We live in dangerous times, with the fate of Europe, war and peace being decided before our very eyes. We have two paths ahead of us: Donald Trump is working to end the war in Ukraine and, in his new proposal, is pushing for a ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine in March, Ukrainian elections in May, and an end to the conflict in June. Viktor Orbán supports his peace policy, having already sought an armistice and peace agreement with world leaders during his 2024 peace mission and, as the only Western leader at the time, putting the start of negotiations on the EU and NATO table as an alternative to continuing the war. With Donald Trump’s second term in office and his targeted peace policy, Brussels has isolated itself not only from the Global South, but also from the most powerful force in the Western alliance, by working to defeat Russia and continuing the war and its misguided sanctions policy.
In its February survey, Századvég wanted to know which politician, the prime minister or his challenger, Hungarians believe will not allow the country to be drawn into war and who they see as having the greater chance of preserving peace.
While most countries around the world are seeking opportunities for peace, leading politicians from the Tisza Party’s European parent party (European People’s Party), Ursula von der Leyen and Manfred Weber, are supporting Volodymyr Zelensky, who is expected to remain president of Ukraine for as long as the war lasts, with words and deeds, including military loans.
Instead of supporting peace talks, EU leaders and members of the Coalition of the Willing are looking for ways to continue the war and send European soldiers to Ukraine. Furthermore, they are preparing Europeans for a war that, according to the NATO Secretary General, “could bring destruction comparable to the conflicts experienced by our grandparents and great-grandparents”[1], or as the French Chief of Staff put it to the mayors “If we want to defend the nation, we must accept that we may lose our children and make economic sacrifices. If we are not prepared for this, we are in danger.”[2]
Donald Trump’s new proposal has brought the possibility of a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine within reach, and in Abu Dhabi, with American mediation, Russian and Ukrainian negotiating delegations sat down at the table for the first time in years. Meanwhile, Manfred Weber, leader of the Tisza Party’s European party family, said in a speech after the European People’s Party’s leadership meeting in Zagreb in early February that it would be desirable for Europe to send soldiers[3] to Ukraine. The ambiguous statements made by the Tisza Party do not provide clear answers to the questions that most concern Hungarians, and it is also unclear whether, unlike Viktor Orbán, it would be able to withstand the political pressure that would be exerted on it in Brussels in negotiations on issues such as migration quotas, military loans, gender ideology, Russian energy to maintain overhead cost reduction, and the war.
In its February survey, Századvég also asked for whom the following statement was more true: Viktor Orbán or Péter Magyar? – A risky choice, as it is impossible to know what would happen if he were to lead the country.
54% of respondents consider Péter Magyar a risky choice and do not know what would happen if he were to lead the country. The high risk perceived by Hungarians clearly reflects the Tisza Party’s ambivalent attitude towards Brussels’ expectations and its presumed compliance with them, even if this runs counter to the interests of the Hungarian people and the Hungarian economy. A good example of this is that while Tisza politicians say in their statements that they “do not support Ukraine’s accelerated accession to the EU”, leading Brussels politicians are already talking about an accession date of 2027. Only 39% of respondents said they did not know in which direction the president of Fidesz, who campaigned with the slogan “the safe choice”, would lead the country. Based on the figures, Hungarians consider Viktor Orbán’s policies to be much more predictable and less risky than those of Péter Magyar.
