By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban recently declared Ukraine an “enemy” of Hungary, specifically criticizing Kyiv’s calls for the EU to halt Russian energy imports. Orban reiterated his stance against Ukraine’s EU membership, asserting that such cooperation would draw Hungary into war. These remarks, made ahead of Hungary’s parliamentary elections, align with Orban’s consistent opposition to EU sanctions against Moscow and aid to Ukraine, particularly concerning energy dependence.
Read the original article here
It’s quite striking to witness the recent declaration by Hungarian leader Viktor Orban labeling Ukraine as an “enemy” of Hungary. This bold statement, coming from a European Union and NATO member, naturally raises a multitude of questions and concerns, painting a complex picture of the geopolitical landscape.
The sentiment that Orban’s actions are harming Hungary itself more than Ukraine could possibly do is a recurring theme. This perspective suggests that his policies and pronouncements are creating internal strife and external isolation, effectively undermining Hungary’s standing and well-being on the international stage.
There’s a palpable weariness with what some perceive as “warmongering” rhetoric, and Orban’s stance on Ukraine is certainly fueling that sentiment. It’s as if his pronouncements are not just about foreign policy but are deeply intertwined with a perceived alignment with certain powerful, and in some eyes, problematic, global figures.
This declaration also positions Hungary, in the eyes of many, as a de facto vassal state to Russia. The implication is that by viewing Ukraine, a nation actively resisting Russian aggression, as an enemy, Hungary is implicitly siding with Russia, thereby alienating itself from the broader European and transatlantic alliances.
The consistent association drawn between Orban and Donald Trump is also hard to miss. This perceived camaraderie and mutual support raise eyebrows, particularly given the controversies surrounding both figures. The notion of a “straight swap” within the EU, where Hungary might be exchanged for Ukraine, highlights the growing dissatisfaction with Hungary’s current trajectory and its perceived role within the union.
The idea of Orban being a “puppet” is also frequently expressed, suggesting a lack of genuine Hungarian self-rule and an undue influence from external forces, specifically Russia. This viewpoint contends that Orban’s government is not acting in the independent interests of Hungary but rather following directives from Moscow.
Consequently, there are strong calls for Hungary’s removal from both the European Union and NATO. Critics argue that Hungary, under Orban’s leadership, is demonstrably anti-democratic and anti-EU, making its continued membership untenable and a potential liability to these organizations.
The historical context of Hungary’s struggle for freedom, particularly the 1956 revolution, is brought up as a stark contrast to its current leadership. The lament is that a nation with such a legacy of fighting for liberty is now led by someone perceived as aligning with a former oppressor, leading to accusations of disgrace.
The very real possibility of escalation is also a concern, with some wondering if the next step might be a declaration of war on Ukraine, or perhaps using such a crisis to further consolidate power domestically, potentially by canceling elections. This suggests a deep distrust of Orban’s motives and a fear of further authoritarian consolidation.
The sentiment that Orban is an “enemy of Europe” is shared by many, but the idea is extended further, with some declaring him an enemy of Canada, for example. This demonstrates the wide-reaching impact of his pronouncements and the growing international disapproval.
The assertion that Orban considers his own people an enemy is also voiced, implying a disconnect between his leadership and the will of the Hungarian population. This feeds into the speculation that if he were to lose power, he would face serious consequences, possibly including imprisonment.
The accusation that Orban is “Putin’s little bitch” is a crude but clear expression of the perception that he is a subservient follower of the Russian president. The question of who would gain custody of Orban if Putin and Trump were to “divorce” is a darkly humorous way to illustrate this perceived subservient relationship.
The integrity of Hungarian elections under Orban is also brought into question, with claims that he has “nationalized the elections,” suggesting a manipulation of the electoral process. This has led to calls for a repeat of the 1956 revolution, a forceful removal of the current leadership.
There’s a clear division between Orban’s government and the Hungarian people, with the assertion that Hungarians are friends with Ukrainians. This reinforces the idea that the Hungarian government, under Orban, is acting against the true interests and sentiments of its own citizens.
The perceived desperation of Orban, particularly in the face of upcoming elections, is highlighted as a driving force behind his increasingly aggressive rhetoric. This suggests that his pronouncements are not necessarily based on deeply held convictions but are rather tactical maneuvers to rally support or distract from domestic issues.
The question of the EU’s process for removing member states is raised, indicating a strong desire for Hungary’s expulsion. The comparison to Belarus further emphasizes the perception of Hungary moving away from democratic norms and European values.
The idea of a “NATO swap,” where Hungary would be removed and Ukraine admitted, reflects the sentiment that Hungary is no longer a reliable ally and that Ukraine, conversely, embodies the values the alliance should represent. There are even calls to boycott Hungarian products, like cars, as a form of economic pressure. The ultimate hope expressed is that Hungary will be isolated, allowing its own people to rectify the situation.