Gábor István Kiss: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to our viewers. We’re talking to Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, this time in Rome. Hello, Prime Minister.
Hello.
Thank you for talking to us. Today you met Pope Leo XIV for the first time. Is Pope Leo on board the ship of peace?
There’s a hidden anti-war network in the world, not to mention a network of leaders who are known to everyone; and everyone knows – and among ourselves, we most of all – that for them the most important thing is peace. This network has two focal points. One is a centre of power, where there are real political tools that can be used for peace and against war; the current American president is at the centre of this, while the former American president was not. And there’s also a spiritual or intellectual centre of this network, from which politicians fighting against war receive energy, motivation, commitment, blessings and encouragement again and again – and this is here in the Vatican, with the Holy Father himself.
And this is to be understood in the present tense, so it’s still here; and it was true for Pope Francis, who clearly understood the meaning of peace. On his third day in office, Pope Leo called President Zelenskyy, which represents a shift in this regard. Is the Vatican still the spiritual centre for peace processes?
Of course, because peace is not against the Ukrainians. So when the Holy Father consults with either of the warring parties, it’s not against peace, but rather against war. In theory, we would think that there’s no great difference between popes – and in some respects there isn’t, since they must lead the Holy Mother Church, and the system of doctrines, the system of teachings, the legacy of Jesus is clear. Nevertheless popes are human beings, they’re all different, and it matters what nation they come from. It was very interesting to reflect on my own experiences: when I made my first official visit to the Vatican, the Pope was Polish; then there was a German; then an Argentine; and now an Anglo-Saxon – an American. Now we have an Anglo-Saxon pope.
After several years of this devastating war, we can still count on one hand the number of world leaders who consistently stand on the side of peace and actively work to achieve it. The latest addition to this group is the occupant of the White House, President Trump. But why are there so few people in the world who are like you, actively working for peace?
Yes, but that’s an illusion. Because when we say “the world”, we mean the Western world – and the world is more than that. There are indeed few of us in the Western world, and I’ll say a few words about that in a moment. But let’s not forget that across the globe, taking into account the entire human race, the overwhelming majority are on the side of peace: all the Arabs; all those in the Far East, led by China; and all the Indians as well. So Westerners are under an illusion in believing that anyone outside the West is unimportant or doesn’t play a significant role. There was a time like that, but that’s the past. When we talk about the Western world, we must also recognise that the larger or stronger half of it is the United States, and that stronger half is on the side of peace. There are times when we need to count up, and there are times when we need to weigh up. So here, with the President of the United States, it’s better to weigh up. And here in Central Europe, the pro-peace and anti-war Czechs are now coming back, there’s an anti-war government in Slovakia, and there’s an anti-war government in Hungary. I see that the tide is turning in Poland too, but we need more time to see things more clearly there. And I think that as economic problems grow in Western Europe, more and more countries will admit that we simply don’t have the money to finance this war. So I expect that as time goes by, almost day by day, ever more of us will join the anti-war camp.
Tell us about your meeting with the Pope. How did you find common ground, what gifts did you bring, what details can you share?
We always bring gifts, because you can’t come to the Pope empty-handed. This time we brought a beautiful old Hungarian book about the life of Saint Gellért, which gave us an opportunity to talk a little about the history of Hungarian Christianity, of which Bishop Saint Gellért is a central figure – or at least the central figure of its first chapter. This allowed us to talk about Budapest as well, although there was no great need for that, given that the Holy Father had already been to Budapest, as a member of the delegation during the previous pope’s visit there. I’m not saying that he knows us, but he’s seen us, he knows where Hungary is, he knows what Budapest is, and so he wasn’t welcoming a guest from Mars. What’s more, he’s a man of European, Western culture, although he served extensively in Latin America. So that traditional European education – which embraces both history and geography – is second nature to him, and he’s therefore very familiar with the world in the heart of which he now sits, here in Rome.
The Budapest peace summit, which after all isn’t taking place, has been cancelled or postponed. This was supposed to be a visit to Budapest by President Putin and President Trump, wasn’t it?
The peace summit is a reality. So the intention that the two negotiating parties have mutually declared is that there will be a summit in Budapest. I’d say that what is delayed will come.
What do you know about the timing – weeks, months? After all, this could be a significant step towards finally resolving this deadly conflict here, on our borders.
Let’s look at the scenario of the last such major peace summit. It took place in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, where peace in the Middle East was finalised. The parties involved – including the Americans – had been negotiating for a long time, and then on Saturday they announced that the agreement would be signed on Monday. That’s how you have to imagine it. So here, peace and an agreement can be reached within two or three days. No one knows when this will happen, as the negotiating delegations are in constant talks with each other.
But is it still the case that the signing will take place in Budapest?
It’s been announced. Take that as fact.
But in the meantime President Trump is currently negotiating in China, and according to reports, one of the topics of discussion is the exclusion of Russian energy from the global market. One can read analyses suggesting that this is more likely now than in recent years ; and it would also affect Hungary if the Druzhba [“Friendship”] pipeline were to suddenly shut down, be blown up, or if something else were to happen to it.
I firmly believe that it’s impossible to exclude the products of any major raw material-producing country from the global market. Rules can be imposed on them, and sanctions are currently in place; but the nature of these sanctions is such that they can all be circumvented. So we’re on the nineteenth sanction decision. This clearly shows that the previous ones weren’t successful. So I think there are things that can be achieved through politics in opposition to business logic, and there are things that can’t. They’ll certainly make it more difficult for Russian energy to enter the world market, but I have my doubts as to whether they can be excluded from it. But we’re less interested in that, which is an intellectual question; what interests us is what will happen to the Hungarians. What will happen to Hungarian households, what will happen at Hungarian gas stations? That’s what’s important to us. I can say that we must fight to the end to have access to Russian oil and natural gas. Firstly, because we can’t replace it from elsewhere, so there would be a shortage – if not a complete lack, then at least a shortage. And secondly, prices would go up. So we’d have to count on Hungarian households seeing their monthly expenses double, and the cost of running vehicles also skyrocketing. It’s therefore in the fundamental, vital interest of every Hungarian household that we have access to Russian energy and that there’s peace – because if there’s peace, the price of energy will fall and the economy will start to recover. Today, sanctions and the war – especially the war – are blocking the European economy, and thus also the development of the Hungarian economy. It’s in the interest of everyone who wants to earn more and spend less on utilities to have peace as soon as possible and not to squeeze Russian energy out of the Hungarian energy system.
But not everyone in Brussels seems to understand this, because in Brussels they don’t understand or see this geographically based argument, the practical argument about where Hungary obtains its energy from. Incidentally, it’s Hungary’s sovereign right to decide this. In Brussels, the strong and brutal statement is made that anyone who imports Russian energy is financing Putin’s war. This is a conflict for which there seems to be no solution.
Yes, but most of the energy from Russia isn’t imported by Hungary, but by Western countries, who say that anyone who buys from there is financing Putin’s war.
Well, they buy plenty.
Through India, for example.
Yes, there are all kinds of tricks. But there are other solutions too, such as LNG, and so on. I don’t want to name names, because I don’t see the point in upsetting any of our European friends, but today we know of three or four countries that are buying large quantities of Russian energy on a continuous basis – while at the same time urging the Hungarians not to do so.
But that’s what this debate is about, isn’t it? So from the outside it looks like they want to sanction Russia in some way, because they see the situation in black and white: there are the good guys, the Ukrainians, and there are the bad guys – and on this issue there are no shades of grey.
Yes, but I don’t think that’s the essence, because energy exports from Russia account for 2 per cent of total Russian energy exports. So it’s obvious that this 2 per cent plays no role in the war. They want to ban us from doing this in order to pick on the Hungarians. Because what is the situation? They blundered, they switched away from Russian energy sources, so prices skyrocketed there, which is bad for them. We, on the other hand, stayed with Russian energy sources. I’m not saying it’s easy, but it’s easier for us. And they say that’s not fair, as it’s bad for them and easier for us. That’s what this is about.
Is it true that Washington will ask you or the Hungarian government to present some kind of plan for this 2 per cent, or for how the embargo on Russian energy can be implemented?
Given the current geographical circumstances, no plan can be presented, as Hungary has no coastline. If we had a coastline, we could solve our energy supply problems without Russian pipelines. But since we don’t, we have no choice but to stick with the Russian pipeline system. I’ve discussed this with the Americans several times, so – how can I put it – there are no geographical novelties, they know very well that both Hungary and Slovakia are, as they say, landlocked countries: countries surrounded by land. So oil, natural gas and petroleum can only be imported here through pipelines. And today we have one primary supply route, from Russia, and a supplementary route from Croatia. This is the system we need, and we can’t change it.
Returning to politics in Brussels, last week there was an EU summit at which twenty-six Member States adopted a – how did they put it – unique approach to Ukraine’s future in the European Union. This basically means that Hungary should be excluded from decisions on this issue. You’ll also be meeting with the Italian prime minister today. As we speak, we’re still looking forward to that meeting. They say that Ms. Meloni will stand up and object to the idea of excluding Hungary from anything that’s a strategic issue in the European Union. It’s clear that Ms. Meloni isn’t a restaurant violinist from whom one can order a tune, but all the same the analyses suggest that she can be relied upon. What do you think about this?
Yes, but the analyses can’t see into the depths. There are a number of countries that will never, under any circumstances, agree to exclude any Member State from such a decision. This isn’t because they love the Hungarians, although some of them may, but because they don’t want to suffer the same fate. So no one wants to set the precedent of solving a problem in this way: breaking a country’s resistance by simply excluding it from a decision. Because then anyone else could be next. That’s why this won’t happen. The Italian prime minister is a sensible woman, but there are many others who think similarly. So we don’t need to worry about that.
What other topics can we expect to be discussed with Ms. Meloni? Migration will definitely be on the agenda. Italy is a frontline country that’s been struggling with this problem for years, and their solution bears many similarities to the Hungarian approach.
First of all, I don’t think we can avoid talking about the war. We discussed this a few days ago at the EU summit in Brussels, however, so we’ll quickly exhaust that topic. Then there are economic issues. The European economy is in extremely bad shape. Next year the eurozone economy will grow by perhaps 1 per cent, the global economy by 2 per cent, and the American and Chinese economies by 4, 5 or 6 per cent. And it’s been like this for years. So Europe is writing itself out of the list of competitive global economic players. Italy is the big loser here, and there are painful consequences for Hungary as well. On top of that, there are proposals on the table from Brussels that would result in a significant increase in energy prices of over 10 per cent, which would devastate both Italian and Hungarian families. We must prevent this, and we’ll definitely be discussing it. And then there’s migration, which is a very serious issue here. The Italians belong to the group of countries in which left-wing governments have ruined things by letting in migrants. And now they have to protect their borders to prevent more people from coming in, and they have to find a legal solution to get rid of them, to send them home, and to integrate those who remain. Their big problem is what the future of Italian society will look like. Our problem is different because we didn’t let them in. Our problem is how to keep Hungary a migrant-free country despite pressure from Brussels. And Brussels has decided that we should build – or should have already built – a refugee camp capable of accommodating 30,000 migrants. And we should accept that if large numbers of migrants arrive in Europe, Brussels will decide how to distribute them, and we’ll have to accept those who are sent to us from there. We’re resisting, I won’t accept any of this, we’re protesting against it, we’re organising a front against it – and our reward for this is that we have to pay Brussels one million euros a day as a punishment. But we’re still better off paying this than letting in the migrants and ending up like the other Western European countries, which can’t find a way out of the crisis that the arrival of migrants has caused in Western Europe – in terms of both public safety and the economy.
If you’ll allow me, I’d like to ask a further question on the subject of Ukraine. It’s about what Italy, Hungary and Slovakia have in common – because many people are now saying that they can find a lot of common ground on the subject of Ukraine’s future in the European Union, or on the resolution of the conflict. So in terms of the deployment of troops, the question of Ukraine’s NATO membership, and the question of its European Union membership, what’s the common denominator with Hungary among the three countries – especially as regards Italy?
We tend to classify Italy as part of Southern Europe, mainly because of tourism. And while this is geographically true, the whole truth is more surprising. This is because the northernmost and most productive part of Italy, where real, very strong Italian industry operates, is located in Central Europe. Northern Italy is more like Central Europe. This has always been the case in European politics, with the Italians being part of both the Western group and the Central European group of countries. The balance of power shifts depending on the government in power. I believe that if the Italians want to survive economically, and obviously they do, then they need to develop ever stronger cooperation in Central Europe. Because the future of the European economy isn’t in Western Europe, which is an economy in decline. The future lies in Central Europe. There’s a huge and successful Polish economy, a very strong Czech economy, a Slovakia that’s standing on its own two feet, a Hungary capable of dynamic development, I can include the Croatians – and even the Serbs, who are outside the EU. And Italy has always been able to connect well with this region. If we come by car, we only have to cross Slovenia and we’re here. So I feel that Italy has an identity that brings it closer to Central Europe, and it wants to participate, it wants to have a significant weight in the Central European economy. This is good for us, because Italy is a country with strong capital.
This is a very strong argument from a geographical point of view, and what you’ve said is very easy to imagine. But it’s only valid from the perspective of an economic success story if the countries in the region agree that Europe currently ends at its current borders and doesn’t include Ukraine. Isn’t that right?
Of course, if Ukraine were to join the European Union – which won’t happen because Hungary doesn’t support it, and that won’t happen as long as there’s a national government in Hungary. So unless Ukraine joins we have to think within this framework. We don’t know how enthusiastic the Italians are about Ukraine joining the European Union – we’d have to ask them. But what is certain is that we Hungarians are standing firm. Ukraine’s membership would mean bringing war into the country and taking Hungarian money out. I don’t think anyone wants war to come to the current territory of the EU, and no one wants their money to go to Ukraine, when the entire European Union is already running out of money. There are serious financial problems here. There’s no capital for development and improvements; and on top of that, at the same time as the war, there’s a major technological shift taking place in the world. This technological shift is extremely capital-intensive, involving artificial intelligence and robotisation, and there’s no money for that either. And if we send the money we have to Ukraine, how will we keep pace with technological developments? No one has an answer to this question. This is why I’m convinced that this huge wave of support for Ukraine and its EU membership is subsiding, and will eventually disappear.
If I may, I’d like to bring up some domestic politics at the end of our conversation. But for now, let’s just say a few words and conclude this part: what’s your position, your task, your plan in the short term regarding the issues discussed so far? For there to be peace, something real and tangible in the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, for this region to function in an economic sense...
The first thing is to have an agreement. I wanted – we Hungarians wanted – Europe to be part of the agreement. This is why we’ve always insisted that Europe must negotiate with the Russians. There will never be peace through Russian–Ukrainian negotiations; that’s impossible, because if it were possible it would have happened already. Therefore peace can only be achieved with the involvement of external forces. Someone has to make peace with the Russians. This could be the United States, or it could be Europe. Europe is unwilling to negotiate with Russia, which is a catastrophic mistake. Meanwhile the Americans are negotiating and will reach an agreement, and they’ll decide the future of Ukraine, its economic resources, and the security of Europe in an agreement with the Russians. We Europeans will pretend that we like it and applaud. But in reality, we’ll have no say in our own future. We’re exactly where we were after World War II. Back then, countries outside Europe decided the future of Europe. So we’d like European leaders to establish direct contact with the Russians, start negotiations, and reach a Russian–European agreement on the European security system and the future of Ukraine, the territory known as Ukraine. That’s the first thing we want. The second is that, after the war, the Member States of the Union shouldn’t enter into a relationship with Ukraine which leads to its membership, but instead form a strategic partnership: not bring in the war, not send out money, but always conclude agreements with Ukraine that are good for it but don’t put us at risk. Therefore we shouldn’t grant membership, because there would be no turning back from that, but instead form a strategic partnership. And thirdly, we should give as little money as possible to Ukraine and keep as much money as possible within the European economy – because otherwise the European economy won’t be able to gain momentum. Fourthly, we should leave each other alone: those who don’t want to buy Russian oil and natural gas shouldn’t buy it, but those who need it – like Hungary – should, because otherwise their economies will collapse and their households will be ruined. Let them do that, and let us do what’s reasonable for us.
Domestic policy?
Since you asked me for programme points, I’d summarise it like that.
That’s what I asked for. It also occurs to me that we need partners for this, and at European meetings and in decision-making centres we need partners not only in the corridors but also in the conference rooms.
Yes, but their numbers are growing slowly, time is on our side, and we just have to hold out.
So, domestic politics. The events of 23 October were clearly a show of force on the streets, and the Fidesz event attracted many, many supporters, with the Peace March reaching unprecedented proportions. On the one hand, what do you think about this? And on the other hand, are you concerned that the strongest party in the opposition was also able to put on a similar show of force?
I’m most concerned with the fact that it was a beautiful national holiday. Of course there’s always politics behind things, but for us 23 October is a national holiday. We have heroes, we made a fantastic stand during those weeks, and we have a fantastic heritage that must be celebrated; because if we don’t celebrate such moments, they’ll disappear from our lives, and it’s precisely the sum of such moments that gives a nation its vitality, greatness and energy. So the national holiday is very important. It’s important that it be beautiful, that it be grand, that it be strong, that it be joyful, that it be happy, that it point to the future, and that people draw strength from it. And I think that the state ceremony, which the Peace March also joined, was exactly what I think should come out of a community of people who believe in the future and who love their country. So I have to say that I found the celebration very uplifting. The fact that there’s a political contest going on in the background is secondary. We’ll sort that out when the election comes.
But many people feel as if the elections were already taking place this Sunday, because there was a strong sense of mobilisation both in your speech and in those of your political opponents; and the Digital Civic Circles are starting to tour the country, which may signal a new political phase.
Well, we’re a governing party. Our primary responsibility is to govern the country well, so we have to devote most of our energy to governing for four years. At the same time, there are elections every four years, and we have to prepare for them. If you don’t prepare, you’ll fall behind. As a result, we’re constantly shifting from governing to campaigning. But in the end, even on the last day, we can’t switch over completely, because even then we have to attend to the country’s security, to its functioning, and so on. So I have the serious task of wisely mobilising our forces – the forces of the governing parties, including my own – and shifting them from governing to political combat. At the moment more than 50 per cent of our effort is still focused on governing. We have very important things ahead of us: economic decisions, family policy decisions, the implementation of the 3 per cent home creation loan. All of these need to be taken care of. That’s a large part of my job. That’s why we aren’t campaigning every day, but perhaps once or twice a week there will be a Digital Civic Circle event, a big event; we have to go there, we have to do it, so that our supporters can gradually prepare for the moment when they have to go out and vote. There’s a technology for this, and our opponents can’t influence us in that regard. Therefore a governing party should never adapt its rhythm, schedule or moves to the movements of opposition parties. That is their job, but we must place our movements within the coordinate system of governmental responsibility and preparation for the election. We’re a governing party, which means that we must be serious and behave responsibly, and this is the way in which we must prepare for the election.
I’ve been speaking with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in the Italian capital, Rome. Prime Minister, thank you for the interview.
Thank you too.