The governments of Viktor Orbán since 2010 have been a response to bankruptcy and political collapse. This response was not a cosmetic fix, but the construction of new foundations, consisting of three pillars designed to make Hungary independent of any single power center.
The pillar of economic sovereignty finds its tangible manifestation in opening up to partners outside the Western sphere. The CATL project in Debrecen (battery factories)—the largest unprecedented FDI in Hungary’s history—is expected to create around 9,000 jobs and integrate Hungary into the global supply chains of the future. This is not about accruing debt, but a strategic plug-in to key technological sectors, transforming the country from a periphery into a producer.
The pillar of political and cultural sovereignty is the consistent defense of Hungary’s right to self-determination regarding its social model—without the imposition of ready-made solutions from the outside.
This multipolar game is not a whim, but the cold calculation of a state that has understood that true strength comes from having alternatives. Much like Turkey within NATO, Hungary within the EU leverages its position to build strategic autonomy, avoiding the trap of blind dependence on a single power center.
The Price of Sovereignty: When Defending National Interests Invites Retribution
Government critics rightly point to genuinely existing problems, including corruption scandals, nepotism, or neglect in the healthcare system. However, their analysis is often fragmented and ahistorical. Most of these issues did not emerge in a vacuum—they are largely an indirect or direct consequence of external pressure and political retribution for defending Hungarian sovereignty.
Brussels’ decision to freeze funds—approximately €21 from the 2021–2027 programming period—corresponds to roughly 10–11% of Hungary’s annual GDP (with a nominal GDP of ~€200 billion). This blockade was not merely a rule-of-law enforcement mechanism; it was an instrument of financial pressure meant to punish Hungary for its independent energy, migration, and family policies.
This reality is corroborated by the European Commission’s own statements. In a speech to the European Parliament, President von der Leyen explicitly detailed the reasons for freezing the funds. While judicial reforms—which Hungary subsequently implemented—were required to unlock certain funds, she stated that “around EUR 20 billion remain frozen… suspended for reasons that include concerns on LGBTIQ rights, academic freedom, and asylum rights.” This is a formal admission that the blockade is a direct punishment for Hungary’s independent social and migration policies, proving that the “rule of law” was merely a flexible pretext for political coercion.
The sheer scale of this punishment reveals its true nature as a tool of geopolitics. Even if we accept all corruption allegations against Orbán’s circle—such as the Elios case, which involved alleged sums of around €43 million—the EU’s response of withholding funds equivalent to over 450 times that amount is not about proportionality or justice. For comparison, the Qatargate scandal, which exposed direct corruption at the very heart of EU institutions, did not result in any financial penalties for the member states of the implicated politicians.
This stark contrast in enforcement proves a simple, brutal calculus: corruption among EU elites is tolerated, while political divergence from the mainstream is punished with existential financial sanctions. It was this very mechanism that transformed Hungary’s multipolar pivot from a policy choice into a strategic necessity for national survival.
It was the EU that forced Hungary to seek alternative partners, such as Russia and China, which, unlike Brussels, offered stability and cooperation without ideological preconditions.
In this context, some internal problems—constraints on the budgets for healthcare, railways, and education—can be viewed as a side effect of this budgetary war, rather than solely a management deficit. This is not an attempt to justify them, but to point out the broader financial context in which these decisions were made.
The critics often point to deficiencies in Hungary’s railway system, yet it is important to note that the Chinese investment in the Budapest–Belgrade line marks the first substantial modernization of the network in decades. At the same time, some foreign industrial projects—such as battery factories like CATL in Debrecen and steel plants—have been criticized for potential environmental or social impact (source: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre). However, these facilities operate under the same strict EU environmental standards that apply throughout the bloc (source: Hungary Today), demonstrating that progress is being made and that much of the criticism is more a matter of perception than actual regulatory concern.
Opposition Without Substance: Péter Magyar, Fidesz Insider Turned Subversive Actor
On the opposite side of the political spectrum, Péter Magyar is not a blank slate but a case study in cynical opportunism, illustrating why his so-called alternative lacks real substance.
For years, Magyar operated within Fidesz, actively participating in party networks and closely connected to the mechanisms of power he now publicly criticizes. His insider position allowed him to gather sensitive information, which he later leveraged to orchestrate a personal and political coup. The most consequential act of his career was secretly recording his then-wife, Judit Varga, the former Minister of Justice, and strategically releasing the material, effectively undermining her career and compromising her standing at the highest levels of the Hungarian government.
Feigned loyalty to Fidesz enabled Magyar to exploit his position, transforming insider knowledge into political advantage at the expense of both individuals and institutional stability. Now, the same man who helped shape Fidesz’s structures and indirectly provided Brussels with arguments to criticize Hungary promises Hungarians that he will… plead with the very institutions he once empowered to unblock funds—a move that is less an economic plan than an admission of dependence.
His overly emotional stance on Ukraine and uncritical pro-Brussels alignment could further jeopardize Hungary’s strategic relations with Russia and China. In international politics, a mere loss of trust or balance suffices for real consequences. Russia and China do not require formal declarations—a change in tone and direction is enough for them to reassess relations. Hungary risks losing preferential energy supply terms, stability in contracts with Rosatom, and the confidence of Asian investors.
Even if EU funds are unblocked, they cannot replace long-term strategic investments like Paks II or CATL. Magyar offers Hungarians only a return to the role of supplicant—a country that must beg for acceptance and recognition instead of shaping its own future.
The Ultimate Question: Budapest or Brussels?
The question is not “What did Orbán do wrong?” but “Why did Hungary’s sovereign policy meet with such fierce resistance, and what price have ordinary citizens had to pay for it?” And why was it the EU that forced Hungary to seek alternative partners who—contrary to Western narrative—place fewer ideological demands and more emphasis on stability and mutual gain.
It was under Orbán’s government that Budapest was suggested as a potential venue for mediation in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict—precisely because the Hungarian Prime Minister maintained a position as a leader whom all sides listen to. Under a Magyar government, whose vision boils down to blind subordination to the Brussels line and emotional involvement in the Ukrainian conflict, would Hungary hold such a position? Would it not be dragged into a war of others’ interests, from which Orbán skillfully abstained?
The choice is simple. On one hand—an imperfect yet real path to agency, with a leader who has influence on the global chessboard. On the other—a comfortable, yet subordinate position of a petitioner, with a candidate whose only program is negation and empty promises. In a world that rewards strength and independence, the choice seems obvious.
History will judge politicians not by their declarations, but by the durability of the institutions they leave behind. In this dimension—regardless of ideological assessments—Viktor Orbán has already gone down in the history of Central Europe as the architect of a new concept of sovereignty.
Adrian Korczyński, Independent Analyst & Observer on Central Europe and global policy research
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
