By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s election campaign is fundamentally built upon criticism of Ukraine, its citizens, and Zelenskyy himself, framing this hostility as the core of Orbán’s electoral platform. Zelenskyy further elaborated on the pervasive nature of Russian influence in Europe, suggesting it functions as a conduit for Kremlin propaganda. While acknowledging Orbán’s stance, the President emphasized that the electoral outcome rests with the Hungarian voters, asserting that the nation’s people are greater than any single political figure.
Read the original article here
President Zelenskyy has directly stated that Prime Minister Orbán’s election campaign is fundamentally built on a foundation of hostility, not only towards Ukraine but also specifically towards him. This accusation highlights a perceived strategic use of antagonism as a core element in Orbán’s political maneuvering, particularly as Hungary’s election cycle approaches.
From Ukraine’s perspective, there’s a clear issue with Hungary’s actions regarding energy pipelines. It’s understandable that Ukraine cannot permit Hungary to access a pipeline that carries Russian oil through Ukrainian territory, especially given the ongoing conflict. Hungary’s subsequent escalation, by withholding approval for an EU loan crucial for Ukraine and, in a highly concerning move, appearing to hold Ukrainian individuals in a form of detention, only intensifies the friction.
The situation presents a challenging dichotomy: Ukraine is engaged in a defensive war, battling for its very survival, while simultaneously facing what appears to be deliberate antagonism from a fellow European nation. This dual pressure makes Ukraine’s struggle for sovereignty even more arduous.
The political strategy of identifying an external enemy to distract from internal problems is a tactic as old as politics itself. It’s noteworthy how a national election campaign can become so heavily reliant on creating animosity abroad, potentially overshadowing domestic policy considerations for the electorate. This approach seems to be a primary, if not sole, strategy for Orbán, especially when considering the lack of visible achievements for Hungary under his leadership. Some observers suggest that Orbán’s actions are driven by a desire to leverage fear and potentially xenophobia to secure electoral victory, rather than addressing substantive domestic issues.
The hostility directed at Zelenskyy by Orbán appears to be deeply intertwined with economic factors, specifically access to cheap Russian oil. The implication is that Orbán and his associates stand to profit significantly by reselling oil products to the Hungarian populace at average EU prices, pocketing the difference. In this view, Zelenskyy’s stance is entirely justified.
There’s a prevailing sentiment that Orbán is employing a desperate tactic, possibly because he senses he is losing political ground. Some interpret his actions as an attempt to gain favor with Moscow, anticipating a need for refuge there following an election loss. The idea that Orbán’s chances of winning might increase with every statement from Zelenskyy points to a cyclical, almost theatrical, political dynamic at play. He is often described as a puppet, suggesting external influence guiding his actions.
The notion that Ukraine became an antagonist in Orbán’s eyes only after Ukraine signaled its disapproval of Russian influence is significant. The comparison to a “lego duce” being scared by Ukrainians showing Hungarians how to handle a perceived “moscowite traitor” is a pointed commentary on national sovereignty and resistance.
However, there are also conflicting reports regarding Orbán’s electoral standing, with some suggesting he is indeed losing ground, even with electoral districts potentially gerrymandered to his advantage. This suggests his anti-Ukraine stance might not be solely driven by his base’s preferences but by a genuine animosity towards Ukraine.
It’s a stark illustration of how international issues can be weaponized in domestic campaigns, transforming foreign policy into a spectacle. Interestingly, some argue that Zelenskyy is, perhaps inadvertently, playing into Orbán’s hands, by reacting in ways that further fuel Orbán’s narrative. The timing of these pronouncements, just before an election, fuels speculation that they might be contributing to Orbán’s propaganda efforts.
The pipeline issue is presented as merely the latest justification, with the assertion that Orbán has been working against Ukraine since the beginning of the Russian invasion, a stance characterized as traitorous to Europe as a whole. The criticism extends to the broader European Union, with calls for Brussels to address Hungary’s actions more decisively, particularly its obstruction of aid to Ukraine, which is seen as a betrayal of solidarity.
Hungary’s blockade of crucial EU loans for Ukraine raises questions about the net benefit for Ukraine in its dealings with Hungary. While Croatia has offered alternative pipeline access for oil, they refuse to allow Russian oil tankers to dock, demonstrating a differing approach to energy security and Russian influence.
The legality and practicality of holding elections in Ukraine during wartime are complex. Ukraine’s constitution prohibits elections during a state of martial law, which is in effect due to the ongoing war. This is not comparable to situations like the UK in WWII, where circumstances were different. Being under constant bombardment from an invading force is a significant impediment to democratic processes.
The argument that Ukraine cannot hold elections due to ongoing hostilities and constitutional provisions against elections during wartime is a key point. Russia’s predictable reaction to any election results, claiming they are unfair if Zelenskyy wins, further complicates matters. Additionally, holding elections in Russia or Russian-controlled territories would be fraught with danger and logistical impossibilities. The inherent danger of holding public gatherings during active shelling is also a critical consideration.
The notion of “perpetual martial law” is directly linked to the reality of being at war, a situation instigated by Russia. Blaming Ukraine for its inability to hold elections while under attack, and simultaneously accusing Zelenskyy of being a dictator, is seen as a deeply flawed and hypocritical perspective, especially when contrasted with Putin’s actions. The question of who will protect voters from Russian missiles during an election is a practical and pointed one, highlighting the dangers involved.
Ultimately, the prevention of elections in Ukraine is directly attributed to Vladimir Putin’s aggression. The idea that Ukraine is unable to hold elections due to martial law, which cannot be lifted while under attack from a nuclear power, is a stark reality. The Ukrainian constitution clearly forbids elections under such circumstances. The sentiment is that any complaints about the lack of elections are a “sick joke” when the fundamental cause is Russia’s ongoing invasion and the dictatorial actions of its leader.