Hungary’s EU Presidency got off on the wrong foot with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s visit to Moscow and the cancellation of the traditional meeting with the European Commission at the start of the Presidency.
EU leaders denounced his visit (5 July) as appeasement toward Russia and inconsistent with EU’s position on Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. It was also not Hungary’s task as chair of the EU Presidency. In a statement on the very same day, EU High Representative Josep Borrell wrote that the visit took place, exclusively, in the framework of the bilateral relations between Hungary and Russia.
“Hungary is now the EU Member State serving the rotating presidency of the Council until 31 December 2024,” he wrote. “That does not entail any external representation of the EU.” Furthermore, the EU position excludes official contacts between the EU and President Putin. He recalled that the Russian President has been indicted by the International Criminal Court.
In another statement on the following day, Borrell repeated his criticism against Orbán for his participation at the informal summit of the Organisation of Turkic States. This participation contradicted EU’s position on the Cyprus issue. The EU recognises only the Republic of Cyprus and rejects the attempts by the Organisation to “legitimise the Turkish Cypriot secessionist entity”.
EU’s denouncements did not deter Viktor Orbán from continuing his self-proclaimed peace mission to China and to the US where he participated in the NATO summit. He also met with Donald Trump on Thursday. Péter Szijjártó, Hungary’s foreign minister, admitted in an interview that his country prefers Trump to be reelected because of the positive impact it would have on Hungary-US relations.
Distinction between aggressor and victim
In contrast, the EU is worried about the consequences for EU – US relations if Trump would be re-elected as US President. Trump is known to admire Putin and unpredictable as regards continued American support to Ukraine. In a speech at the margin of the NATO summit, Borrell underlined that the frontline today between democracy and authoritarian regimes is in Ukraine.
“We did not want to see what was obvious,” he said. “That Putin wants Russia to dominate its neighborhood again. Putin has not given up on Russia’s imperialist ambitions. And that is the problem: Russia is still behaving as an empire, and Putin wants to rebuild the empire - be it the Tsar empire or the Soviet empire … That Ukraine prevails is existential. It’s a requirement for our security.”
Indirectly referring to Victor Orbán (‘look at the travels of one of our Prime Ministers’), he assured that the EU is committed to Ukraine’s defense in the long run. “Because in defending Ukraine, we are defending the European security. It is the only way to achieve peace.”
“Looking for peace does not make us forget that there is an aggressor and an aggressed. We cannot put both of them on the same level. We know who is the aggressor. Yes, we want peace, how not? But only a peace that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and provides security guarantees. Only that would be a real peace.”
Orbán has admitted that he was not acting on behalf of the EU. In an interview after his meeting with Putin, he explained that he feels a moral and political obligation to meditate between the two sides in a war which only drags on and nobody can win in his view.
Because of its geopolitical location, Hungary has an interest in good relations with Russia and believes in engagement with Russia to end the war. Hungary has opposed military support to Ukraine because it, in its view, prolongs the war. Orbán did not explain how Ukraine could defend itself against Russia’s aggression without the support.
While admitting that Russia started the war and invaded Ukraine, Orbán ignores who is right or wrong. He says that he is more concerned about how many will die or live in the coming months. He and his ministers claim that he was on a fact-finding mission and that he did not propose any ideas about how to solve the conflict. EU Minister János Bóka said in Brussels that the EU has been informed after the visit.
Hungarian media divided on visit
“Hungarian media has written extensively about Orbán’s visits to Kyiv and Moscow,” Mátyás Kohán, deputy editor at the Hungarian conservative weekly Mandiner, told The Brussels Times. “Their coverage was divided squarely along ideological lines.”
Some media praised Orbán as one of the few leaders who still can talk to both Zelensky and Putin. There were also criticisms: “The lack of a European Council mandate, the supposed pointlessness of a small country trying to become a peace broker among great powers, and the usual slandering of Orbán as a Russian asset.”
“This event got the Hungarian media's trademark partisan coverage, divided along the lines of those who agree with Orbán's pro-peace agenda and those who thinks that he is a puppet of Putin. An anti-government expert on Russia went on to explain that the Kyiv leg of the peace mission made sense, but that the Moscow leg only served Putin's interests.”
Was it just a fact-finding mission or did Orban convey any message from Zelensky or plan for ending the war? “I’m sure that all meetings featured conveying information from the previous meetings, i.e. the visit to Putin was used to pass on Zelensky's red lines. The fact-finding aspect consisted of gathering information for fellow EU leaders to assess.”
Orbán seems to have a more nuanced view of the war than usually is assumed and which is also shared by some military experts. “In his opinion, Ukraine doesn't have the manpower to regain territorial integrity on the battlefield. The Western arms deliveries didn't change this basic fact, although they did allow Ukraine to mount a forceful defense,” Kohán explained.
“On the other hand, Orbán doesn't think Russia has the military capacity to achieve its goals either. This leads him to think that there is no solution on the battlefield and that the war is going to end with a negotiated settlement. He argues for cutting straight to this phase instead of losing more lives and further weakening Ukraine.”
“That is why he argues for an unconditional ceasefire as soon as possible and then tough and lengthy peace negotiations featuring Ukraine, Russia, the EU, the US, and China. Hungary stresses that a negotiated territorial settlement doesn’t need to coincide with the current frontlines, which means that Ukraine might be able to regain more territory diplomatically than militarily.”
Impossibility of EU negotiating mandate
Next EU foreign affairs council on 22 July highlights that “the Russian aggression against Ukraine” will be on its agenda. Should Orban try to get a mandate from the Council to continue his peace mission?
When asked about the possibility of granting Orbán a mandate, based on EU’s position, the Commission’s chief spokesperson, Eric Mamer, dismissed it as a theoretical question which does not correspond to reality. Orbán himself has said that he is acting on his own. But the spokesperson assumed that the Council could give him a mandate if it wanted.
Mátyás Kohán commented that an EU mandate would be a long-shot that Orbán is unlikely to engage in. “He knows that his position on the war in Ukraine is rather isolated, and that he couldn't possibly get a mandate to negotiate on EU's behalf, especially as the EU already has representatives to carry out this task.”
“The reality is that most EU countries partly still believe that Ukraine’s military victory is realistic, partly are happy to keep fighting to weaken Russia even if it gets Ukraine nothing,” he added. “Orbán is questioning these positions. There is no mandate the EU could give him that he would agree to, and there is no way he could get a mandate for the positions he would like to negotiate on.”
As previously reported, each country taking over the EU presidency normally invites the College of Commissioners from all EU countries to a first meeting in its capital at the very start of its term – but this did not happen this time. The meeting has been postponed until September without any explanation. Now we know that it was likely postponed because of Orbán’s shuttle diplomacy.
Following his visit to Moscow, the Commission’s chief spokesperson said that it could jeopardize the planned Commission visit to Budapest. How sure can we be that the Commission visit will take place?
“The visits of European Commission President von der Leyen to Budapest are indeed thorny political issues,” Mátyás Kohán replied, referring to a previous cancellation in connection with Hungary’s post-COVID recovery funding.
“If she intended to spend as little time as possible in Budapest, it would have been a humiliation to Hungary. But I don't think that the Commission is going to break the tradition of visiting the rotating EU Presidency. There is plenty of time for the dust to settle until September.”
M. Apelblat
The Brussels Times
