Zsolt Törőcsik: There’s been some worrying news from Europe this week, suggesting that the current security situation is deteriorating. The Belgian defence minister has said that if Putin launches a missile at Brussels, “we’ll wipe Moscow off the map”. British defence leaders want to share their nuclear weapons with Berlin, and Croatia has reintroduced compulsory military service. I’ll be asking Prime Minister Viktor Orbán what direction these statements, plans and measures are pointing in. Good morning.
Good morning. Hello to our listeners.
Where do you think Europe is heading, based on the news items I’ve just listed?
I’d like to add one more item to the list of news stories you mentioned, namely that the world’s superpowers are introducing new weapons systems, and these weapons are becoming increasingly effective. So we’re clearly at the beginning of an arms race, a spiral, and everyone’s talking about increasing military budgets by orders of magnitude. The human brain is such that when it seeks clues to understand a situation or wants to predict the future based on current events, it turns to the past, looking for patterns. I also work this way: when a situation arises that resembles something else, I’ll take out a file and I’ll know how it was back then. I think this is largely true – not only for those working in organisational leadership positions, but also for those involved in understanding the world. There are two analogies that I see in international analyses and studies that attempt to understand the current situation: one goes back to the Second World War, and the other to the First World War. Some say that we’re where we were in 1938: Hitler is advancing and the European powers aren’t stopping him soon enough, but instead seeking compromise; and these successive small compromises and peace agreements ultimately lead us to a huge, powerful Nazi Germany, from which the Second World War will erupt. Some people interpret the current conflict in this way. I disagree with that, but at this point that’s perhaps irrelevant to the audience. The other interpretation, which is closer to my own, is that of the First World War, in which no one really wanted a major war. Everyone wanted something, but no one wanted a major European war. And in the end European leaders got themselves into a situation in which there was no turning back. That’s the mood I see at the moment. I feel that European leaders don’t realise that they’re playing with fire, and they don’t realise that each decision – new weapons systems, more money for Ukraine, even more soldiers, conscription, and so on – is one of a number of steps that can add up to a dangerous combination, an explosive cocktail that will eventually ignite. So I think that today Europe is heading towards war. Statements are being made at high-level meetings that you wouldn’t believe. A major power, say, Germany, says that we’re rearming: “We’ll be Europe’s largest army, with the most soldiers, the most weapons, and the largest military industry.” Or Ursula von der Leyen says that we must be ready for war within five years. These are all very, very dangerous statements, and those who say them aren’t thinking through the fact that they could be self-fulfilling prophecies. There’s an old theatrical rule that if you put a gun on the table, then sooner or later something will happen with it – it will likely be fired. So I feel that Europe is stumbling blindly towards a situation posing the increasingly imminent threat of war. This is why I say to Hungarians – to myself, to the Government, to the people, to you, to everyone – that now we must resolve that, even if events take a turn for the worse, we won’t get involved. While everyone is unconsciously drifting towards war, we must very consciously plant our feet firmly on the ground, and remain on the side of peace. We must declare in advance that we’ll stay out of every small decision being made now, so that we don’t find ourselves in the middle of a war. Therefore, for Hungary’s future, it’s crucial that the country has an anti-war and pro-peace government – and that the people also understand this, become involved, and express their will not to stumble along with European countries toward a dangerous situation, but to stay out of it before it’s too late. I think this is the key to the situation.
Yes, before the First World War that’s how the dominoes fell in succession. But in the current situation, how realistic is it to talk about peace at all, to organise a peace camp? This was the goal of your trip to Rome, for example.
The situation is much better than earlier. Today, Europeans want war: they’re openly talking about the need to prepare for war with Russia. We’ve had this experience, not once, not twice, and we won’t advise them: they’re the heavyweights, while we’re the lightweights, and we’re happy if we can influence our own destiny, let alone believe that we can change the intentions of those who are bigger than us. Of course, we stand ready to help – even though we’re small, we don’t lack brainpower. So we have our thoughts, our messages, our suggestions – but Hungary doesn’t have enough strength to force the great powers to behave more rationally. But it’s our duty to reveal these depths that we’re discussing here now, and to force everyone to look deep into the well, so that those who talk about war take account of the possible consequences their words have. But, moving on from that aside, the situation was worse one year ago, because at that time the Americans were also on the side of war. Now it’s only the Europeans and the Ukrainians. The Americans are on the side of peace, and the Russians have also reached the point at which they’re willing to accept peace or a ceasefire under certain conditions that we can now consider to be known. The Ukrainians continue to fight a war in defence of their homeland. They don’t want to make peace, which is understandable, but for us it’s extremely unfavourable that they’ve lost 20–22 per cent of their territory and can’t accept that fact, therefore preferring to continue the war. The Europeans are financing this war, even though it’s clear that there’s no solution to it, and that the war won’t come to an end on the front line. So anyone who thinks or says that military victory can be achieved in this war, and therefore the war must continue, is mistaken – whether it’s Russians who believe that they can crush Ukraine, or Ukrainians who believe that they can drive the Russians out of the territory they’ve already occupied. This will result in a frozen situation, a frozen front line, where wars are constantly being fought, countless lives being lost, huge amounts of money being consumed, and the debate about this possibly dragging one European country or another into the conflict. We’re in a very dangerous situation.
Yes, the European Union says it wants peace, but it wants to achieve this through its support for Ukraine.
They’re not telling the truth.
But how long can the European Union maintain this support?
Those who want peace make peace. So enough of the fairy tales, we’re not children: we’re past the stage where someone stands up, says something, then does the opposite, and we don’t notice it or pretend that there’s no contradiction. Today there’s only one superpower that wants peace, and that’s the United States of America. If we wanted peace, we’d support the President of the United States. But we’re not supporting him; instead we’re saying all sorts of things and then doing the opposite of what would help the American president make peace. So today the most significant obstacle to the American president’s attempts at peace and peacemaking is the group of European countries that call themselves “the coalition of the willing”. They’re willing to send others to die in a war, because they themselves aren’t going to war yet – they’re just arming themselves. So today there’s a fundamental disagreement between the United States and the European Union on how to end the war; but we’re not admitting this, because we don’t want to paint a picture of a transatlantic rift, a conflict. “We don’t want to involve you, the citizens, in the forefront of such a confrontation, but we’re saying that everyone should calm down, because in fact Westerners, Europeans and Americans essentially want the same thing.” But that isn’t true!
How long can Europe’s economy support Ukraine? Because, as you know, this week Zelenskyy said that he’d called on European leaders to continue providing stable financial support to Ukraine for a while longer.
In my opinion, the first and most important point is that anyone who supports Ukraine is supporting the war. Anyone who supports Ukraine today is supporting a Ukraine that wants to wage war – which means that they’re supporting the war itself. And since war requires money, money, and more money, those who support Ukraine – and thus support the war – also support tax increases and the withdrawal of funds from national governments. This is because Brussels has no money: there’s no such thing as “Brussels money”. That’s a nice fairy tale that the European Union has sold to many countries, and perhaps less astute peoples might believe it. But in reality Brussels has no money of its own: it tries to impose its own taxes, but that’s a negligible amount; Brussels’ money comes from us, the Member States, sending money to Brussels. So when Brussels provides support or takes out a loan for the EU, which we, the Member States, ultimately guarantee, when Brussels sends money to Ukraine, it’s always our money too. It’s not only theirs, but ours as well. From the next seven-year budget, the draft of which is on the table, more than 20 per cent of the budget pooled by the Member States would be sent to Ukraine through direct or hidden channels. Meanwhile the European economy is in dire straits. So I think there’s no money left, there’s no money in the European Union. We want to finance a war, we want to give money to the Ukrainians, we want to keep the Ukrainian army battle-ready, but we don’t have a single farthing to spare. Either it will have to be taken from the Member States – which is why the Tisza Party is talking about a pension tax and wants to raise taxes, because it knows that Brussels will demand more money – or Brussels will have to take out even bigger loans, which will have consequences, because those loans will have to be repaid. In addition to the money for Ukraine, another big item in the next seven-year budget will be the interest on loans taken out earlier. This keeps growing and growing and growing, and in the end it will crush us, creating a classic debt crisis.
Given Brussels’ determination, what’s the point of collecting signatures in Hungary against the war plans?
We must strive to ensure that the American and European debate ends with the American peacemakers emerging victorious. This is a strange statement – it’s not what we’ve been taught, nor what we’ve become accustomed to over the past sixty or seventy years. The Americans have generally been the hawks, more inclined towards war, while the Europeans have been more cautious, saying, “Calm down, we’ve had two world wars on this continent, we mustn’t rush into this.” Now the roles are reversed: thank God we have a president in America who wants peace, but the Europeans are the hawks. So it’s in our interest for this debate to be decided in favour of the American president, for the intent to make peace to prevail. The Vatican radiates such intent, which I think is very important, and it continues to be the spiritual centre of peace – I’ve been there, so I can say this from personal experience. In such difficult situations, decision-makers need spiritual and moral reinforcement, which is why the meeting with the new Holy Father was so helpful. He reassured us that we’re on the right track, to put it in secular terms – that we must remain on the path of peace. It’s good if Christians are united on this. And, of course, a series of election results in Europe is coming in, showing pro-peace governments replacing pro-war governments. This happened in Slovakia, now it’s happened in the Czech Republic, and I expect similar developments.
Well, next Friday you’ll also be meeting with Donald Trump, and in the White House you’ll discuss peace, among other things. In a week’s time could we be closer to peace – or at least to a peace summit in Budapest?
I think we could be closer. We’ve been working on this meeting for a long time. It’s not a case of meeting on the spur of the moment – I could make myself available, but the President’s schedule is more tightly constrained. So when we do meet, one has to be serious. It’s not just that I’m meeting with the President of the United States, which in itself is significant from our point of view, but that we’re effectively organising a Hungarian day in Washington. There will be business leaders, several ministers, heads of important state agencies, the Chief National Security Advisor, and so on. We’re going with a large delegation, everyone will have their counterparts, and we’ll be conducting a comprehensive review and revamping of US–Hungarian relations. One important element of the highest-level negotiations is peace, but for us Hungarians there’s another important element; because we’ve been negotiating on economic issues for many months now, and I feel that if we don’t mishandle things there – and why would we? – then we’ll be able to finalise an American–Hungarian economic cooperation package.
How can the Hungarian economy benefit from this? Because there’s a slight shadow being cast over this: the issue of energy.
We’ll have to clarify that, but for months I’ve been working to help Americans visualise the map of Europe and Central Europe. It’s not their job, because they have their own map, with the United States at the centre. Incidentally, there are three world maps in my office. I don’t want to bore you with this, and I haven’t lost my mind, because there’s one Earth, one globe – but you can look at it in different ways. I have a map with Europe at its centre, which is how I view the world, and I have a map in my office that’s like one in the office of the American president, with the United States at the centre of the world, laying out the world from there. And there’s a third one, which the Chinese president looks at every day, in which they’re at the centre. And since we’re not big enough, we frequently have to adapt, we have to see the world through the eyes of others. Now, looking at it this way, I have to say that bilateral relations are of course the most important thing. So for us Hungarians, the most important thing is that American–Hungarian relations bring tangible benefits to the Hungarian people. Here I’d like to mention in passing that while the Americans are going home and taking their companies home with them, pulling them back from many parts of the world, a succession of American investments are arriving in Hungary. These aren’t being blown in by the wind – they’re coming here on the basis of agreements. And in the current economic cooperation package we also have requests and proposals for new American investments that would come to Hungary. But the prerequisite for this is what you say: settlement of the energy issue. Because in order for investors to decide on long-term investments, they need to see the development of one of the important costs of production: the price of energy. And I have to convince the Americans, since they can’t imagine what it’s like for a country to have no sea, because that’s what they have: when the American president looks at his map, he sees water washing its shores on both sides. But Hungary is a landlocked country, we have no sea, direct maritime transport isn’t possible, and we’re dependent on the transport routes through which energy can reach Hungary. These are mostly pipelines – there are also power lines, of course, but that’s another matter. And we have to adapt to these pipeline systems – or if we don’t, we’ll have no energy. So if we want them to grant exemptions from the American sanctions imposed on Russia, we have to make the Americans understand this, let’s say, strange situation – which they can’t be familiar with – and the difficulties it entails. But we’re not entirely alone, because – although it’s been ignored by the Hungarian press, which surprises me – I’ve seen an intelligence report, and perhaps even published news, that the Germans, who have a coastline, are requesting that one of their refineries be exempted from US sanctions. While I remember them pulling at our bottoms and coat tails, trying to get us to move away from Russian energy, it now turns out – lo and behold – that when everyone has to move away from it, the Germans are the first to ask for an exemption. But that hasn’t stopped them tugging at our coat tails up until now. So what I’m saying is that at the national economic level every country has the right to defend itself against such a system of sanctions – even Germany, which has access to the sea. So why shouldn’t we – who have no sea – also have the right to do so?
Economic issues are also important because in the third quarter the Hungarian economy stagnated compared to the previous quarter. According to experts associated with the Tisza Party, the state should save money, which would require, for example, tax increases and the taxation of pensions. Is it justified to reduce spending and increase revenue even at such cost?
That’s how you see it if you’re left-wing; and according to their logic, I understand it – that’s what they’ve always done. I’m not saying that there’s no economic truth at the heart of that. But all the same! We don’t have much time, but I’ll try to explain the difference between an economist and an economic policymaker. An economist is a qualified person who has studied all kinds of economic relationships at university and knows the numbers – because after all the economy is about numbers. And they look at a situation, see the numbers, and make a recommendation. That’s an economist. An economic policymaker looks at a situation and says, “Aha, there are families here, there are pensioners, there are poor people, there are people working abroad, there are people working in this industry, there are people working in that industry.” So they work with social reality. That’s a different approach. The economic policymaker doesn’t see numbers, but people. This is also the case in my profession, among lawyers. Because there are good lawyers who know the law, who see letters. And then there are legislators, who influence people’s lives through their work – and they have to see people. It’s a different profession. So economists and economic policymakers belong to two different professions. This is why we need economic knowledge, but we should never listen only to economists. One may take their advice, but not because they’re clever economists, but because one has filtered their proposals through one’s own economic policy filter and accepted those proposals that have stood the test of time. The problem with the advice you’ve just quoted, with the proposals from the Left, from the Tisza-ites or DK [Democratic Coalition], is that they’ve already been tried and they didn’t work. We’ve already run those excellent economists’ proposals through the economic policy filter: they were introduced by Lajos Bokros, to name one emblematic figure – and it turned out to be a huge mistake. So I suggest that we forget all that nonsense from the Tisza-ites, DK, and liberal-lefty economists. So far that approach has only brought trouble to Hungary. It’s only after 2010 that we’ve seen the arrival of successful economic policy – which is the exact opposite of what they’re advising. Therefore, with all due respect to economists, and as someone who’s not an economist but who’s involved in economic policy, I suggest we thank them for their good advice, quickly forget it, and do what’s good for the people, not just what makes the numbers add up. So in my opinion austerity measures won’t put the Hungarian economy on a growth path. We need to understand why the Hungarian economy isn’t growing faster. And this is linked to the reason that the European economy isn’t growing faster. Incidentally, the Hungarian economy is growing, but by 0.6–1 percent – so something is happening. For those who aren’t familiar with economic issues, I’d like to point out that 1 per cent economic growth, say, generates between 400 and 500 billion forints for the budget – and that’s money that can be distributed. So we’re talking about a huge amount! The budget situation would be much easier now if there were 3 per cent growth: there would be one trillion forints with which we could reduce the debt, say; or we could give it to the people for some good purpose. But we’d rather reduce the debt. But my point is that this isn’t the case, and for exactly the same reason the Hungarian economy is unable to grow by more than 1 per cent. At the prime ministers’ summit in Brussels I listened to the latest briefing by the President of the European Central Bank, in which she said that next year the eurozone will grow by 1 per cent, while the minimum we need is 3 per cent – and this isn’t happening because there’s a war. So the war is blocking the European economy. If money goes to weapons, if money goes to Ukraine, if Europeans continue to do what they’re doing now, then the European economy won’t be able to gain momentum – or at most it will do so through increased debt, which is extremely dangerous. This is why peace and a ceasefire are the most important immediate economic interests for Hungarian families. Yes, if there’s no war, I’m not saying that bread will be cheaper, but there will be higher incomes, and in relation to it bread will naturally become cheaper. So if the war ends and there’s greater economic growth, the burden of daily living will be reduced. So I don’t expect higher economic growth as long as the war and economic sanctions continue. I salute Hungary’s Minister for National Economy, Márton Nagy; because it’s nothing short of a miracle that, at a time when the European and Hungarian economies are blocked by war, he’s able to run wage increase programmes – we announced a few yesterday – at the same time as a 3 per cent loan programme for first-time home buyers, and implementation of Europe’s largest tax cut. I look at other European countries, and they’re unable to do such things. So hats off to the Hungarian economic policy team he leads, for managing – even in a low-growth environment – to keep the deficit within acceptable limits while continuing to implement important programmes, instead of resorting to the defensive, liberal economists’ demands for cutbacks, as advocated by Tisza. There’s a risk involved, and the economists are right about that, but it’s the only solution that will result in an economic policy that’s acceptable to the people, with an acceptable level of risk. I’d like to keep the country’s economic policy on this path.
Even though we don’t have much time, let’s talk about two more things. Yesterday you said that there will definitely be a fourteenth month’s pension, and they’re just working on how to introduce it. What’s the main question that’s still unresolved?
We’re always focused on pensions and wages, and what’s already happened is seen as being behind us and no longer interesting. This is how Hungarians are, you see – but perhaps it’s not a national trait, and others feel the same way. However, when you want to make a decision about the future, you have to remember what you’ve already done. For pensioners, this means that in 2010 pensioners were suffering. They were suffering because previous governments reduced the value of pensions and took away the thirteenth month’s pension. This is why we formed an alliance with pensioners, which meant that in Hungary this would never happen again – at least not while there’s a national government and I’m Prime Minister. Pensions wouldn’t lose their value, we’d raise them as much as we could and give back the thirteenth month’s pension. We sweated blood, but we were able to give back the thirteenth month’s pension. And I think that the fourteenth month’s pension is also necessary. This is because I don’t want to make changes within the pension system: every good idea, every morally correct internal change within the pension system, creates at least as much – if not more – injustice than that which you want to remedy. I have experience in this area, so it’s always better to increase pensions by the same percentage for all members in the pension system; this is always fairer than selecting a particular group and giving them preferential treatment. This is why pensions must be increased continuously. A fourteenth month’s pension is a good thing, so we must do that too. But this is also the case with wages, isn’t it? There will be a 15 per cent wage increase in the social sector next year. I looked at where we stood in 2010, when the gross monthly income of those working in the social sector was 137,000 forints. Now most people earn between 400,000 and 450,000 forints, and the average is even higher, as the average is always higher than the median: it’s around 500,000 forints. And we can raise it by 17 per cent. Even though the war is blocking economic growth, this is a huge thing compared to where we were in 2010, at 137,000 forints. I’ll say it again: even the fourteenth month’s pension is something that DK and liberal economists say shouldn’t be introduced at this time – they say that it shouldn’t be done. But now is the time, and it must be done. The question is how many steps it will take to introduce it. Obviously we can’t impose this on the budget in one step; but just as we brought back the thirteenth month in several steps, the same can be done with the fourteenth month. Our experts are working on the exact scenario for this.
Among these subjects I’ve been asking Prime Minister Viktor Orbán about were peace efforts, pensions and wage increases.
More news
