Mr Prime Minister, on Sunday there will be two elections, one for local governments and one for the European Parliament, but the campaign of the governing parties is all about war. Although there are other important issues, why are you giving this such a high priority?
Elections are always about two things. The first is to elect good leaders. The only question is: who is a good leader. Because a fair-weather good leader is not necessarily as good in a storm. So the second thing is to find the right personality. In other words, we need to know what we are seeking the leader for, or what lies ahead. As by far the most important question is whether there will be a direct war between Russia and Europe, that is what we need to talk about now.
We need to elect leaders who can prevent Europe from being dragged into a war with Russia.
But this situation - the war in our neighborhood - has been raging for two years. Why has this become the main issue now?
The easiest way to answer this is to look at the position of the European great powers two years ago and where we stand now. Earlier, Germany said that they were only sending helmets and categorically rejected the shipping of weapons. Today, German-made tanks are darting around in Ukraine and there is talk of transferring air defense systems. Discussions today are about whether German soldiers should enter Ukrainian territory within the NATO framework. This is how we have gone from helmets to direct confrontation.
What is the reason for this?
Europe has botched the first step. We are not in any way responsible for this, because we stressed from the very first moment that the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine must be isolated and that there must be negotiations on how to deal with the situation. But European leaders said that the war should be taken up in the international arena.
In other words, both Europe and America, and now NATO as well, must get behind Ukraine.
Even when this decision was made, it was clear that the logic of war would require Europe to become increasingly more closely involved in the war.
This could be seen two years ago?
The logic of wartime is different from that of peacetime. When you are already in it, have lost people, spent money on it, and your economy has adapted to it, then wartime logic drives your thinking. Today, the language and the logic is explicitly warlike throughout Europe. Hungary is the only exception.
Can't it be that we are exceptions to this in words only? After all, we are members of NATO and are bound by obligations.
This is the big question for Hungary: Can we maintain our actions in line with our intentions and words? This is always a question of strength. When former Prime Minister Istvan Tisza wanted to stay out of the First World War, he did not have the strength. Nor did Miklos Horthy have the strength to do so in the Second World War. The will was always there, but the strength was lacking.
Time will tell in the coming months whether the current Hungarian government will have enough strength. That is what the European elections are all about, and that is why I ask the voters to support the anti-war Hungarian government.
What is the link between the European Parliamentary elections and the possibility of staying out of the war? In principle, we are only sending representatives to Brussels.
The first link is that the role of the European Parliament has continuously grown over the last twenty years as a result of the internal restructuring of the European Union. Today, the budget cannot even be adopted without the European Parliament. It is not good that it is so, but it is so. Consequently, the European Parliament will have a role in deciding when and how much money, arms and aid European countries will give to Ukraine. The second is that, although we are sending MEPs to the European Parliament, all elections are conducted on a national basis. So this election strengthens or weakens governments, even if the election is not directly about them. That is the nature of democracy.
My hope is that pro-war European governments will be weakened by their own voters, who will give a clear signal that they want change.
Your opponents say you are exaggerating about the war. Do you think you are handling the issue appropriately in this campaign?
In the 2022 national election campaign, they said it was an exaggeration for Hungary to paint a vision of a protracted war and to put it at the center of the Hungarian election. Were we exaggerating? Obviously not. Every month, in fact, every week of the last two years, has drawn Europe closer to war. And instead of slowing down, this process is accelerating. Our assessment of the situation has been consistent since the outbreak of the war, and time has proven us to be right.
NATO, which until now has said that it is up to the member states to decide what level of support they give to Ukraine, now wants to set up a Ukraine military mission.
In other words, NATO, which has kept its distance from the war, is now waist-deep in this conflict. So anyone who claims we are exaggerating is not following the events in world politics.
A few days ago, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that they had not imagined that Russia could boost its military industry at such a rate that it now produces three times as much artillery ammunition as all NATO countries combined. How unfortunate to have not thought of this, poor things! But then what on Earth were they thinking of? How can such significant organizations be run by individuals and bodies with such sub-par competence?
When the European leaders decided to give Ukraine all the support they could over Hungary, I asked the simple question of how much in the way of arms and money did they estimate Ukraine would need to win this war. I did not get an answer then, and I have not received an answer since. Europe has drifted into a war, and Ukraine's survival now hinges on Western support, without Western leaders knowing the magnitude of weapons-, military tech- and financial requirements of the war. This is grossly irresponsible.
You used the word "drift" into the war. But who or what is causing Europe to drift?
The drift is being caused by the US. The will that is driving us ever closer to war is coming from overseas. America is the world's and NATO's greatest military power, if it decides to back one of the belligerents, then today's Western European leaders are not strong enough to say no. Hungary is the only exception.
Do you think there is a way back or that Europe can stop on this downhill slide?
Every war is the result of human decisions. We got here because leaders made bad decisions. I see good decisions in the US only if Donald Trump returns, and in Europe only if these elections send a strong pro-peace signal to the leaders.
You mentioned it would be a fortunate turn of events if Donald Trump returned to the White House. But for now, he seems to be heading for prison.
In a presidential system like the one in the US, there can be huge swings, and you can even win an election from prison.
I think that the more Donald Trump is attacked, the more it will help him.
Today, an increasing number of people view this as an attempt to take away the right of Americans to choose who they think will be the better president, and to put one of the most likely candidates in an impossible position before the election. I think Donald Trump will win, whatever the sentence.
I assume you don't think it's a coincidence that the Hungarian opposition parties are being backed in dollars.
The Americans have a system of projecting power all over the world, including in Hungary, with which they try to influence the leadership of countries in the direction that's favorable to them. It is a tried and tested system that has been used in many countries. It consists on the one hand of supporting organizations that claim to be NGOs but are in fact engaged in political activity, supporting anti-government parties, supporting media that want to reduce the authority and support of the government, and selecting influential people to take their side by giving them financial and professional career opportunities. In some countries this system is successful, in others it is not. Most countries in Europe today are unable to defend themselves against this US system of power transmission.
Hungary is an island in the liberal ocean not only because it is a conservative country, but also because it is the only country where we have built a self-defense system capable of standing up to such great Western, American ambitions.
But America is also our friend and ally. But it is clearer than ever that it is both an ally and friend in the sense that it wants to exert influence over us on issues that we disagree on. Trump's presidency has been a bright spot because he hasn't done that. Before the war, US leverage was used to influence us on matters of an intellectual nature. Differences of opinion were most evident in the handling of migration and the gender issue. On these two issues, they tried to get the Hungarian government to change its position. We said no then and we say no now, in times of war.
Will Fidesz join a political group in the next European Parliament?
This is a difficult question, because joining any international grouping always involves some adjustment and adaptation. Since leaving the European People's Party, which abandoned its former values, we have enjoyed the benefits of independence. When we represent our opinions and the interests of Hungary, we do not have to align them with anyone else in the European Parliament. This is good, but of course it is worth little in itself.
If we join a European group, we will have more influence, but we will have to reach agreements on certain issues. This is the dilemma that Fidesz is facing, so we are not rushing the decision to join.
Can you imagine a situation in which you or the Fidesz MEPs vote for the re-election of Ursula von der Leyen?
No. Supporting her would be an assassination attempt on the most fundamental ideals of democracy. There must always be some correlation between level of performance and election results. Five years ago, the Commission led by this president made clear certain commitments, none of which she was able to deliver on. In such cases, the leader must go.
Who are your real opponents in the current elections? You have repeatedly indicated that the parties lining up against the government parties are not independent, they are being directed from the outside.
In this election campaign, it has become clear to me that we have no opponents within Hungary. Mostly because those who could be our opponents are not fighting against us, but against each other. At the moment, the mood in Hungary is not one of changing governments, but of changing the opposition. Of course, the opposition parties are running a race by kicking at us. In reality, however, they are not competing with the government, they have already awarded themselves first place: the overwhelming success of the governing party. They are fighting to see which one of them can serve as the alternate party at a future time. As for the other dimension of your statement, that refers to the extent of foreign influence in Hungary. Foreign interest groups, from George Soros to the US Democrats, see every election as a chance to gain positions within our country. We have to defend against this, regardless of the Hungarian domestic political actors, who are being sustained by the Americans, by Brussels and by George Soros. We have a unique match with them in every election.
This is an election campaign that lacks any welfare element. Is it because the economy is not in the best of shape?
The shape of the economy is closely linked to the war. The way I can put it in figures is that if the world moves towards peace at the end of the year - including the outcome of the US presidential elections, we will have to spend two percent of the Hungarian budget on military expenditures. If it shifts towards war, then that number increases to three or three and a half percent. This means that if we can keep military spending at two percent, there will be leeway for welfare elements in the Hungarian economic policy, but otherwise there will not.
There was an unexpected turn of events here at the end of the campaign, when your Budapest mayoral candidate Alexandra Szentkiralyi withdrew. How do you view this move?
Alexandra Szentkiralyi is right when she says that the most important goal is to open a new chapter in the history of Budapest. If the current situation continues as is, it will only lead to decline, a weakening and a deterioration in the quality of life in the capital. Of course, it is important that Fidesz wins, but there is something more important than that, and that is that the current city government has to go. And as there was another candidate who looks to have a better chance of ousting the current city government, she proposed to withdraw from the race, which we accepted.
Are you worried that the activity of Fidesz voters in Budapest will decrease because of the withdrawal?
Our voters are intelligent people. I think that they agree with Alexandra Szentkiralyi that the most important thing today is to rid the city of its current leadership. Any improvement in the situation can only be envisioned if that happens.
