year new opinion polls have been coming out practically every week. Some of these polls show Fidesz in the lead, while others are straining to outbid each other in predicting whether Tisza is currently leading by 10, 15 or 20 per cent. What does the Prime Minister say when he sees these in the morning, in the press review, or when he reads [the Hungarian daily] Magyar Nemzet?
That the opponent is hard-working, and so the campaign has begun. There’s a term for this in American jargon: it’s called a “push poll”; this means that a poll isn’t conducted to describe the situation, but to influence those who look at the polls. This is a well-known practice, and it’s even taught in political schools. So I’m not saying that you shouldn’t pay attention to it at all, but you shouldn’t attach too much importance to it. How, then, can you get a picture of what the public’s true opinion is? Because a true picture of public opinion is important. You can do this by commissioning such polls yourself. This is unlike Churchill, who said that he only believed statistics that he’d falsified himself. This is a witty saying, but it doesn’t bring us any closer to a solution. We need measurements that give us a realistic picture of our situation, our popularity, our chances of being elected, and any issues that are currently important and of interest to the public. It’s good to get feedback on this. We work with these things. So I have a clear picture of where we are now, and based on that I have an idea of what a realistic goal is for the upcoming election. We’re going to work hard, and we’re going to win big. I can say that to everyone. But there is, of course, an obvious new phenomenon here, which I’d be happy to answer questions about. Even so I can at least say that what’s happening, especially in relation to young people, isn’t what many people think, that political information and debates are now being complemented by discussions happening online. One would think that’s the case, wouldn’t one? But that’s not what’s happening. What’s been happening, and what we’ll have to reckon with in the longer term, is that all information and debates have moved onto the online space. This is a serious intellectual challenge for everyone involved in public life. So the traditional world of politics hasn’t been supplemented with a new element, but has moved to a new location. And this new location has different characteristics: linguistic characteristics, the logic of its arguments, and the speed of information. This is something new, and we need to learn it. And our persuasiveness will diminish if the national side doesn’t learn this but yields ground to the left-wing, globalist, liberal forces, who have been rampaging there for years, aggressively and almost unhindered. It will diminish if we let this happen and fail to realise that we need to be able to say everything in an online style as well. It’s not about writing the same kind of sentences there that we read in Magyar Nemzet – that won’t get us very far, because it’s a different language. And if you don’t have persuasive power, then you won’t have sympathy, you won’t have support, and you won’t have victory either. That’s why this is a great challenge for the Right. We need an online conquest of the homeland so that we can be at home in that space, feel at home there, and be able to fight our battles and express our thoughts there. Perhaps this will also bring us closer to young people, who do nothing but this, who are almost exclusively there, hanging out there – if I’m not mistaken. I can say that it’s not only them, because when there’s a summit of prime ministers in Brussels – there are 27 of us – and I look around, there aren’t many people apart from me who aren’t staring at some breaking news. So in politics there’s also this kind of addiction: everything’s accelerated, abbreviated, and you want to know things; if you don’t react, if you don’t know things, you can be left out. And this goes all the way up to the highest level, where I am. So there’s been a big change there. We – myself included – can’t fully comprehend the implications of this, but we must consider it and follow it; because even artificial intelligence is becoming a reality, and everything’s changing. And although we committed ourselves to – I don’t know – ten important things in government, doing them, keeping our word, accomplishing them, seeing that there are many of us when we rally together, in the end we won’t understand that there’s still an opinion among the public that’s different from what we consider to be natural. So we need to feel at home in that online space too. This is a serious intellectual task for all of us – not just for the Prime Minister, but for everyone who cares about the prosperity of their country, its defence, and its sovereignty. I welcome everyone to join the online civic circles. I wanted to give this short campaign speech as a kind of recruitment drive.
Obviously, the Fight Club and the online civic circles were created in response to this phenomenon, and – I think – the response to this phenomenon is that the Prime Minister has given so many podcast interviews in the last month or two that I’m really struggling to think of anything to ask him. Because I’ve watched all fourteen or fifteen of them, and there are hardly any other topics left that we could touch on.
Don’t give up! Don’t give up!
However, there is one more thing. I’d like to quote political scientist Gábor Török, who says, obviously, that both the online civic circles and the Fight Club are political communication tools, but he raises the question of whether the greatest threat to Fidesz’s re-election in 2026 is posed by political communication challenges, or the current economic environment, in which Europe – and Hungary within it – is effectively stagnating. If we look at all the elections since the fall of communism in 1990, we see that a government could only be re-elected if there was 3–5 per cent economic growth in the country in the year before the election and in the election year itself. We can also give a negative example: before the 2002 election there was 3–5 per cent economic growth, both in 2001 and 2002, yet the MSZP [Hungarian Socialist Party] won the election. But whenever a sitting government was able to win re-election, there was an economic upturn. In the Hungarian economy this is the third year when there’s been no significant economic upturn of 3–5 per cent; and analysts are wondering whether conquering the online communication space – or attempts to do so – will be enough, and whether the real danger for Fidesz lies in the economic environment.
I think there’s truth in this, but these aren’t mutually exclusive dangers: they’re dangers that exist side by side. So there’s the problem of the online space, and there’s also the problem of the economy. I go on podcasts because I have to go where the people are, otherwise I’ll end up talking to myself. So if they listen to podcasts, then I have to go where those podcasts are made. Now, as for the Fight Club and the online civic circles, organising a civic, national, Christian community is a complex task. I don’t want to complain now, because that’s not what people expect me to do; but this is such a diverse world that keeping it together, bringing it together, getting things to move at the same time when they need to, is an extraordinary task. This is why, for example, the Fight Club is made up of fighters. They’re the spearhead: people who stand up, get involved, argue, take a few blows, deliver a few blows, think that this is the way of the world, and fight. But most of our camp isn’t like that. And most of Hungary isn’t like that at all. They don’t like to fight, they don’t like to push and shove, they don’t want unnecessary arguments, they don’t want to offend anyone, they don’t want to be offended, they want to talk about meaningful things, and they just want to be at peace. They want to love their city, their family, their country, they want to do something, and they want to be at peace. This isn’t the world of the Fight Club, this is another world: the world of online civic circles, where there are people who love their country, who are committed to it, and who want to do something for it. But the political world, especially as it gets more intense, isn’t their world. They need to be there too, they need to have a home somewhere, they need to have an impact. And I need fighters too – because believe me, I’m happy to lead the way, but if I look back and there’s no one there, after a while our opponents will notice. So it’s good to have a few more people standing there with us. As far as the economy’s concerned, it’s indeed worth talking about the economy in its own right, in terms of the fate of ten million Hungarians; because the economy is none other than the economic future of ten million people. And it’s also worth talking about it as a political problem. What impact will it have on the election? Let’s start with the first serious one. If we want the Hungarian economy to embark on a path of strong growth, we must first achieve peace. So high economic growth can’t be achieved in a war situation, when there’s war next door and energy prices are high – and when, furthermore, the countries of the European Union are pouring massive amounts of money into Ukraine for the war. In these circumstances we should be happy if we can protect what we have. What I’m trying to do is protect what we have; and even if there’s no high economic growth, we won’t give up on some ambitious goals that are important to everyone, but will try to achieve them. For six months I’ve been struggling, sweating, working hard, carving and drilling away at this 3 per cent home creation programme. Because what we had in mind at the beginning of the year was based on the assumption that we’d have a year of peace ahead of us, resulting in higher economic growth. But that’s not the case. So now, does one give up on one’s intention to achieve a breakthrough in home creation, does one give up on the goal of every Hungarian having their own home, and say, “There’s a war, folks, we can’t achieve this”? Or does one come up with something to make it happen after all? For six months my colleagues and I have been working on figuring out how to make it happen, and I’m pleased to announce that on 1 September you’ll be able to go to the bank and take out a 3 per cent home creation loan regardless of your family status or place of residence. And even the youngest among us will become owners of their own homes. I don’t know if this is an inspiring goal for anyone, but I can say for sure that nowhere else in Europe is it possible for you, my friend, to reach the age of 18 and be able to live in your own home, if you decide you want to do so. No matter how many people leave to work in Germany, this will never happen over there. They may earn more, they may even save something, but very few Hungarians will succeed in becoming respected citizens of Germany as property owners. There’s no other offer like this anywhere else in Europe. There’s a war, there’s no major economic growth, but we’ve done it. Similarly, I didn’t want to give up on the tax revolution. This is a far-reaching topic. Here we’re really talking primarily about families and women, about mothers. For a long time I’ve wanted to ensure that women who decide to have at least two children while working will enjoy preferential tax status not only while their children are minors, but that they’ll be exempt from personal income tax for the rest of their lives. There’s nothing like this anywhere else in the world! This isn’t just my opinion, but the result of countless consultations and discussions, so I’m speaking on behalf of thousands of people; but I thought that you can’t expect women to have more children in circumstances where the divorce rate is 50 per cent and they may be left alone with their children in a state of financial uncertainty. Of course there are different families, some being stable and some less stable. This is why I believe that women, ladies, wives who have children must be supported so that on no account will they be left financially vulnerable. This is what this tax revolution is all about. My colleagues tend to say, “Okay, but what about men? They should get something too.” But I say that men will take care of themselves, because men are strong and can survive longer – I mean they can work longer. And anyway, they’re not the ones who stay home with the children, but the women – men will find their place in the job market. Essentially it’s women, mothers, who need to be supported here. And we haven’t given up on this – even though growth isn’t 3 per cent, there’s a war, and economic conditions are difficult. Despite that I believe that we have to squeeze this out of ourselves somehow. And this is underway. On 1 July we increased the tax credit for families with children by 50 per cent, and we’ll increase it by another 50 per cent on 1 January. In October, mothers with three children will no longer have to pay income tax. From 1 January mothers under 40 with two children will also be exempt, from 2027 mothers under 50 with two children will be exempt, followed by parents under 60. And then the whole system will be in place. This will happen, despite what you’ve said about Fidesz having problems, the country having problems, and the economic prospects being problematic. Following on from the economic dimension of this issue, we’ve now reached the point where we can talk about the political dimension. So, really, I cannot stand up and say, “Things are going well, keep it up, let’s continue.” What I can say is this: “You can see that all over the world, especially in Europe, everything’s in turmoil, like coffee grounds stirred up in a cup. And even in these circumstances, we’ve defended everything we’ve achieved, and we’ve managed to do a few other important things.” This is all I can say. I can’t say any more than that. If that’s enough, we’ll win. If that’s not enough, then so be it. But that’s another story.
Meanwhile, if we listen to what the opposition’s saying, the narrative is that they’re obviously trying to ride the wave of protest and economic difficulties, saying that the state isn’t functioning, and that the state isn’t functioning because Fidesz has stolen everything.
Yes.
I’ll open an article on 444.hu, and practically every day I read that in Hungary only the Government’s inner circle is getting rich. Meanwhile, public services are in ruins. What’s the Prime Minister’s response to these accusations and allegations?
My usual response to corruption is that since we’ve been in government, over the past 15 years, Hungarian state assets have doubled. Not halved: doubled! Today, public assets – which are also yours – are twice as large as they were in 2010. If they’d been stolen, it wouldn’t be like this: they’d be half as much. But they’re not half as much, they’re twice as much. The second thing is that we won’t be satisfied with public services for a very long time, because they require enormous amounts of money. Compared to this year, for example, next year we’ll be spending 280 billion forints more on health care – which is a public service. And that still won’t be enough. Some results will be visible somewhere, but that’s still a long way from saying that health care is in order. And it’s also true that Minister Lázár is implementing a fantastic programme to reorganise rail transport, buying carriages and engines one after another, and with the travel pass system he’s introduced, train travel in Hungary has never been as cheap as it is now. But we’re still a long way from being able to say that the railways are in order. So public services will continue to be the subject of criticism for a long time to come. If I wanted to express this in percentages, which would be quite risky, I’d say that in 2010, if you remember, we had to get a bankrupt country back on its feet; and today I’d say that our work on that is somewhere between 70 and 75 per cent complete. So the country is more than halfway there, but it’s not yet in the state we’d all like it to be in. I estimate that there are still four to six years before we’re there. Minister Lázár said not to mention a specific year, but if this estimate is correct, then I think that in the area of public services we’ll be able to say that Hungary has nothing to be ashamed of in any area when compared to the most developed Western countries. But we’ve only completed 70 to 75 per cent of the work on this. We need more time.
Prime Minister, you said earlier that economic growth requires peace. For three years everyone’s been waiting for peace. Here, if we look at the statements made by Russian or Ukrainian officials, for example President Putin or President Zelenskyy, they also claim that they want peace. In Brussels, they’ve long held the hope that sanctions would stop the Russians and force them to make peace. In Budapest, here in Hungary, we waited for Trump to be elected, we waited for the pro-peace American president to come and bring peace, but somehow this peace never seems to come. And now we’re at the point where the United States is continuing to supply weapons to Ukraine – only this time the European Union is footing the bill. And on top of this, President Trump has given President Putin a 50-day ultimatum. So instead of peace, there’s only drift. When will there finally be peace?
In order to try to answer these difficult questions, we need to clarify two issues, without which there can be no meaningful answer to the question of when there will be peace. The first is this: What was the cause of the war? The second is this: Who’s at war with whom? Let’s start with the cause of the war. In every war, the belligerents use propaganda to say all sorts of things about their own intentions and those of their opponents. So listening to them won’t get us anywhere. We’re therefore forced to form our own assessment of the cause of this war. Opinions on this vary widely. I can tell you my own opinion. We people of peace, who have long experience of the realities of war, believe that the guiding principle of world politics is what’s right, what’s wrong, what’s good, and what’s bad. I bear the bad news that this isn’t the case. The main guiding principle in world politics is relative power. There are countries, there are powers, they have forces, and these forces are in a relation to each other that it results in calm, an equilibrium of power; this brings peace, construction, economic well-being, and the absence of war. If the equilibrium of power is disrupted, it usually leads to war. What happened in the Russo–Ukrainian war? This relates to NATO membership. The Westerners decided, and the Ukrainians agreed, to break away from the status in which Ukraine had existed up until then – an extremely unpleasant status, called a “buffer zone”, whereby they were a no man’s land between East and West, with the East and West always agreeing on what influence they had over the buffer zone’s affairs – and that they’d move in the direction of the West. They said, “We’re a free people, we have the right to join NATO, and we also want to join the European Union.” And with that, the power equilibrium that had developed between the Russians – the East – and the West was upset. The question was whether the Russians would accept this or respond with some kind of action. We also went through such difficult days, because we had a similar fate in 1989–90, up until 1999, when we joined NATO. I even signed the accession treaty. We were lucky because Hungary had been removed from Russian-controlled territory and existed as a buffer zone for a few years, and then we were able to join NATO; and the Russians were sufficiently weak to be unable to respond. So they swallowed it. That’s how we became members of NATO: the Poles, the Slovaks, the Hungarians – and later the Romanians too. In the meantime, however, the Russians have grown stronger. And today the reality is that if anyone – like NATO – wants to get closer to Russia in terms of military force, then the Russians will respond. If you remember, this is what happened with Georgia, at the end of the first decade of the 2000s: they reacted immediately. And this is what happened now. If you upset the power equilibrium, the other side will respond. The Russians say, “Yes, yes, Ukraine has the right to join NATO and the European Union – but that doesn’t particularly affect us, because we have the right to prevent NATO weapons from being brought here, to the Russian border, and we do have that right.” Of course, under international law, the Russians are wrong; from the point of view of international law, the Ukrainians are right. But from the point of view of the power equilibrium, it’s clear what the Russians are doing – they’ve said so themselves. They’ll create a buffer zone – if not across the whole of Ukraine, then in the part of Ukraine that’s close to Russia. They’ll occupy exactly as much territory as is necessary to prevent Russian territory being targeted. They’ve made this clear. We can sympathise with the Ukrainians, and perhaps we should; and we can feel sorry for them – regardless of the fact that they’re not treating us properly. But these are the realities – if you violate them, there will be consequences. You risk a world war, for example. This is the situation right now. So we need to understand that peace will only come when the Americans, the West and the Ukrainians acknowledge the fact that the Russians will never allow Western weapons to be stationed close to Russia’s western borders, within military reach. First we need to understand this. Secondly, who’s fighting whom? On the surface, this is a Russo–Ukrainian war; but no one believes that the Ukrainians could survive a single day in this war without Western support. And if someone supports someone else who’s only able to remain standing because of that support, then the provider of that support is also involved in the war. This means that today the entire European Union – with the exception of Hungary, and perhaps Slovakia – is at war with Russia. This isn’t an open war, but in our language, in politics, there’s a term for it: a proxy war. A proxy war is a war that someone fights on behalf of someone else. And here, the Ukrainians are fighting a war on behalf of the West. Let there be no doubt: most countries in the European Union are serious about this. I sit in on these discussions. This isn’t propaganda, it isn’t hot air, they’re not talking for the sake of it. The leaders are serious about defeating Russia in a war fought on Ukrainian territory; and to do so, they must give the Ukrainians money, weapons, and everything else they need. That’s their position. When I speak out against this, I come dangerously close to being ripped apart. If they had weapons, I might not be able to make it home from there. So this is a serious matter, this is a serious debate, and we’re standing out from the crowd – and it’s as well that we recognise that fact. Hungary’s position is that we don’t need to defeat Russia on Ukrainian territory, but that we need to go back to the starting point and agree on Ukraine’s future between the West and Russia in a way that’s also acceptable to Ukraine. But we’re the only ones saying this. Everyone else wants war. This is the truth. Therefore, since I cannot change their thinking and plans, Hungary has only one option: to stay out of such an extremely risky war situation. We must remain on the sidelines. We must stay out of this war. To give you an idea of the magnitude of the task, we wanted to stay out of World War I and World War II, but we failed on both occasions. Of course one could say that it’s an exaggeration to talk in terms of a world war. But I’d like to remind everyone that no world war ever began by being declared a world war. A war began, more and more countries joined in, and in the end it became a world war. It was called a world war in the end. It didn’t start out that way. I don’t know what they’ll call the Russo–Ukrainian war in five years’ time. I don’t know whether it will be called a Russo–Ukrainian war or the first phase of a later war. One thing I do know is that Hungary must stay out of it. And I also know – and I gave a speech on this last summer – that staying out of a war isn’t just a matter of intention. Staying out of a war requires strength – and not just a little strength. There are conditions for this, and we must be prepared for them. And since February 2022, when the Russo–Ukrainian war broke out, I’ve been doing nothing but trying to gather strength in Hungary: economic strength, military strength and many other kinds of strength – including financial strength. In Hungary I’m trying to create forces that will support us and enable us to stay out of a potentially widening war. This is what the Government is working on today. I think that’s why politics in Hungary today is such a serious matter. And also with regard to the election, my attitude is that we shouldn’t take any risks. But I haven’t yet answered your question. I didn’t want to avoid the question of when or whether there will be peace. I have my own take on this: knowing both players well, this war won’t end until the President of the United States and the President of the Russian Federation sit down together and reach an agreement. On this, neither legal measures nor complex diplomatic manoeuvres will lead to results. What’s needed is for two very powerful – perhaps militarily the most powerful – leaders in the world to sit down and reach an agreement. And they not only need to reach an agreement on the Russo–Ukrainian war, but on all the issues that are important to the world – for example, the arms situation. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but we’ve entered into an arms race. We want to buy weapons with enormous amounts of money: already 5 per cent of gross domestic product is being spent on NATO! The European Union is taking out huge loans to buy weapons. If you buy something on credit, it has to pay for itself. How does a weapon pay for itself? By being used. So we’re in an extremely dangerous arms race. This must be stopped. It can only be stopped by arms limitation agreements. So the West must agree with Russia on the largest types of weapons, on how many units each side will operate – in other words, they must agree on arms. An agreement must be reached on global energy supplies, because the sanctions system that excludes the Russians from the energy market may be good for those selling their own oil and natural gas at much higher prices on the market, but in the long run it will destroy the global economy. An agreement is needed there too. We need to agree on what the sanctions against Russia will be. Can foreign capital enter Russia? Can we invest there? In which sectors? Can Russia enter the economies of other countries? Today it can’t. All these issues need to be resolved. This can’t be resolved through bilateral military negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. And until these issues are resolved, the war won’t be resolved. Therefore the two leaders need to agree on a large comprehensive package, and then there will be peace. I don’t consider this impossible. We’re currently in a phase of making threats. But it’s like marriage. In the end we’ll stay together, won’t we?
Prime Minister, you’ve just said in passing that in the meantime the Russians have grown stronger. The European Union leadership, which supports Ukraine, refers to this when it talks about its deliberate geopolitical goal: it says that precisely because the Russians have grown stronger, it fears that after Ukraine they’ll attack, say, the Baltic states – and this is precisely why Russia must be stopped in Ukraine. Prime Minister, what do you think about this geopolitical view? Because, of course, people also say that those who have been attacked must be defended: Ukraine must be defended. So this moral obligation is also emphasised. But there have also been very serious geopolitical writings and interpretations stating that Russia must be defeated in Ukraine because otherwise, after Ukraine, it could attack either the Baltic states or Poland.
Let’s not hide or shy away from moral issues. I also believe that if a country is attacked, for whatever reason, and Ukraine has been attacked, then you should help if you can. If you can, help! When tens of thousands of refugees were leaving Ukraine every day, we took them all in, cared for them all, and helped them all. There are still tens of thousands of Ukrainians here in Hungary today. It’s true that we’re the only country that’s said that you can only receive as much help from the state as a Hungarian would. There’s no such thing as free money. So if a Hungarian citizen is on unemployment benefits for three months, and after three months they have to do public work, then, my dear Ukrainian friend, so must you. We can only give as much as we have. We’ll be generous, but perhaps we won’t give you the shirt off our back. That’s one thing. The other is that we’ll help those in need, but I’d like to remind everyone that the Ukrainians never asked us what their response to the Russian attack should be. They didn’t consult us, they didn’t ask for our advice, they didn’t involve us in their decision. We had no opportunity to influence how they’d respond to the Russians: with war, a ceasefire, peace, partial peace, or whatever. If you don’t involve us in your decision to go to war, then all you can ask of us is what’s required by the basic Christian obligation to help others. You cannot ask us to destroy ourselves for you. If we go there now and give you money, weapons, and later soldiers, we will also be destroyed. And you cannot ask that of me, dear friend. This must be said clearly and directly. I don’t want to take responsibility for even one young person dying for Ukraine, and I won’t do so. Now, the question of how realistic a threat it is that the Russian “greedy little “gobbler” will come here and swallow us up must be taken seriously; because the Russian greedy little gobbler had already grown big enough once to come here and swallow us up. So this is a serious question. But since it’s impossible to decide this factually, because the proof of the pudding is in the eating and no one here can test to what extent which threat would become reality, we’re forced to give an intellectual, conceptual answer to this question. I start from the premise that Russia has a population of about 140 million. The European Union has more than 400 million people. Here I haven’t even counted the British, who number almost 70 million, and I haven’t mentioned the Americans. And if I look at the budgets, the military budget of the European Union countries is several times larger than that of Russia. So how are they going to defeat us? We outnumber them, we have much more money, our military industry is much more advanced, and we even have the Americans behind us. How are these Russians going to swallow us up when they haven’t been able to occupy those four provinces for who knows how long? So I’d say that the assumption that the Russians will come and occupy us is unrealistic, and we shouldn’t base our political actions on it – because unrealistic assumptions can only lead to erroneous political decisions. In my opinion the Russians aren’t in a position to pose a threat to Europe today. They may pose a threat to part of Ukraine, but I wouldn’t even dare say to the whole of Ukraine. Part of Ukraine, undoubtedly – because if the West doesn’t give weapons to the Ukrainians, then the Russians and Ukrainians will be forced into a peace agreement, which will obviously include territorial issues, and the Russians have territorial demands there. But that’s another conversation – that isn’t about what will happen to Poland, Hungary, Romania, and later Austria. In my opinion, these countries aren’t faced with a military threat.
What the Prime Minister said earlier is based on the logic that if, say, Russia attacks a Baltic state, then the European Union and NATO will stand behind that particular Baltic state that’s been attacked. We’re sure of that if…
Then let’s talk about it!
…any country, let’s say, were to be attacked, let’s just talk about a small Baltic state, would the EU and NATO go to war, take up arms for a Baltic state?
So let’s talk about that. So the question isn’t really whether the Russians will attack anyone west of Ukraine, but how seriously we can take the mutual promise of NATO members that if any member is attacked, all members will consider it as if they themselves had been attacked. That’s the question. If this can’t be taken seriously, then of course we must stop and rethink everything. But for now, all decisions – Hungary’s military development decisions, Hungarian military industry decisions – are based on the fact that we’re in an alliance system that provides mutual defence. History gives backing to your question. So if you recall your studies, and older people even their personal experiences, how did World War II begin? It began when the Germans attacked the Poles. After a secret agreement, the Russians also attacked the Poles and they divided them up. Poland had security agreements with both France and Britain, so according to these agreements those two countries should have rushed to Poland’s aid immediately. But they didn’t rush. There was a strange war that lasted for many long months. So the thinking of the Balts and the Poles is that they may be in NATO and there’s a treaty to defend one another, but it’s not certain that this will happen. But then the solution shouldn’t be sought in a war with Russia, but rather in strengthening the NATO alliance to provide a stronger guarantee than the one that exists today. I don’t believe that any Western country can afford not to defend a NATO member country if it’s attacked. Since the foundation of NATO, no NATO member country has ever been attacked, and I don’t think one ever will be, because no sane person would take the risk of going to war with all NATO member countries at once – including the United States and Turkey. There is no such person. Therefore I believe that although there are dark chapters in history, the Balts and Poles can believe that the NATO guarantee is a real guarantee. There may be a change here. Sorry if we’ve strayed too far, but something’s happened that I don’t want to burden this afternoon with – but it’s worth thinking about. If you’ll allow me, I’d like to plant a seed of doubt in your minds. Because since World War II we’ve been accustomed to Germany not existing as a military power. It lost the world war, part of it was even separated off, it was disarmed, and Germany hasn’t even been able to maintain a serious military force. The change is that it’s now been announced that Germany is rearming itself. After 85 years, the situation in Europe is such that Germany will have the largest army, the most soldiers, the most military equipment, it will be in the hands of German soldiers, and Germany will also have the largest military industry in Europe by far. We shouldn’t discuss the consequences of this on such a beautiful sunny afternoon, but it’s worth noting that something’s happening that hasn’t happened before – and it’s significant. In a few years’ time we’ll see how big and profound it is. But this is something completely new that has the potential to transform everything we thought we knew about Europe – especially if what I said is true, namely that the axis of international politics is not good versus evil, but the equilibrium of power. There is also a power equilibrium within Europe, so I’ll end this digression there. It’s worth thinking about.
Speaking of historical studies and world wars, on this beautiful, sunny afternoon, let’s move on to another potential conflict zone. The Prime Minister mentioned World War I. A central role in the outbreak of World War I was played by the Balkans, which many consider to be a powder keg. Yesterday’s news from the Balkans is that your good friend, the Bosnian Serb president, has been sentenced on appeal to one year in prison. I’m talking about Milorad Dodik. Dodik hasn’t accepted the verdict, and is turning to Washington and Moscow. What’s happening in the Balkans now? How could the turmoil surrounding Dodik transform the stability of the Balkans, and what impact could this have on Hungary?
Let’s talk about the Balkans for a moment, and then move further south. All the trouble in the Balkans is happening now because the European Union missed the historic opportunity to integrate the new states that emerged in the Balkans after the breakup of Yugoslavia. If the Balkan countries were members of the European Union, the energy level and intensity of the conflicts in the Balkans would be much lower. We missed this opportunity. And so, if you look at the map, the map of the European Union looks like this: there’s Hungary’s southern border, then non-EU territory, and then at the end, at the end of the Balkans, in the south, there’s Greece, which is again a member of the European Union. So there’s Greece and us, and between the two there’s a region as far as Greece that should also be brought into the Union – the map almost cries out for it, history cries out for it, and statistics cry out for it. But this hasn’t happened. We’ve been urging for it, but it hasn’t happened. This is why in the Balkans today there are rivalries – all kinds of rivalries between great powers. The Russians are there, the European Union is there, the Americans are there, the Turks are there, and there are Arabs too – because there are Muslims in Bosnia. So the region isn’t stable, it isn’t anchored. This is where the problems stem from. I believe that Hungary now needs to form a historic alliance with the Serbs. If Hungary wants to remain standing and be strong, I don’t see it being feasible without an alliance with the Serbs. And the Serbs also need cooperation with Hungary. If you look at road construction, railway development and military cooperation, you can see signs of this direction. This isn’t a new policy: between the two world wars, Hungarian policy towards Serbia had a very similar orientation. It didn’t end as it should have, but the idea has always existed. Today some Serbs don’t live in Serbia, but in Bosnia, in the Republika Srpska, the Serbian Republic. Its elected leader and president is President Dodik. It’s unacceptable that all kinds of viceroys delegated from the European Union should remove the president elected by the Serbs and Bosnian Serbs, condemning him not for corruption, but because he’s not implementing certain decisions coming from the Union. We cannot accept this, which is why Hungary does not recognise the court’s decision to convict President Dodik. For us, such a decision does not exist. President Dodik remains the elected leader of Serbs living in Bosnia, and we’ll shape our policy accordingly. This is the Balkans. The Balkans have now become even more important, because some of the migrants arriving in Hungary come from the south, via the Balkans. This will be of great significance in the future. As I said, we need a strategic alliance with the Serbs. Look at the alliance we’re forming with the Macedonians – I believe the country should officially be called North Macedonia, because they took away their name, so with North Macedonia – and I’m also trying to do the same with the Albanians and the Bulgarians down south. So we need to establish the best possible relations with every country along the Balkan migration route, so that we can stop the next wave of migration as far south as possible. Because it will happen. So if anyone here hopes that this can be avoided, that’s an illusion. Tens of millions of people – maybe even hundreds of millions – will set out from Africa towards Europe. If you’ve been there, you know it, if you’ve studied it, you can see it. We’re sending money to Ukraine, and to Trump – excuse me, President Trump in America, because we want to send 600 billion euros in investment there, even though we don’t have it ourselves. Instead of sending European capital suitable for investment to America and Ukraine, if we don’t urgently send this money to Africa and stabilise those countries – Libya, Chad, and so on – through which the migrants are coming, within a few years Europe will find itself in huge trouble. Africa hasn’t even got moving yet. Most of the migration so far has come from the Middle East, Syria and the surrounding area. Africa is yet to come. We need to have enormous forces at our disposal to ensure that the wave of migration through the Balkans doesn’t become an invasion, doesn’t penetrate our borders, doesn’t enter. And I’ll say this quietly: another problem is that in a decade’s time, one of the most important tasks for the next generation of politicians will be to stop the wave of migration heading for Hungary from Austria. Because now it’s still coming from the south, from the Balkans. But the Western countries have fallen: immigrants are arriving there in ever-increasing numbers, the economic consequences are unpredictable, and the ethnic ratios are changing completely. Study the statistics from Vienna; former Chancellor Kurz is here – ask him what the situation is there. It’s coming, it’s approaching us. Sooner or later we’ll also have to defend our western borders against migrants. In Tusnádfürdő I gave an extended account of how Europe got to this point; I won’t repeat it now, but I just want to say that we definitely need to come to an agreement with the Orthodox Christians in the Balkans, with the Romanians as Orthodox Christians, and with the Roman Catholics in Slovakia and Poland above us; because it will only be through this path that Central Europe can be preserved as a Christian European community. So here over the next ten to fifteen years Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox Christians must form a political alliance with one another in the name of preserving Christian roots and traditions. Otherwise we will be crushed. And this is quite apart from the fact that if you look at Russia’s demographic indicators, you’ll see that in my lifetime the Muslim population will reach one-third of the Russian population – not because of migration, but because of changes in internal population ratios. So something’s happening there that’s not related to migration. So if we think in terms of culture, civilisation and history, and we want Hungary to remain a Hungarian country, then we need to build a Central European system of self-defence and mutual defence against migration. Otherwise we’ll be squeezed together, and we’ll end up looking like Western European countries: if someone goes back there after fifteen years, they won’t recognise it. And if they go back after another fifteen years, they definitely won’t recognise what country they’re in or where they are. These are the sad realities. It’s worth preparing the next generation for this task.
After these sad realities, here’s a slightly lighter topic.
Sorry, this isn’t sad, it’s extremely optimistic. I’m talking about the fact that there are bad things happening in the world that are beyond our control. An optimistic person doesn’t trust that things happening independently of us will turn out favourably, as we have no influence over them. Either they’ll happen, or they won’t. Based on the numbers, the situation won’t be more favourable, but less favourable. That’s not the question. The question is whether we see enough strength in ourselves to remain who we are, no matter how unfavourable things may be. And I see that strength in Hungary. Because we’ll survive if we have a national community that’s capable of doing so. And so what I’ve said here may not have been expressed in the best way, but I intended it to be an extremely optimistic and cheerful presentation, because we’ll be able to ensure that, in a Central European alliance, our grandchildren will grow up in the same Hungary that we grew up in, and from which we’ll depart – and we’ll give them the chance to do the same for their grandchildren. This is possible. It’s not unrealistic, and we mustn’t give up. There’s a theory that sooner or later everyone will have to give in, and that such enormous population pressure cannot be resisted. But I don’t believe that. We need to watch the Hunyadi films, we need to look at history, we need to trust ourselves – we’re much stronger than we sometimes think. If we organise ourselves well, if we don’t let Brussels force the migration pact on us, then… Do you know what the migration pact is? The migration pact means that, first of all, tomorrow morning we’d have to build camps capable of accommodating 30,000 migrants. And when migration increases in Europe, it won’t be Hungary but Brussels that will be distributing migrants among European countries. And if Brussels decides to send tens of thousands of them here, then it will send them here. So Hungary shall not implement the migration pact – and, no doubt, it will thus be acting illegally. But we’ve also said that we shall not implement it, because it would take our fate out of our own hands. In the matter of migration there are only two paths: either rebellion or submission. The West has submitted. I don’t think we should follow suit. Let’s rebel and protect what we have. It’s possible.
And finally, a slightly lighter topic. The Prime Minister recently revealed that he’ll be going on vacation in the second half of August, at the end of August. The Prime Minister’s vacation plans keep the left-liberal press in a constant state of feverish excitement, so let’s avoid the need to read a few 444.hu and telex.hu articles at the end of August: tell us, Prime Minister, where are you planning to go on vacation?
At my age people don’t change their habits, so I go to Croatia every summer. I have a conviction, which may not be true for all of us, but I think it’s true for almost all Hungarians, that it’s a big problem if we don’t see the sea at least once a year. So somehow I need that feeling of infinity, of liberation. Not to mention that I get to sail on a little sailboat. And then we’ll get to see each other again two weeks later. Every summer this is my last chance to get myself together. You can see that this is a job that takes its toll. Again, I don’t want to complain, because if you’re afraid, don’t go into the forest, or you should whistle, but don’t complain; but this is a job that wears one down. And, as you said earlier, I’ve been doing this for quite a long time. Later there will be the chance to find someone more suitable, I mean for victory: someone with a better chance of leading our political camp to victory. And then I can allow myself longer vacations. But for now our common sense tells us that we still have the best chance of winning the election with me at the helm; not to mention that I’m actually at my best age – although it’s a little suspicious that I’m at my best age every four years, but let’s put that aside for now. So I think that if I get two weeks, I’ll get myself sorted out. The left-liberal press is interested in everything. So if I fly on a government plane to a government meeting, that’s a problem. If I travel in business class, that’s a problem. If I fly economy class, that’s a problem. I long ago gave up on doing things that please the left-liberal press, and I have no such ambitions for doing so when it comes to vacations either. But I wish you all a few good days, at least two weeks, to rest and recharge your batteries before diving into the autumn season. Obviously, this is necessary in your family life and at work. But we all need to rest and recharge our batteries. We have a tough six to seven months ahead of us, and we need to be on top form if we want to win an honest and vigorous battle against the new opposition that’s replaced the old one. We have every chance of winning, because we’re the stronger side – and the stronger side is the one that works harder. If our opponents work harder than we do, we don’t deserve to win. In order to work well in the coming months, we need to get ourselves in shape over the summer. I recommend a training camp combined with a vacation for everyone. Thank you very much for your attention.
One last question. Books are always a central part of the Prime Minister’s vacation. What books do you recommend we read this summer, and what book will you be reading on your vacation?
Right now I’m struggling hard with something. György Spiró has published a book entitled “Padmaly”. It’s this thick, and it’s about Táncsics: Mihály Táncsics, who’s a little-known figure. We all know his name, but we know little about him; and I thought, here’s finally a novel, a very thick one – so maybe I’ll get through it by the end of the summer. And I have an obligation at the end of every summer and the beginning of every autumn. For the national side the political season starts with a “civic picnic” in Kötcse, where a few hundred people gather, where I’m invited, and where I give a speech as a curtain-raiser to the season. This will be on 7 September, the day after the match against Ireland – that’s how I can remember it. I’ll have to give a speech there, so I need to read two or three books in order to be able to give a good speech. So I’m going to read two or three political books, and I’m also going to finish Spiró’s book Padmaly. Even though it’s that thick, I’ll plough through it. Thank you very much for your interest, thank you for your attention. Once again, I wish you all a great vacation.
Prime Minister, thank you for accepting our invitation. We thank the audience for listening to us. Ladies and Gentlemen, you’ve seen the Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán.
More news
