Menu
Tucker Carlson: I will introduce our next guest, who is the longest serving leader in Europe by far. And he is someone that I interviewed several years ago for the first time. He is, of course, the Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán.
Good afternoon.
Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. And I was just thinking back when I worked at a giantly publicly traded news company and interviewed you for the first time. You’re a democratically elected leader of a European nation, and it was considered controversial to interview you, because your ideas were considered eccentric. And they included emphasis on the middle class and families, they included, above all, secure borders, serving your citizens before you serve foreigners. And that was all considered super radical and dangerous. And I wonder if you feel vindicated years later by watching what happened to the rest of Europe when they didn’t follow those simple ideas.
So now we lost all the real attraction, what we have done previously. And Donald Trump take away all the attraction of the international politics. We have done something for 15 years in Hungary in a liberal headwind: stopping migration, defending traditional values, respecting religious communities, no green deal, low taxation – so everything which is unorthodox in the mind of the liberals. So we were a kind of hero. We were a kind of island of difference in the liberal ocean. But now, unfortunately, Donald Trump taking over everything. So yeah, just sitting and try to follow him now. This is a totally new reality. And that’s, may I say, very much harmful to Hungary. Because, you know, I try to make some jokes on how the last 15 years was, but it was serious. So when you have one boot from the United States on your chest and one from Brussels, European Union, trying to kill you and to deliver evidences that that way of government and governance cannot work, it’s difficult to survive. So now we remember back in a happy way, but that was very serious. So now at least one boot is out. The American is not anymore on our chest, not kneeling on our chest, so it’s an easement. So we think that life is happy. And it will be even happier, when we’ve swept away the Brusselian bureaucrats and the other boot is down. That’s the plan.
I remember one of your advisors telling me years ago – whispering to me at dinner – that the US government, the State Department, and agencies like USAID were working against you, funding your opposition indirectly, and really trying to subvert democracy in your country, and thinking, “Boys, can that be true?” It turns out now it is true. And I wonder when the rest of us are going to get details on what exactly the State Department did to end democracy in Hungary.
So first of all, I think those who love conspiracy theories are in trouble. They have to find new ones, because the old one proved to be true. So that’s the first problem.
It’s a massive problem in the United States, yeah.
The second is that it’s a taxpayer money.
Yes.
So if you take it, this whole thing, not as a political one, but rather as a moral issue, the fact is that the liberal elite of the West use the taxpayers’ money of United States citizens to spread their ideology all around the world – and financed in Hungary more than sixty NGOs, paid politicians, media outlets. So it was a plot against our sovereignty and independence. Sorry, made by you.
I know.
Sorry. But this is the case. And the same has happened from the Brusselian budget – which is even more scandalous, may I say, because we pay the money in the Brusselian budget, and they finance our enemies at home. So what’s going on? So this is the liberal Deep State, the global liberal Deep State. And now we see how it has operated.
It raises a deep question of motive. Why would anyone want to spread deadly ideas like open borders or transgenderism? “Hey, how about no grandchildren for you? How about, you know, nobody reproduces anymore?” What would be the motive for spreading poison like that?
We should be not naive, I think so. One motivation is always money. So that was a way how the American Democrats thought they can open the gates for their business activity. If they change the governments which insisted on having sovereignty and standing and fight for themselves, it’s more difficult to find business possibilities for those speculators: Soros – Soros is a Hungarian guy. George Soros-kind of speculators can find easier way to generate money and to make profit on your economy. So that’s the number one motivation. But the second one, don’t forget that leftists are always ideologically driven. And they believe certain things, which for us sounds crazy – even embarrassing, frightening. But they believe it. In Europe, probably it’s difficult to understand, but I’m sure that the leaders of the Left in Western Europe, deeply convinced that if they let the migrants in – which are basically Muslims, poor Muslim persons – and let them to be combined with the traditional Christian society, and they manage a kind of integration, the outcome of this whole process will be a better and happier society. And that’s the reason why George Soros published his plan. It was signed by himself,saying that the European Union should let one million migrants every year to move to Europe. And then, you know, I always said that it belongs to the decision of the national governments. So if the Germans or the French would like to make that historical “research project”, how to improve their society, let’s do it. But let us – those who do not believe that the outcome will be a good thing – not to do that. So Hungary never tried to educate anybody how a society could be better or worse. We always said, “Guys, let us to make our own decision”, and to let migrants in or keep them out, it’s exclusively belonging to our nations as a decision. So don’t force us from Brussels or from Washington that migration is good, and those who are not let the migrants in definitely must be bad guys. So this is unacceptable. But that was the thing. But Donald Trump changed the mindset of the West. I think this is the key issue. So probably President Donald Trump will change the geopolitics as well – I hope so anyway. But he already made a huge change in the mindset of the political thinking of the West. Previously they said migration is good; to resist to migration is bad. Now it’s just the opposite: to defend your interest is good; migration – illegal migration especially – is bad. Then on the Green Deal, they said green is good, economic competitiveness does not count. Now, it’s obvious that economic competitiveness first and green issues just the second. And then on religious communities and values, Christianity in our case, you know, it was said that this belonged to the Middle Ages. They ridiculed us several times, making jokes on us and so on. But now the President said, it’s a respectful thing: the community of the believers must enjoy respect, which is good for our society. Or then family in the West. The mindset was that family is also belonging to the past and other configuration of people living together is preferable. Now it’s back: traditional values are better than this whole thing. And gender, which is a crazy gender propaganda: now it’s publicly said it’s bad. To defend traditional values is good. And war. In Europe in the last three years, it was said always that war is good, peace is bad, concerning Ukraine–Russia war. So those who argued in favor of peace and peace negotiations and communications, “You are bad guys. The good guys are who are arguing in favor of war.” So now it’s totally changed. So President Donald Trump already changed the mindset of the whole Western world. That’s where we are at this moment and it’s very good for Hungary.
Well, it’s certainly a vindication for you. If I could just go back to something you said, you said that Soros and his aligned NGOs and the movement that he represents has pushed these things because they sincerely believe them to be true. But they haven’t pushed them on any nation outside the West. No one is pushing China to let in a million – or ten million relative to its size – migrants a year, or India, or for that matter, Korea or Japan or the Philippines or any other country. It’s only Western countries. Why in their mind is it only Western countries that need unrestricted migration?
That would require a deeper understanding of the intellectual history of the European political thinking. But there was always a strong leftist liberal community which was not proud being a Westerner, always have perceived its own civilization as something bad. And their intention was not to make it stronger and to maintain and make it stronger, but rather to destroy it – to improve by destroying. That’s a very communist idea: deleting the past. That was always the communist idea. So they don’t like the West, they don’t like their nation. Sometimes they are ashamed to belong to a nation, because they think that “nation” is a bad thing. So if you think that nation is something good and you are proud of it, and you think that you have to work for your nation to be competitive and better than the others, it’s an awful Nazis’extreme right something. That’s their approach. That’s the tradition of the European Left. And in the latest years, it was brutally witnessed in the everyday political discussion. So I’m a fascist, you know, I’m sitting here like, you know, I’m a bad guy: I’m a fascist, I’m a medival, feudalistic, Christian radical, you know. So that’s… Who is arguing for peace, which is the worst thing. No, that’s absurd, may I say.
So this has been going on since the end of the last big war, so eighty years, and particularly migration. And so I think we can render some judgment. How has that worked for the big nations of Europe – for Britain, Germany, France? Can we look back and say that experiment was a success?
You mean migration?
Migration. Unrestricted migration?
So we are living under a liberal dictatorship intellectually, but politically still we are living in democracies. So public opinion counts. And I think now we have a problem of democracy, because of the migration. It’s not just a problem of migration – a problem of democracy. Because if you have an elite which is not ready to accept the obvious public will of your voters, instead of accepting that, forcing against the population their own crazy ideas, it raise the problem of democracy. So that’s where we are, because now there’s a quite strong shift in the mindset of the Western societies. Previously, at the beginning of the mass migration period – I’m speaking about 2015, 2016 – there were half and half of the societies – even probably more than half – was in favor of doing something good, in favor of those who were considered as refugees. Then, slowly but surely, it turned to be that they’re not refugees, basically. They’re changing their place. There are some of them refugees, but basically the majority of them would like to get a better life, simply. And they are organized by smugglers. It’s an international black market business, you know, so it’s an awful business. And now the terrorism, somehow related to these whole changes just come up to the surface. It’s never happened earlier. Terrorism was not part of the Western life anyway. If I remember back, the last one was in the ’70s: some crazy communist Marxist group of Germany. But after that, you know, terrorism is not part of the Western life. Violence of public life does not belong to us. But now terrorism is up, public order is decreasing, so now the society is against the mass migration policy. So “Willkommenskultur”, as it was called by Angela Merkel, now it’s totally negative. And the problem is that the elite was so much committed to that ideology that now it’s difficult to change their position. And that leads us to the problem of democracy – as we will see in Germany, just soon election is coming two weeks’ time. And you probably have realized that there were some surprising discussion in the German parliament whether to change the migration regulation or not. And the public opinion said, 70 percent said, “Yes, you should change it.” And they voted against it. So it’s a problem of democracy. It’s not just problem of migration, it’s not problem of leadership. The whole structure and the system is under pressure at this moment.
The word “democracy” has been changed. It’s meaning it’s been changed in the United States to mean whatever the people in charge want is democracy. But you’re referring to it by its traditional meaning, which means what the majority wants, correct?
Yes, but at the same time, don’t forget that democracy is a word we use too much – probably too often – without understanding exactly what does it mean. There are many theories, as you know, but the most relevant one is the Greek origin of the understanding of democracy. They said democracy means two things at the same time: participation of the people, involvement; but the involvement of the people must be resulted in good governance. If the involvement of the people, the public opinion, does not result in good governance, it’s anarchy, it’s not democracy. So democracy means participation of the people by their voting in the major decisions, and the outcome must be a good governance. If one of them is lacking, it’s not democracy. And now in Europe, we are heading to a position when the people has a chance to vote, but there is no chance to get good governance. So we are moving rather towards a kind of anarchical public life in West Europe.
So Germany specifically, from the outside… You’re a European leader, but from an American perspective, Germany is the dominant economic player in the continent and…
The giant.
It feels that way from our perspective. And so what is the German economy, what does it look like right now? How would you assess it?
The German economy is part of the European bond because we have the single market, and the single market as such is in trouble. I’m in politics, international politics, more than 30 years. And I do remember that 30 years ago, the biggest economy of the world was the European Union. And now it’s only number three. And if you look at the top five economies of the world, there is no European among them. So, European Union, economically, it’s not a success story. And the success of European Union will always strongly linked to the success of German economy. And now they are suffering, and we are suffering. And the reason is very simple. There was a well-functioning – quite well-functioning – structural model of the German economy and the European economy: that was cheap Russian energy and well-advanced European technology come together, and we are competitive. But now after the war, we isolated ourselves from the cheap energy, and there is no new strategy, how we could be competitive. So we have a lost strategy, but we don’t have a new one. There’s no replacement for the old one. So now the problem is that we don’t have compass, where we should move. So we are just managing the daily work, but there is no real strategy what is the future of the European economy. No answer of that. That’s the reason why China, United States, because President Trump is back, obviously is in a far better position than we are. Lack of leadership, lack of ideas, lack of visions. That’s why we suffer.
Well, I mean, the Biden administration imposed the Green New Deal on Germany with high explosives, by blowing up Nord Stream. So on many levels, I don’t understand. So you have the largest player in NATO committing an act of terror –industrial terrorism – against the second largest player in NATO. How does NATO still exist, honestly? And why does nobody say anything about it?
Oh, Hungary is a small country, you know, ten million… Elephants: it’s a different game, it’s another league, you know. So that’s how they… If it would have happened with Hungary, there would be some noise, no question of that. But you know, it’s Germany.
If you could just speculate. I know it’s not your country. And when all the rest of Europe is gone, I have no doubt Hungary will remain, as it has for a thousand years. But why do you think even now there’s no… Nord Stream to me, as a total outsider, seems like a pivot point in the history of Europe. It really seems like a big deal.
I share your point.
Right. And obviously, it was also the largest emission of greenhouse gases caused by humans in the history of civilization, and no one mentioned it. But why is there no conversation about it? I really don’t understand that. And every time I bring it up in Europe, people look embarrassed and try to walk away from me.
So I think the basic reason is that in the last several decades, there was a strong alliance between the American liberal elite and the European liberal elite. And they agree always what is the issue and what is not the issue. If they decided that something is not an issue, it was not an issue. And the Germans were part of that kind of transatlantic liberal alliance. And they were managed to stop all the voices which tried to raise the question – which is a serious one anyway. But anyway, it’s not the only one. I do remember some other scandals as well: beginning of the previous decade, it turned out that the United States – Democratic government, anyway – wiretapped the Chancellor of Germany. And we were discussing it at the European Council meeting. Sarkozy, who was the President of France, said, “Guys, what a scandalous thing is that? We have to do that.” The Germans said, “No, no, no, no, no, no. Transatlantic relations is the most important thing we have to manage, not in that way”, and so on. So that’s an alliance between the transatlantic elites from America and the European Union.
It hasn’t helped, I don’t think, the European Union.
So probably that was your sentence, not mine: If a country is not ready to stand up and fight for himself does not deserve any help from outside.
I couldn’t agree more. But I also think, and tell me, I’d love your perspective on this, it’s my instinct that the fortunes of Europe, the economic fortunes of Europe, the security condition of Europe, really matters to the United States; because it’s just inexorably, it’s fundamentally part of a bloc. It’s the West. So if Europe declines, I don’t see how that helps the US.
I think the approach of the new incumbent administration of the United States has a very special approach to the other economies. And this is based on facts and figures, and concentrate on trade balances. And as far as I was able to understand, the way of thinking of this new administration in your country, they see a triangle: Europe, China, United States. And they have a look at the figures. And Europe make a plus 200 billion of trade with the United States. We lose the same sum to China. So, it’s basically, Europe is zero. And European Union make 200 billion euro plus the trade with you, United States, and you lose to China 300. So it means that Europe is basically a zero, China plus 500 billion, United States minus 500 billion. And as your president said, it’s not good, it’s bad. So, something should be done, and he will do something. He is not – probably the new administration is not – thinking about geopolitical concepts of economy, but, you know, figures, facts. And they would like to do something to improve the trade balance. And that’s a challenge for Europe. So it’s a serious matter. It’s not about friendship. It’s not about “love each other, brother-in-arms”. That’s very nice, but it’s money, it’s figures. So we have to find a solution, and to make a deal with the United States. If Europeans are just sitting and waiting, that’s not a good strategy. We should come up with a strategy and to provide something: a deal, proposals to the United States to how to reshape that kind of imbalanced trade relationship. Otherwise, we will get tariffs and we will suffer. We are not strong enough to defend our interest after waiting and losing months and weeks and months. But the problem is that Europe now lives by bureaucrats. You know, we have the European Commission. Do you know what it is? The Commission is a bureaucratic body which originally was planned to be the “guardian of the Treaty”: so just to help to maintain the fair legal regulation inside the single market area. But now the bureaucrats are more than 30,000. They’re growing, growing, growing, and they took away the leadership from the real prime ministers of Europe. So now the Commission tries to lead the European Union, but they are bureaucrats. And we have the leadership problem, because bureaucrats cannot lead anything politically. When everything is going well, bureaucrats are not harmful, because things are going well. But when there are difficulties and decisions must be made, like now, we should make an offer to the United States, the bureaucrats will never do that – because they are bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are interested in status quo, not to provide political leadership for your community. So that’s another problem inside the European Union. But I would not like to speak too much about other countries, because my job is to preserve the sovereignty and good chances for the future of my own nation. So what I’m doing now, I try to find a way how we can have a good relation with the United States to make some deals on economy as much, as big, as we can. We are working on that. And trying to create an economic policy which makes Hungary successful even if the European Union exists or the European Union does not exist. The problem is to be sharp. We have not more than three, four years, and if we don’t do something dramatically different strategy, the European Union will fall apart. There is a famous study published in Western Europe called the Draghi Report. Draghi was the previous head of the European Bank, and previously Prime Minister of Italy. And he put together a study, and the study is very clear: If you don’t do something in three years’ time to push down the price of the energy, and to make Europe competitive, especially by creating a capital market at the European Union level, the European Union economy is over. So now we pay three, four times higher price for the electricity than you do it in the United States; and five, six times higher price for gas than you do in the United States. How our companies can be competitive? It’s impossible. And then you run a policy – and President Donald Trump will do so even more – to attract the capitalists from all over the world to the United States. So the capital we move out from Europe to the United States and to other places as well. So we have to do something to keep the capital inside the European Union, but we don’t have a strategy how to do it. So now the European Union is really at a watershed.
But you have ended global warming. Do you feel good about that?
Hungary has a nice climate. But taking seriously the global responsibility, of course. But the problem is not the global climate issue. The problem is that if you would like to find a solution for a global issue like climate issue, you can’t do it against the business community. So if you don’t convince the business community that they could be part of this whole process – involvement again to involve them into that policy – if you don’t do that, but ideologically led political movement, green movement, you do like that, you know, it’s hopeless. It will be not successful. Look at the Green Deal. Green Deal is dead. It’s a suicide attempt for the European Union. Nobody is sharing of that. We do it and we kill our industry. So if you would like to have a good green policy, you need the business leaders and the common strategy. That’s the only way. Otherwise, we end up as we are today.
So both the structures that overlay Europe – NATO and the EU – seem like they’ve played out, or they’re not working as intended. I think we can say that.
And the problem is that the European institutions cannot reform it, cannot provide leadership, because it’s a strange creature of the European Union. So the only possibility to have a leadership if the French and the German government is strong, stable, visionary, and take the lead.
Right.
Which is not the case at this moment.
So why not a different structure, with an alliance of countries that have something in common, a common worldview, similar economies? Say, east of Switzerland, Central and Eastern Europe; and then sort of let France and Britain sort of enjoy the fruits of the decisions that they’ve made.
So we have a strategy anyway, Hungary… That’s my job anyway. We have a strategy, of course. And Central European leaders have their own strategy. So our main criticism to the European Union at this moment that they launch wars with everybody who could be important partners for your economy. We launch a war on ideology [with] Donald Trump, President Donald Trump. We launched a war with China on trade issues. We initiated the tariff war with China. And then we launched a war with Russia on energy. So why it is a good policy? In Central Europe, we did just the opposite. We built up a good relation with the new Republican administration. 44 percent of all European investment from China arrived to Hungary last year, 44 percent of all European. And we maintained the communication and cooperation even with the Russians. So “connectivity” is the word, not “formation of blocks“. The European Union tried to build a bloc,instead of running connective… a strategy based on connectivity, and do on a commonsense-based business with everybody who can provide something good for the European Union. But Central Europe does exactly what I’m saying about: Slovaks do it, Hungary do it, Serbia do it.
There’s a famous.. The first famous picture of you is from 1989 getting arrested by security… Russian-backed security forces. You were a student protest leader against the effective Russian occupation of your country and Eastern Europe. So with that in mind, I’ve listened for the past three years to you denounced as a Putin puppet in our press. What’s your response to that? Are you?
It’s so ridiculous that it’s always a dilemma to me to react at all or not. But okay, if I take it seriously, I am not a pro-Putin man, I’m a pro-Hungarian guy, you know? Because my job is to serve my nation. That’s first. Second, we have some memories with the Russians – it’s not a honeymoon anyway. Hungary, just to the audience, Hungary is dominated by always three major powers: one Germany, I mean Berlin; then Moscow; and Istanbul. So we are living just in the middle of that. Each of them occupied at least once. Russia three. So that’s the menu card, what you have, if you are living in that peculiar part of the European Union.
Sounds like a lot of fun.
So therefore, I decided when I came back to power 2010, and I made a deal with the President of Russia, President Putin, that whatever was the history between the two nations, let it to the historians and discuss it. And we should find a reasonable cooperation and do it economically as much as we had. And we did, and it worked. It was good. Russians always kept their words. When we agreed on anything with Putin, that was done – on my side as well. So therefore, my attitude to the Russians is not that negative and crazy as many of the Western leaders at this moment. And my position on this war between Ukraine and Russia always said, “Guys, don’t forget that this war is not about Ukraine. But don’t make a mistake. The strategical reason of this war is called ‘enlargement of NATO’.” So the question is whether we would like to enlarge NATO or not. If we would like to enlarge NATO, the Russians will never accept it. Whether you like it or not, they will not let us to move closer to their borders. But this is the main issue: enlargement of NATO. So then when the war broke out, because Russia invaded Ukraine finally to stop the NATO membership and occupied the territories, I said to my colleagues that we should isolate – as much as we can and as soon as we can – this whole conflict. Otherwise, the conflict will accelerate, eating up more and more money, more and more casualties, more and more deaths – now hundreds of thousands of widows. And when two Slavic nations are in war, it’s serious – because they are both military-based nations. So it’s a tragedy what’s going on. It’s really brutal. It’s not just a geopolitical game, it’s a human tragedy, anyway. So I said we should isolate them and stop killing. But what now the Western strategy is that: “Keep killing as long as it takes”. That’s what they are doing. So unfortunately, I remain alone. We voted, and I was the only one who was against the involvement of European Union to the war. Later on now, the Slovakians follow the same track – plus Vatican. So Vatican, Slovaks and Hungary – and now President Donald Trump. So that’s a new story, because your president following exactly the same track which was offered by us – I mean, by Hungary in the last three years. So another good news.
Less than a year in, there was what seems like a pretty meaningful attempt to end it, to settle the conflict, and that was scuttled by the Biden administration, using the former British prime minister Boris Johnson. Why do you think the Biden administration wanted the war to continue? And it wasn’t just Johnson, it was the UK more broadly: its whole political establishment was fanatically – is to this day fanatically…
Still, still.
What is that? They’re not historic enemies, by the way, keep in mind – they were allied in the last big war. They’ve never been invaded by Russia. Why is Britain so intent on killing all these Ukrainians? I don’t understand.
Is it my job to answer to that?
Yes.
I don’t think so.
You’re the longest serving leader in Europe; I thought you might have… No, you don’t…
When I will, in my years in pension, I’m ready to answer to that. I try to survive rather.
Totally fair. Can you just describe for those who haven’t, er… You’re very much… You’re not far from the fighting, by the way, for people who haven’t looked at a map. So can you describe the effects on Europe of this war for those of us who don’t live on the continent? What effects has this had, do you think?
So just start with a very narrow Hungarian approach. Because of the sanctions and the war, we are losing every year around 7 billion euro. Hungary is a small country, can you imagine?
Just Hungary?
Just Hungary, just Hungary, just Hungary. So altogether, we don’t know the figures exactly, but Europe spent close to 200 billion euro, which is out of the European economy. So it’s a sum. That’s first. Second, we isolated ourselves from the Russian economy, including the energy, which will have a long-term impact on us as well as I said – losing our working, well-functioning economic strategy as a basis of the European economy. The third one is the migrants. I mean, they are not migrants, they are really refugees. So the Ukrainians left the country. Nobody knows exactly how many, but tens of millions. So we are speaking about a country which one fifth, or one fourth, of the territory is occupied by Russia. The industrial area is totally destroyed, and the people are just escaping. So it’s really a tragedy. And if President Trump is not able to find a solution, that war could become easily an Afghanistan for the European Union: endless war, endless conflict, no way out of the conflict, eating up energy, human lives, money, everything, destroying the frame of normal life for the European Union. So we are in a serious danger. The difficulty is – that’s not my challenge, but it’s challenge to President Trump – how to convince the Russians to stop the war, while the Russians basically winning. This is the big question. Luckily enough, it’s not my job to find an answer again. But I’m convinced that if you try to find a solution just directly on the war between Russia and Ukraine, you will never find a solution. So we should make a bigger basket to incorporate the issue of reintegration of Russia into the international security order, to reintegrate Russia into the European security system, and to find a way of economic cooperation – basically energy. Plus Ukraine. If you make that kind of bigger basket, probably there is a chance for the deal. If it’s narrowly directly concentrating just Ukraine and Russia, it’s a real challenge, intellectually and politically, to any president of the United States. But it’s not my job again, so…
I mean, from an American perspective, the Biden administration has succeeded in driving Russia into deep integration with China: deep integration both economically and militarily. And that’s terrible from our perspective. But to come back and try and bring Russia back into SWIFT, even something as simple as that, you’re fighting against three years of some of the most vicious, over–the–top, leave–no–room–for–compromise rhetoric about Russia, where Putin is daily described as Hitler. So can you actually do that once these words have been spoken?
No. No way back. So I think… We are different nations. It’s not my job to make any comment, neither on Russia. ButRussia is a military-based country. So the mindset is about… Okay, the mindset for you, or mindset for me, when we speak about democracy, what is the first question which came to my mind? You concentrate your ideas around freedom, yeah?
Of course.
But it’s not the case in Russia. In case of Russia, it’s security of the nation. Then democracy and other issues, which are important, but the number one is [security] because it’s a too big country: to keep it together is the number one historical challenge and mission for the leaders. So it’s a different mindset again. So if you have that kind of country and you insult them politically, try to isolate them politically, try to kill them economically, then support his enemy by all the means. And after seriously say, “No, we don’t think too much seriously, so come back and cooperate with us.” It doesn’t work. So we made a historical mistake, which is decisive for at least 100 years, and founded, cemented the Chinese–Russian cooperation for 100 years. So we have to see that kind of bloc as a bloc. Probably Russia will make a deal with us on many issues, but will never give up that kind of final background what China means. If you would be in the shoes of Vladimir Putin, I think you would do the same thing. Never give up that kind of background, which was the real and only background. Can you imagine if China would not be in that relation with Russia and use the possibility of [Russia] being attacked from West and try to squeeze pressure Russia from the East? But Chinese did not do so. They said, “We don’t accept that kind of Western approach to this war.” So it’s historic. It’s not just the war of the decade: it will have an impact for long, long, long, long decades. We will live that – even our kids will live in that age. But Russia will never come back to the West as it was, never again. Sorry to say that, I’m not happy with that, because Russia is too close to Hungary. And Ukraine… What is basically again the problem? The Russians accepted, in a very difficult way, that Central European countries like my home – Hungary – became members of NATO. They always criticized that move, saying that it’s unfair because it was promised – nobody knows exactly whether did it happen or not, but it was promised – that the ex-Soviet Union dominated territories, will not join NATO. But we did – good for us anyway. And then the Russians started to live with that. In that concept, Ukraine was the buffer zone between NATO and Russia. And then now, as we started to incorporate more and more Ukraine, first at the military level, developing their army, then even at the diplomatic level to speak about the possible membership of Ukraine to NATO, we converted the buffer zone into a war zone. So it’s not any more a buffer zone. That’s the problem. And it’s historic, it’s not about one or two decades issue. So how we imagine the territory between the NATO and Russia, how we call it and how to manage it, how we provide the future for the people in the territory. So these are the real big and difficult challenges ahead of us. When we jumped into the war, that was always my argument to the Westerners that, “Don’t consider that war as our own war.” It’s not a war of the West: it’s a war between two Slavic nations: a brutal but a brotherhood war, Russians and Ukrainians. Isolate them, help them, but don’t say that “This is our war”. That’s exactly what you have done, basically: President Biden came to Warsaw and said, “Putin must fail.” Guys, it means that you are in the war. So why we have done it? Nobody knows the answer of that. So it was a very short-sighted idea. Probably they thought that they could make weaken Russia. I was always sure the very first moment that a war will make Russia stronger than it was prior to the war. That’s our history: First World War, SecondWorld War. When they start the war, they are weaker. As the war is going ahead, they are getting stronger and stronger and stronger. That’s the lesson of the Hungarian history.
You were the first person… I mean, I live in the United States, so I live in such a North Korean news vacuum that I was shocked when I spoke to you in the summer of 2022 and asked, “Who do you think will win this war?” And you laughed,and you said, “Have you looked at the populations? Russia has 100 million more people.” And I thought, “Why have I never heard this before?” Everything you’re saying now is what you were saying two and a half years ago, and you were proven right.
I’m not happy with that, anyway.
No, I know. But I guess what I’m saying is Western policymakers also have access to Wikipedia. So how did they not know this?
I think two reasons. One is that they have an interpretation of the Second World War that Russia was able to win against Germany just because the Anglo-Saxons supported them. That’s first. Second, you know…
May I ask you to pause? And you don’t believe that’s true?
I think to a certain extent it was true. So a lot of support came from United States, especially to Russia – especially ammunition, weapons, and so on. So I can’t say that that was the precondition. I don’t underestimate the heroic attempts of the Russians to defend their own land – even against the Hungarians anyway, because we were on the other side. But it’s true that the alliance with the West played a role that Russia was able to survive the German attacks. So that’s exaggeration on the Western side of that story probably. And the second, don’t forget that in the ’90s, I was Prime Minister when President Putin came into power, 1999. I was first time prime minister at that time. And I do remember how was the ’90s. In the ’90s, there was the Washington Consensus, which is a theory of how to reorganize the world economy: privatization, competitiveness, and so on. And the global capitalists started to invest into Russia, and they had a feeling that now they find the key how to integrate the Russian economy – and the huge, vast Russian territories and the raw materials, energy supply territories – into the world economy. That was the ’90s. And they did it. They made a huge amount of money. George Soros, who I always would focus to follow anyway to understand what’s going on, did it. But the Russians were not satisfied with that at all. And then there was a change. President Putin came to power and said, “Guys, this integration to the world economy, not the way which is serving the interest of Russia.” And they cut many things. And many Americans and European investors had to realize some losses. And I think the idea that they were so close to get it, to get the major source of the profit, and it was stopped by the same man: there is a personal revenge element in their way of thinking. I’m sure of that. Sorry to… That’s too much probably to say about it.
You know, that’s a very diplomatic description from our perspective. It looked like looting by Western businesses that resulted in like the lowest life expectancy in Europe by far. And the story from Putin’s ascension in 2000 is climbing Russian life expectancy, which I think is a fair measure of a country’s health. And there’s deep resentment that he didn’t allow foreign business interests to dominate his country. I mean, fair?
The Russians had their own concept how they would like to be integrated into the world economy. And that concept was different from the American concept and from the European concept, of course. Hungary is part of that. So when we realize what is the new strategy of the Russians, the Hungarian companies went to Russia to make their business, as I’m sure that from the Emirates they are doing their businesses as well, and the Saudis and others. So they would not like to be isolated. They would be part of the world economy based on the Russian interest, not on the Washington Consensusprinciples, or something like that. But it’s their country. Whether we like it or not, whether we agree or not, it’s their country. They make their choice. If it’s their decision, we have to adjust ourselves, not to force them to change their mind. It’s not our job. At least this is the Hungarian approach – probably not the American, but definitely the Central European. They are too close. Don’t forget they’re too close.
I know you don’t forget that. How would you rate Zelensky as a leader of Ukraine?
So first of all, even if I have many critical remarks, it does not matter if you take the proper vantage point to see what has happened in Ukraine in the last years. They decided to go into a war, to defend their own territory, their own right to join NATO and to be part of the Western architecture – security and economic architecture. That was their decision. And they fight for it. And they lost hundreds of thousands of lives, and they fight heroically. So I’m very cautious to make any critical remarks on the President or Ukraine, because what they have done is really something heroic and historical: to resist to that power like Russia for that long time, you know? So it’s… Whatever political mistakes they have done, the fact itself – the fight and sacrifice – is something we have to say, that’s really heroic.
Yes.
So that’s number one. Number two, I think it was a misunderstanding, on their behalf, the real intention of the West. And they thought that the West will support them forever. And therefore their behavior was not exactly as it would be seen as normal. Because if you are in trouble, you need help, you are going to somewhere to ask, it’s not the right tone as they communicate with us. Anyway… But they thought that they can do so, because the West will remain behind them forever. If you understand well the history of the Western politics, this is a misconception, may I say. That’s not what the West has done in the last several years.
No.
No, no. So I was sure that sooner or later, they will be let alone and say, “Guys, war is over, financial support is over, military support is over. Let’s make a deal. Even if you have huge losses, this is the right moment. We would not like to risk a World War III. We would not like to risk a direct conflict with Russia on military fields.” So my heart is with the Ukrainians, but they are in a big, big, big trouble, because of the position they have now on this whole issue.
Many billions of dollars of Western weapons have flowed into Ukraine. A lot of them have been sold. It’s a fact. And I wonder if you’re concerned about the effect on your security of this. I mean, if you have lots of weapons floating around anywhere it’s dangerous. And is anyone keeping track of – some of these advanced weapons, actually – where they are?
So just again, very cautiously. Now everybody think that we have a problem called “Russia” – which is true. But then soon we will have another problem, called “Ukraine”.
Yes. So… I think that’s right. So the new Defense Secretary in the United States, Pete Hegseth, gave a speech two days ago in which he started by saying, Ukraine is not joining NATO. So that’s the core. That question was the cause of this war. That’s the baseline demand of Russia. I think it makes intuitive sense to even people who don’t like Russia can understand why they want that. So now that the United States has just said that, is that the basis of a peace? What else do we need to get to peace?
You live in United States and it’s probably difficult to imagine the strength of liberal dictatorship of public life we are living under in Europe. So the pressure from the liberal public opinion is so strong on the leaders, that in the last three years all the European leaders followed the same track. So try to imagine that a big European nation leader says that we have to support Ukraine, whatever does it take. We have to do… This is a moral-based position. We can’t change it. And they should join NATO, and we are arguing in favor of that. And then, just to say next weekend, “Guys, there are some changes in the world. So our principally based position is over and now, you know, turn like that.” So to make that change with the present leadership, it’s difficult to imagine. I would not like to make nasty jokes, but now, because of the American decision, it’s really time for sober up, but they are in the phase of drinking again. So it takes time to change the direction of the ship. Just today they issued a paper, they issued a statement, the big European nations, saying that they continue as they have done, regardless what the Americans said. That’s just this morning, so…
Are we going to have to invade France? Is that what you’re saying? Sorry, sorry, just kidding. No one wants France at this point. Sorry.
Discuss in another forum.
Sorry, sorry, in another forum. Totally get it. Optimistically, though, if you, if you believe, you know… I think the Trump administration really… The President has said it a number of times: “We need to end this.” Do you think it’s possible that we see a permanent resolution within the next six months? Is that realistic, to hope for that?
Yes, yes, definitely. Even earlier.
Really?
Yeah, I think so. You know, serious guys. So strong men make peace. Weak men make war. That’s so simple. Now we have strong leaders.
Last question, and I appreciate this, and I want to say before you leave. I’ll just say it, I don’t mind sucking up: I think there’s a reason you’re the longest–serving leader in Europe. I think history, for all the criticism you’ve taken, will…
Don’t forget that I have another record I hold. It’s more important. Longest-serving leader of opposition in Europe: 16 years. Just because I’m accused not to be democratic, you know, Don’t forget that, okay, 19 years in government, that’s something. But 16 years in opposition, and to lead the opp… that’s even more. So I had that record as well. So I know both sides of democracy: the sunny one and the raining one as well. So I never left politics, even I lost the election. So I’m a political animal, who is running a democratic political architecture and machinery in my country. Sorry for interrupting.
Which did you enjoy more, honestly?
When I was in opposition, I had more time to deal with football – which is a real issue anyway.
Where do you think the European public is? You said a couple of times that the behavior of the leadership of some Western nations calls into question democracy itself. Is there accurate public polling information on how Europeans, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Brits, how they actually feel about the war in Ukraine? Do you think…
We do run that. So I run that kind of opinion polls. So I have a view on all European countries, and I can say that the majority is moving to the peace position. And the pro-peace is bigger now. There’s a majority of the pro-peace in the European public opinion in general. There are some – one or two countries – which is exceptional, all the others belonging to the same track: more, more, more for peace. But there is another opinion poll, which is even more important. I would not like to divert this conversation, but we run every year and we ask the Europeans, “What do you think about the life of your children? Will they have a better future and better life than you have now, or it will be worse?” And all the Western countries says “worse”. All the Central European countries says “better”. So this is the real difference now inside the continent between the Western countries and the Central European countries. So we still believe occupied countries by Soviet Union, communist dictatorship, regardless of that, we still believe that we can create a better future for our kids than we live today; but the Westerners think just the opposite of that. So that’s another very interesting structural differences inside the single market and the European Union.
Because your life force is intact?
Because… That’s one. But the other one, what we have now, we fight for. We fought for it: democracy, freedom. The Western generations who are now in power and ruling the countries, when they were born, there was democracy and freedom in the western part of Europe. I spent 26 years of my life in communist dictatorship. I haven’t inherited freedom or democracy. We fought for it, you know, we did it, we get it, so we fought for it. So therefore, we are absolutely convinced that we did it not in vain. It was essence. And we are able to create and build up countries – Central Europe –after 45 years of Soviet occupation and communist dictatorship, which our kids will enjoy and deserve. So democracy and freedom in Eastern and Central part of Europe is a serious thing. It’s part of our life. It belongs to our heart. It’s the essence of our life. In Western societies, you know, they inherited, it’s a given thing. Even the middle class: well-living, well-being, convenient way of life also. So when you look at the European Union and Europe, don’t think that it’s the same everywhere. So there are differences – not just on national basis, but on historical basis as well. And I don’t know what is the future of the Western Europe, but I’m totally convinced that Central Europe and Eastern Europe – Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Serbia – has a definite bright future. I’m sure of that.
I am too. Mr. Prime Minister, thank you.
Thank you very much.
That was wonderful. Thank you.
Thank you.
