By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has declared that Brussels and Kyiv have initiated a “war” against Hungary. This assertion follows the publication of an article by Politico detailing proposed plans for Ukraine’s “accession in advance” to the EU, bypassing standard procedures and outlining strategies to circumvent Hungary’s veto power. Orbán characterized these proposals as a “latest war plan” aimed at undermining Hungarian sovereignty and dictating the country’s political direction, urging citizens to prevent this through the upcoming April elections. The article itself suggests partial EU membership for Ukraine by 2027 and considers scenarios where Hungary’s opposition to Ukraine’s integration is overcome, including the possibility of a change in Hungarian government.
Read the original article here
The claim that the European Union and Ukraine have “declared war” on Hungary, as put forth by Viktor Orbán, certainly paints a dramatic picture, and it’s a statement that immediately raises questions about its sincerity and purpose. When a political leader uses such charged language, especially from an official capacity, it’s not something to be taken lightly, as declarations of war are inherently actionable and often necessitate significant governmental responses. This rhetoric feels like a sharp escalation, a departure from prior statements, and suggests a deeply entrenched position.
It’s difficult to step back from such a powerful assertion, and it strongly implies a sense of desperation to maintain power. The timing of these pronouncements, particularly with an election looming just sixty days away, fuels speculation that this heightened rhetoric is a calculated move to rally support or create a sense of existential threat. The urgency and anxiety surrounding this “war” seem palpable, as if the very survival of Hungary, or at least Orbán’s leadership, is at stake.
The very notion of a “war” when Hungary continues to receive substantial financial contributions from the EU is, frankly, perplexing. If the EU is truly an adversary, it begs the question: why remain a member of the union? The continued acceptance of EU funding while simultaneously declaring a state of war against it seems contradictory, to say the least. It’s as if Orbán wishes to enjoy the benefits of membership while disregarding its foundational principles and acting on directives from elsewhere.
This situation raises the immediate prospect of EU funding being withheld. If a state of war is declared, it logically follows that financial support would cease, at least until a new direction is established. The current scenario, where substantial EU funds are still being channeled into Hungary for large projects, appears incongruous with the “war” narrative. Perhaps the most straightforward solution, if the EU is indeed the enemy, would be to cease all engagement and return any perceived “stolen” funds, allowing for a clean break.
The idea of Hungary seeking to leave the EU, as suggested by the “war” declaration, becomes a central point of contention. If the union is an enemy, then exiting appears to be the logical, albeit perhaps cowardly, course of action. The inability or unwillingness to sever ties, even when framing the EU as an aggressor, highlights a deeper strategic dilemma or perhaps a lack of genuine intent to depart. The ongoing membership, despite the declared animosity, makes the “war” narrative ring hollow.
This aggressive posturing also brings to mind historical patterns, where leaders facing internal challenges or seeking to consolidate power might employ themes of national decline, humiliation, or victimhood. The current situation could be interpreted as a classic tactic of using the language of “war” before an election, a strategy to galvanize a base by presenting an external threat. It feels like Orbán is utilizing every available trick to cling to power, potentially mirroring the tactics of other leaders who have employed similar rhetoric to achieve their goals.
Furthermore, the blocking of Ukrainian news sites within Hungary, while Russian sites remain accessible, adds another layer of complexity and raises serious concerns about information control. This selective censorship, seemingly at the behest of “Russia’s local governor,” suggests a deliberate effort to shape public opinion and potentially interfere with democratic processes, such as elections. Such actions blur the lines between national governance and external influence, making the “war” narrative even more suspect.
The consistent funding of EU projects while simultaneously claiming the EU is at war with Hungary is a significant point of concern for many. It raises questions about transparency and the responsible use of funds. The desire for Orbán and his administration to be removed, either by the Hungarian people or through EU intervention, stems from this perceived hypocrisy and the disruptive impact of his leadership on the union’s cohesion.
The notion that the EU, a union of sovereign nations, would declare “war” on one of its own members, particularly a nation actively fighting for its existence like Ukraine, seems implausible. The focus of the “war,” if one exists, appears to be directed inward, a struggle for power and direction within Hungary itself. The “war” Orbán speaks of may, in reality, be a declaration of war against democratic principles, against the interests of the Hungarian people, and against the very foundations of the European Union. Ultimately, the coming election will likely be a crucial referendum on these claims and Orbán’s leadership.