The Commission is “going a bit too fast” in unlocking €4.2bn and restarting the Erasmus+ student exchange programme in Hungary, according to budget committee MEPs.

The EU froze its financial assistance to Hungary in 2022 due to concerns about rule of law breaches and misappropriation of funds by Viktor Orbán’s government.

Green MEP from Germany, Daniel Freund, told EUobserver he “would have taken a more staged approach to not release everything in one go,” admitting that the reform agenda of Péter Magyar’s new government still has some way to go.

The commission’s proposal to unlock part of the €16.4bn in funds available to Hungary requires the green-light from the EU council, representing member states, one month after its announcement on 23 September.

Freund said that he was “happy about the changes we have seen” following his visit to Hungary on 1 October.

“Hungary needs this money, I also want Hungarians to have this money, since for years it was just going to Orbán and his cronies,” he said on Tuesday (6 October).

However, Freund and other MEPs on the fact-finding mission found that “the same risks of corruption exist,” and “there are new laws that are still fragile in their implementation,” French socialist and democrat Jean-Marc Germain told reporters in Strasbourg on Monday. 

The Parliament can serve as a pressure point, although the decision on funds is largely in the hands of the commission and the council.

“There is no real political pluralism in Hungary, which may in the long run be a reason for worrying,” he said, adding that most companies are still owned by the same few people as during Orbán’s rule.

The tone is different on the other side of the political spectrum.

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

Ukraine and Moldova could advance to two further stages of their European Union accession negotiations as early as next week, Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos has said, provided Ukraine approves legislation addressing minority-language education.

The European Union could open two additional negotiating clusters with Ukraine and Moldova next week if the Ukrainian parliament passes legislation intended to address concerns over education rights for national minorities.

EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos confirmed the possible timetable on Monday following a meeting of the EU-Moldova Association Council in Brussels.

Asked whether further intergovernmental conferences could take place this month, Kos said the next two clusters could potentially be opened during meetings in Luxembourg next week.

The condition is passage by the Verkhovna Rada of legislation dealing with educational rights for national minorities, an issue that has been central to Hungary’s objections to further progress in Ukraine’s accession negotiations.

Kos said during the Commission’s recorded press conference that Brussels was aware of the Ukrainian parliament’s procedures and hoped the legislation would be approved. Member states would then have to complete their own procedures quickly.

A draft law covering education rights for indigenous peoples and national minorities was registered in the Verkhovna Rada on 1 October.

The legislation is intended in part to address Hungarian demands concerning the use of minority languages in Ukrainian schools, particularly by the ethnic Hungarian community in Zakarpattia.

Hungary has repeatedly linked support for Ukraine’s EU accession process to those issues.

Ukraine and Moldova formally opened accession negotiations in 2024 and have since moved into the detailed cluster-based process used to organise negotiations over the EU acquis.

EU Today reported in June that the two countries had moved into the first substantive stage after political agreement allowed negotiations on the “fundamentals” cluster to proceed.

That cluster covers areas including the judiciary, fundamental rights, public administration, democratic institutions, public procurement and financial control.

Unlike most negotiating areas, the fundamentals cluster remains open throughout the accession process and is normally closed last.

The possible opening of two additional clusters would therefore mark another practical step in a process that remains dependent on unanimous support among EU governments at key stages.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha has said he hopes adoption of the minority-education amendments will remove the remaining basis for Hungary to block the next steps.

The negotiations have also become linked increasingly closely to the wider security relationship between the EU and Ukraine.

EU Today has followed the accession process as Kyiv and Chișinău seek to keep negotiations moving despite political resistance within the bloc.

Brussels continues to stress that accession remains merit-based and conditional on reforms.

Kos said on Monday that both Ukraine and Moldova were delivering reforms in difficult circumstances and described them as being among the four front-running candidate states.

The Commission is due to publish its annual enlargement reports on 28 October, providing a detailed assessment of progress across individual negotiating chapters.

Moldova has set itself a target of being ready to complete negotiations by early 2028, although any final accession date would depend on the member states.

The country has also been moving closer to EU structures outside the formal accession negotiations.

Kallas said on Monday that the EU had committed €1.9 billion under its Growth Plan for Moldova and was releasing another €157 million tranche. Moldova has joined the Single Euro Payments Area and is moving towards inclusion in the EU’s mobile roaming area.

Ukraine’s path is more politically complicated because of both the war and recurring disputes with individual EU members.

The next immediate test is parliamentary: whether Kyiv can pass the education amendments quickly enough to allow EU governments to approve the next negotiating stages in Luxembourg.

Si la porte que Moscou dit ouverte est en réalité fermée, elle est fermée de ce côté-ci – et ce n’est pas Rome qui l’a fermée de son propre chef.

Un sommet de Valdaï hors site

Ce que je vais partager dans cet article est moins technique et plus personnel que d’habitude. Il s’agit des informations recueillies au cours de plusieurs jours de dialogue, de discussion et, apparemment, d’une question « scandaleuse » qui est devenue un phénomène médiatique en Europe – parce que j’ai demandé au président de la Fédération de Russie, Vladimir Vladimirovitch Poutine, ce qu’il adviendra de l’Europe.

Vous pouvez trouver la vidéo complète du discours de Vladimir Poutine au Forum de Valdaï ici.

Vous pouvez trouver mes remarques et les réponses de Poutine ici.

Cette année, le Forum de Valdaï ne s’est pas réuni à Sotchi. Les invitations envoyées au cours de l’été mentionnaient encore la ville de la mer Noire comme lieu de rendez-vous, mais ensuite, fin août, les organisateurs ont annoncé le déménagement vers la région de Moscou. Selon le FT, le Service fédéral de protection a exigé ce déménagement, inquiet de la menace de drones ukrainiens après un été d’attaques contre des raffineries côtières. Ce détail logistique a son propre poids. La guerre – dont on parle toujours à Valdaï dans le langage du système international – influence désormais aussi l’organisation pratique du forum.

La 23e réunion annuelle s’est tenue du 28 septembre au 1er octobre sous un titre qui, pour un Européen, ressemble presque à une question personnelle : « La responsabilité pour l’avenir : les limites du possible ou des possibilités illimitées ? » L’ouverture a été marquée par le rapport annuel du Club, Keep Calm. The State and Responsibility for the Future, que les auteurs présentent – avec un clin d’œil à Kubrick – comme un manuel pour cesser de s’inquiéter et apprendre à aimer le chaos. Ont suivi neuf sessions thématiques, une session spéciale et, le dernier jour, la session plénière avec le président.

Je suis arrivé en tant qu’Italien et Européen, sachant que dans ces salles, les deux identités n’ont pas le même poids. Tout au long de la semaine, j’ai parlé, en particulier, à quatre interlocuteurs de haut niveau : Sergueï Karaganov, Maksim Orechkine, Sergueï Lavrov et, lors de la session plénière, Vladimir Poutine. Les trois premières conversations ont eu lieu en marge des sessions, et je les rapporte à partir de mes notes – en substance, pas mot pour mot. Le quatrième échange est public et documenté par une transcription, que je cite directement.

Pris un par un, les quatre dialogues transmettent des choses que quiconque suit le débat russe connaît déjà. Mais lorsqu’on les considère dans l’ordre, ils dressent un tableau plus clair : une évaluation commune de l’Europe et quatre manières différentes d’en tirer des conclusions. Et, surtout, un avenir qui n’a rien de brillant.

Karaganov : l’Europe comme source du mal

Sergueï Karaganov est l’un des fondateurs du Club de Valdaï, président honoraire du Conseil pour la politique étrangère et de défense, et, depuis des années, la voix la plus radicale du réalisme russe. Avec lui, la conversation a commencé immédiatement par le point le plus controversé. L’Europe, a-t-il dit, est la racine de tout mal. Si elle était détruite, personne ne la pleurerait. Un conflit nucléaire tactique sur son territoire n’impliquerait pas d’autres acteurs. Les Européens ont eu amplement le temps de trouver une solution à leurs propres problèmes ; maintenant qu’ils ont choisi de se préparer à la guerre contre la Russie, il est trop tard pour leur offrir une autre chance.

Je dois être honnête : je n’ai jamais été un admirateur de Karaganov ; j’ai souvent trouvé ses vues trop radicales et dépassées. Mais à partir d’un café pris ensemble après le déjeuner – et tout au long d’une semaine de discussions – j’ai découvert que nous pensons de manière très similaire et que ses vues ne sont en rien triviales. Quiconque a lu ses déclarations récentes reconnaîtra cette ligne de pensée. En juin 2023, Karaganov avait publiquement soutenu que la Russie devait abaisser le seuil d’utilisation des armes nucléaires afin de restaurer la crédibilité de sa dissuasion et d’inciter l’Occident à se retirer du conflit en Ukraine. Une partie de cette approche a ensuite été intégrée dans des documents officiels : les Principes fondamentaux de la politique d’État de la Fédération de Russie dans le domaine de la dissuasion nucléaire, mis à jour en novembre 2024, traitent une attaque d’un État non nucléaire menée avec la participation ou le soutien d’une puissance nucléaire comme une attaque conjointe.

Ses paroles, cependant, contiennent trois affirmations distinctes, et il vaut la peine de les garder séparées. La première est un jugement historique et civilisationnel : l’Europe comme source des grandes catastrophes de la modernité, des guerres mondiales au colonialisme. C’est une thèse que Karaganov défend depuis longtemps et qui peut être contestée, mais elle relève de l’interprétation. La deuxième – que personne ne pleurerait l’Europe – est une prédiction sur les réactions des autres ; d’après ce que j’ai observé durant ces journées, elle résonne auprès d’une partie significative des participants asiatiques, africains et latino-américains. La troisième est une hypothèse stratégique qui sous-tend tout le reste : une escalade nucléaire en Europe resterait confinée à l’Europe.

Sur ce point, la littérature sur la dissuasion débat depuis soixante-dix ans et – heureusement – les preuves empiriques manquent. Le facteur qui complique cette hypothèse se trouve au sein même de l’Europe. La France et le Royaume-Uni possèdent des arsenaux nationaux et, en mars 2025, Paris a formellement ouvert le débat sur la dimension européenne de sa propre dissuasion. Un conflit nucléaire « purement européen » suppose que deux puissances nucléaires européennes resteraient les bras croisés. C’est l’hypothèse la plus faible de tout l’argument, quelle que soit l’évaluation que l’on fasse des deux autres.

Il faut aussi noter que Karaganov ne parle pas au nom du gouvernement. Au Forum de Valdaï, il représente l’aile du débat russe qui pousse le Kremlin vers des positions plus définitives, et l’un de ses rôles est précisément de repousser les limites de ce qui peut être dit. Vu sous cet angle, son « trop tard » est l’indication d’une tendance plutôt qu’une doctrine.

Orechkine : le marché qui n’existe plus

Avec Maksim Orechkine, le ton a complètement changé. Chef adjoint de l’Administration présidentielle, ancien ministre du Développement économique, puis conseiller économique du président, Orechkine raisonne en termes de flux de trésorerie et de bilans. Son évaluation a été sans détour : l’Europe est finie. Il n’y a plus de concurrence viable sur le marché de l’énergie, car la Chine et l’Inde occupent désormais les premières places parmi les clients de la Russie. Et il n’y a aucune raison d’investir dans un sauvetage européen, puisque les Européens, à ce jour, n’ont montré aucun intérêt à trouver une solution pacifique et raisonnable. La question que je lui avais posée lors de la réunion avec les participants de Valdaï était : « Étant donné que le pipeline Nord Stream 2 n’est plus disponible – parce qu’il a été saboté – avez-vous l’intention de trouver un nouveau système de transport d’énergie, en supposant que l’Europe se réconcilie et que la situation diplomatique s’améliore ? » Sa réponse franche – et peut-être brutale – est comme une dague de vérité plongée dans la conscience de chaque Européen.

« Fini » doit être compris au sens technique. Orechkine ne parlait pas directement de la civilisation européenne, mais de l’Europe comme partenaire commercial : un marché qui a cessé d’être central pour la Russie et qui ne justifie donc pas des concessions politiques pour le reconquérir. Après 2022, le brut russe a trouvé ses principaux acheteurs en Chine et en Inde, tandis que Bruxelles, par l’accord entre le Conseil et le Parlement européen en décembre 2025, s’est engagée à éliminer progressivement les importations de gaz russe – y compris le gaz de pipeline et le GNL – d’ici 2027. L’interdépendance énergétique qui avait maintenu l’Europe et la Russie connectées pendant un demi-siècle – même durant les pires moments de la guerre froide – a été démantelée par les deux parties. Le raisonnement d’Orechkine en saisit la conséquence la plus simple : celui qui n’est plus le principal client n’a plus de levier. Ce sont les lois du marché, et ni à Londres, ni à Berlin, ni à Bruxelles il ne reste de politiciens ou de groupes de pouvoir capables de dire à la Russie « quoi faire ».

Le revers de la médaille est bien connu à Moscou aussi. Un marché dominé par deux grands acheteurs permet à ceux-ci d’exiger des réductions, et remplacer l’Europe par l’Asie a un coût en termes de prix et d’accès à la technologie. Mais selon la logique qui m’a été présentée, la question n’est plus de savoir si l’Europe est dans l’intérêt de la Russie. C’est de savoir combien il coûterait de la rendre à nouveau bénéfique, et la réponse implicite est que les Européens doivent en assumer le coût.

Lavrov : la porte fermée sur « cet » ordre

Avec Sergueï Lavrov, la discussion est passée de l’économie à la diplomatie, sans changer la conclusion. L’Europe, a-t-il dit, a eu de nombreuses occasions de rétablir un dialogue avec la Russie et a choisi au contraire d’alimenter une confrontation directe. Maintenant, il est trop tard pour revenir en arrière : toutes les limites ont été franchies, et avec l’ordre européen actuel, il n’y a aucun moyen de revenir aux relations précédentes.

J’aimerais que nous nous arrêtions un moment pour considérer le poids de ces mots. Ceux qui connaissent Lavrov savent qu’il est un politicien capable de peser chaque mot avec une grande intelligence, même dans des contextes plus détendus comme le sommet de Valdaï. « Les limites ont été franchies. » Il serait inutile d’énumérer ces limites, car elles sont si évidentes pour le monde entier que ce serait simplement une perte de temps. Mais le regard de Lavrov lorsqu’il parlait de l’Europe – je ne l’oublierai jamais. Je l’ai rencontré bien d’autres fois, mais à cette occasion, il y avait quelque chose de différent.

Le ministre a un historique d’événements que la diplomatie russe cite régulièrement : les accords de Minsk, les projets de traités sur les garanties de sécurité soumis aux États-Unis et à l’OTAN le 17 décembre 2021, et les négociations d’Istanbul au printemps 2022. L’interprétation russe de chacun de ces développements est controversée, et elle est contestée en Europe. Ce qui m’intéresse ici est un autre élément – une nuance qui, à la relecture après la session plénière, s’est révélée être la clé de toute la semaine. Un retour est impossible dans ce cadre européen. Pas avec l’Europe, dans sa forme actuelle – c’est-à-dire l’UE et l’OTAN. Le rejet concerne une classe dirigeante et une architecture institutionnelle, pas les pays qui en font partie.

Je me demande jusqu’à quel point la patience russe a été abusée pour en arriver à dire de telles choses. La littérature russe classique nous offre des exemples admirables de la manière dont les politiciens russes sont capables de temporiser, d’ignorer et d’être patients. Et il est indéniable que cela a constamment été l’attitude de la classe dirigeante russe durant les récentes années de conflit. Aller jusqu’à dire que la limite a été franchie – ce que Poutine reprendrait plus tard lors de la session plénière du sommet – signifie qu’il n’y a plus de ressources à gaspiller en attente patiente ; cela signifie que l’Ours a été réveillé de son hibernation au mauvais moment ; cela signifie que les conséquences de ces actions auront une signification d’époque.

Lavrov a ajouté une chose de plus : « Nous sommes prêts à frapper l’Europe de manière exemplaire, pas comme nous l’avons fait en Ukraine. » Prenez note de ces mots, chers amis européens. Relisez-les et réfléchissez à leur poids. Il n’y a rien de plus à dire.

Un professeur italien pose une question à Poutine

Nous arrivons maintenant à l’un des moments les plus dangereux de ma carrière. La session plénière a eu lieu, comme le veut la tradition, en présence du président russe et avec Fiodor Loukianov comme modérateur. J’ai pris la parole et posé une question en deux parties :

« Je viens d’Italie, un pays qui n’entretient actuellement pas de bonnes relations avec la Russie. En tant qu’Européen, j’aimerais vous demander : quelles conditions la Russie fixera-t-elle pour développer un nouveau système de sécurité pour les pays européens ? Et, si nous imaginons une Europe post-Union européenne, la considérerez-vous comme faisant partie d’un grand partenariat eurasien ou, selon vous, les États-Unis et la Russie seront-ils toujours en concurrence pour ces territoires ? »

Poutine a commencé par la seconde partie, et l’ordre n’est pas un hasard :

« L’Italie est, en fait, située en Europe, et je parle d’un partenariat eurasien : il va donc de soi que nous considérerons – et considérons déjà – l’Italie comme un partenaire eurasien également. »

Immédiatement après, il a précisé que le sort de l’Union européenne, et l’appartenance continue de l’Italie à celle-ci, « ne nous regarde pas ». Moscou n’a même pas l’intention d’en discuter, car tout commentaire à ce sujet serait interprété comme une tentative de diviser l’UE, « alors que nous ne voulons rien diviser du tout. Nous voulons seulement construire et coopérer ».

Sur les conditions d’un nouveau système de sécurité, la réponse a été claire : « Nous n’avons aucune condition préalable. » L’obstacle, selon lui, se trouve de l’autre côté. Certains politiciens européens considèrent comme inacceptable qu’un seul pays ouvre un dialogue avec la Russie, et Poutine a qualifié cette exigence d’un diktat encore plus dur que celui de l’ère soviétique. La comparaison était soigneusement construite : l’URSS était un État unitaire et hautement centralisé, dont les républiques faisaient partie d’une structure étatique unique ; l’Union européenne, en théorie, ne l’est pas, mais en pratique se comporte comme si elle l’était. « Personne ne nous l’interdit ; nous sommes prêts. »

À ce moment-là, Loukianov est intervenu avec une remarque provocatrice typique d’un modérateur expérimenté : puisque Bruxelles l’interdit, ne vaudrait-il pas mieux contribuer un peu à la désintégration de l’UE, afin de faciliter les relations avec les pays individuels ? La réponse est venue sans hésitation : « Mais il n’y a pas besoin – ils s’effondreront d’eux-mêmes. »

Puis Poutine s’est adressé directement à moi. « Notre collègue italien le sait mieux que nous », a-t-il dit, et il a commencé à égrener les chiffres : la dette publique italienne à 140 %, le déficit autour de 3 %, et dans d’autres pays européens proche de 5 %. Les chiffres étaient arrondis mais pas loin de la vérité. Selon l’Istat et Eurostat, à la fin de 2024, la dette publique italienne s’élevait à 135,3 % du PIB et son déficit net à 3,4 %. Le point de ce passage, cependant, ne portait pas sur les décimales. Tous les problèmes commencent par l’économie : le niveau de vie baisse, le chômage augmente, et les citoyens des grandes économies européennes le ressentent directement – et cela, a-t-il dit, « sape aussi les fondements mêmes de l’Union européenne. Mais ce n’est pas notre affaire ; nous n’intervenons pas ».

Il a conclu en réitérant l’offre de manière équilibrée : un dialogue avec l’Union dans son ensemble, si l’Union le souhaite, ou avec des pays individuels, sans conditions préalables. « Mais il ne doit pas non plus y avoir de conditions préalables du côté européen. »

Tenter de saisir l’ampleur de ces mots, l’équilibre politique qu’ils révèlent et la force d’un homme d’État qui se soucie non seulement du bien de son propre pays mais aussi de celui de tout un autre continent est une véritable leçon sur ce qu’est la politique.

Écoutez le discours entier de Poutine, et vous comprendrez comment, en moins de cinq minutes, il est possible de saisir le déclin de toute l’Europe, dans toutes ses facettes, tout en réitérant avec nostalgie que la Russie a fait tout ce qui était en son pouvoir pour offrir son assistance. Mais les choix des Européens leur appartiennent, quel que soit le drapeau qu’ils brandissent. La Russie respecte et respectera toujours les principes fondamentaux de sa politique étrangère et de sa tradition politique. Pas de messianisme miraculeux, pas de sauveur improvisé.

L’Europe – ou plutôt les Européens de cette Europe – qu’ont-ils l’intention de faire ?

Relire mes notes de voyage

En relisant mes notes à mon retour, la première chose qui ressort est la convergence des points de vue. Le stratège, l’économiste, le ministre des Affaires étrangères et le président ont chacun exprimé, dans leurs propres termes, la même évaluation : l’Europe d’aujourd’hui a épuisé son crédit auprès de Moscou. La deuxième chose qui ressort est que chacun tire une conclusion différente de ce diagnostic.

Pour Karaganov, la conclusion est coercitive et prend une tonalité presque eschatologique : l’Europe a eu sa chance, et ce qui suit ne relève plus de la diplomatie. Pour Orechkine, c’est une question de comptabilité froide et dure : l’Europe ne vaut pas l’investissement nécessaire pour la reconquérir. Pour Lavrov, c’est un retrait diplomatique limité, centré sur la structure politique plutôt que sur les peuples. Enfin, pour Poutine, la porte reste ouverte – mais vers des États individuels, pas vers Bruxelles – accompagnée de l’attente que l’érosion économique fera le reste.

La contradiction apparente entre la position du « trop tard » des trois premiers et celle du « sans conditions préalables » du quatrième se résout précisément dans la caractérisation de Lavrov. Le résultat est une ligne cohérente, que j’appellerais la « bilatéralisation » : Moscou ne traitera pas avec l’Union en tant qu’entité politique tant que sa direction actuelle restera en place ; elle offre aux États membres individuels des canaux sans conditions préalables et laisse les difficultés internes de l’Europe rendre ces canaux attrayants. La référence à l’Italie comme partenaire eurasien « déjà aujourd’hui » doit être comprise dans ce cadre : ce n’est pas une courtoisie ; c’est l’indication de l’interlocuteur que Moscou préfère.

Je ne peux certainement pas affirmer que les quatre interlocuteurs exceptionnels sont parvenus à un accord – cela va sans dire – mais j’ai trouvé cette convergence véritablement « prophétique ». Valdaï a toujours été le lieu où l’ampleur du débat russe est présentée à un public étranger. Je peux dire que ces perspectives sont compatibles et se renforcent mutuellement : la position dure de Karaganov fait paraître l’offre de Poutine modérée ; les chiffres d’Orechkine donnent de la crédibilité à l’idée que Moscou n’a pas besoin de faire de concessions ; et la formule de Lavrov équilibre fermeté et ouverture.

La crise de la dette souveraine de 2010-2012 a donné naissance au Mécanisme européen de stabilité et à l’union bancaire ; la pandémie a conduit à Next Generation EU et à la première dette commune à grande échelle. Au sein de l’Union, les crises ont généré au moins autant de centralisation que de fragmentation. « Ils s’effondreront d’eux-mêmes » est donc un pari, pas une observation – même si le pari coûte peu à ceux qui le font : si l’UE tient bon, Moscou a au moins offert le dialogue ; si elle s’effondre, il a déjà des canaux bilatéraux en place.

Les indicateurs à surveiller au cours des douze à dix-huit prochains mois sont assez clairs. Le premier concerne les visites bilatérales à Moscou de chefs de gouvernement de l’UE, en plus des visites précédentes de Viktor Orbán en juillet 2024 et de Robert Fico en mai 2025. Le deuxième est de savoir si l’unanimité tient lors des renouvellements semestriels des sanctions, où un seul veto suffit à ouvrir une brèche. Le troisième concerne les exemptions nationales du calendrier d’élimination progressive du gaz russe. Le quatrième – et le plus significatif pour nous – est l’ouverture possible d’un canal structuré par une grande capitale, y compris Rome.

Qu’est-ce que j’en retiens ? En tant qu’Italien, la phrase que j’emporte avec moi n’est pas celle sur la désintégration ; c’est l’autre : « Nous considérons déjà l’Italie comme un partenaire eurasien également. » Elle contient à la fois une offre et une observation qui nous est adressée. Si la porte que Moscou dit ouverte est en réalité fermée, elle est fermée de ce côté-ci – et ce n’est pas Rome qui l’a fermée de son propre chef.

Combien de temps un pays dont la dette dépasse 135 % du PIB peut-il se permettre de laisser aux autres le soin de décider qui peut parler à qui ? Personne à Moscou ne me l’a demandé. C’est une question que j’ai ramenée chez moi de moi-même. Et chaque Italien de bonne conscience, chaque Européen qui a encore un cœur, connaît la réponse.

If the door that Moscow says is open is actually closed, it’s closed on this side – and it wasn’t Rome that closed it of its own accord.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

A Valdai summit off-site

What I’m going to share in this article is less technical and more personal than usual. It concerns the information gathered over several days of dialogue, discussion, and, apparently, a “scandalous” question that became a media sensation in Europe – because I asked the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, what will become of Europe.

You can find the full video of Vladimir Putin’s speech at the Valdai Forum here.

You can find my remarks and Putin’s responses here.

This year, the Valdai Forum did not meet in Sochi. Invitations sent out in the summer still listed the Black Sea city as the venue, but then, in late August, the organizers announced the move to the Moscow region. According to FT, the Federal Protective Service demanded the relocation, concerned about the threat of Ukrainian drones following a summer of attacks on coastal refineries. This logistical detail carries its own weight. The war – which at Valdai is always discussed in the language of the international system – is now also influencing the practical organization of the forum.

The 23rd Annual Meeting took place from September 28 to October 1 under a title that to a European sounds almost like a personal question: “Responsibility for the Future: The Limits of the Possible or Limitless Possibilities?” The opening featured the Club’s annual report, Keep Calm. The State and Responsibility for the Future, which the authors present – with a nod to Kubrick – as a manual for stopping worrying and learning to love chaos. This was followed by nine thematic sessions, a special session, and, on the final day, the plenary session with the President.

I arrived as an Italian and a European, knowing that in those halls, the two identities carry different weight. Over the course of the week, I spoke, in particular, with four high-level interlocutors: Sergey Karaganov, Maksim Oreshkin, Sergey Lavrov, and, during the plenary session, Vladimir Putin. The first three conversations took place on the sidelines of the sessions, and I’m recounting them from my notes – in essence, not word for word. The fourth exchange is public and documented by a transcript, from which I’m quoting directly.

Taken one by one, the four dialogues convey things that anyone following the Russian debate is already familiar with. When viewed in sequence, however, they paint a clearer picture: a shared assessment of Europe and four different ways of drawing conclusions from it. And, above all, a future that is by no means bright.

Karaganov: Europe as the source of evil

Sergei Karaganov is one of the founders of the Valdai Club, honorary chairman of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and for years has been the most radical voice of Russian realism. With him, the conversation began immediately with the most contentious point. Europe, he said, is the root of all evil. If it were destroyed, no one would mourn it. A tactical nuclear conflict on its territory would not involve other actors. Europeans have had plenty of time to find a solution to their own problems; now that they have chosen to prepare for war against Russia, it is too late to offer them another chance.

I must be honest: I’ve never been a fan of Karaganov; I’ve often found his views too radical and old-fashioned. But starting with an after-lunch coffee together – and continuing over the course of a week of discussions – I discovered that we think very similarly and that his views are by no means trivial. Anyone who has read his recent statements will recognize this line of thinking. In June 2023, Karaganov had publicly argued that Russia should lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons to restore credibility to its deterrence and induce the West to withdraw from the conflict in Ukraine. Part of that approach was subsequently incorporated into official documents: the Fundamentals of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence, updated in November 2024, treat an attack by a non-nuclear state carried out with the participation or support of a nuclear power as a joint attack.

His words, however, contain three distinct assertions, and it is worth keeping them separate. The first is a historical and civilizational judgment: Europe as the source of modernity’s great catastrophes, from the world wars to colonialism. This is a thesis that Karaganov has long argued and which can be contested, but it belongs to the realm of interpretation. The second – that no one would mourn Europe – is a prediction about others’ reactions; from what I observed during those days, it resonates with a significant portion of the Asian, African, and Latin American participants. The third is a strategic hypothesis that underpins everything else: a nuclear escalation in Europe would remain confined to Europe.

On this point, the literature on deterrence has been debating for seventy years, and – fortunately – empirical evidence is lacking. The factor that complicates this hypothesis lies within Europe itself. France and the United Kingdom possess national arsenals, and in March 2025, Paris formally opened the debate on the European dimension of its own deterrence. A “solely European” nuclear conflict presupposes that two European nuclear powers would stand idly by. This is the weakest assumption in the entire argument, regardless of how one assesses the other two.

It should also be noted that Karaganov does not speak on behalf of the government. At the Valdai Forum, he represents the wing of the Russian debate that pushes the Kremlin toward more definitive positions, and one of his roles is precisely to push the boundaries of what can be said. Viewed in this light, his “too late” is an indication of a trend rather than a doctrine.

Oreshkin: The market that no longer exists

With Maksim Oreshkin, the tone has shifted entirely. Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration, former Minister of Economic Development, and later the President’s economic advisor, Oreshkin reasons in terms of cash flows and balance sheets. His assessment was blunt: Europe is finished. There is no longer any viable competition in the energy market, because China and India now occupy the top spots among Russia’s customers. And there is no reason to invest in a European bailout, since the Europeans, to date, have shown no interest in finding a peaceful and reasonable solution. The question I had posed to him during the meeting with the Valdai participants was: “Given that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is no longer available – because it was sabotaged – do you intend to find a new energy transportation system, assuming Europe reconciles and the diplomatic situation improves?” His blunt – and perhaps brutal – response is like a dagger of truth plunged into the conscience of every European.

“Over” should be understood in a technical sense. Oreshkin was not speaking directly about European civilization but about Europe as a trading partner: a market that has ceased to be central to Russia and therefore does not warrant political concessions to win it back. After 2022, Russian crude oil found its main buyers in China and India, while Brussels, through the agreement between the Council and the European Parliament in December 2025, committed to phasing out imports of Russian gas – including pipeline gas and LNG – by 2027. The energy interdependence that had kept Europe and Russia connected for half a century – even during the worst moments of the Cold War – has been dismantled by both sides. Oreshkin’s reasoning captures the simplest consequence of this: whoever is no longer the main customer no longer has leverage. These are the laws of the market, and neither in London, nor in Berlin, nor in Brussels are there any politicians or power groups left who can tell Russia “what to do”.

The flip side is well known in Moscow, too. A market dominated by two major buyers allows them to demand discounts, and replacing Europe with Asia comes at a cost in terms of price and access to technology. But according to the logic presented to me, the question is no longer whether Europe is in Russia’s interest. It is how much it would cost to make it beneficial again, and the implicit answer is that Europeans must bear that cost.

Lavrov: the door closed on “this” order

With Sergey Lavrov, the discussion shifted from the economy to diplomacy, without changing the conclusion. Europe, he said, had many opportunities to reestablish a dialogue with Russia and chose instead to fuel direct confrontation. Now it is too late to turn back: all limits have been crossed, and with the current European order, there is no way to return to previous relations.

I’d like us to pause for a moment to consider the weight of these words. Those who know Lavrov know that he is a politician capable of weighing every word with great intelligence, even in more relaxed settings such as the Valdai Summit. “The limits have been crossed.” It would be pointless to list these limits, because they are so obvious to the whole world that it would simply be a waste of time. But the look in Lavrov’s eyes as he spoke about Europe – I will never forget that. I have met him many other times, but on this occasion, there was something different.

The minister has a track record of events that Russian diplomacy regularly references: the Minsk agreements, the draft treaties on security guarantees submitted to the United States and NATO on December 17, 2021, and the Istanbul negotiations in the spring of 2022. The Russian interpretation of each of these developments is controversial, and it is contested in Europe. What interests me here is another element – a qualification that, upon re-reading after the plenary session, proved to be the key to the entire week. A return is impossible under this European framework. Not with Europe, in its current form – that is, the EU and NATO. The rejection concerns a ruling class and an institutional architecture, not the countries that are part of it.

I wonder just how much Russian patience has been abused to reach the point of saying such things? Classic Russian literature offers us admirable examples of how Russian politicians are capable of stalling, ignoring, and being patient. And there’s no denying that this has consistently been the attitude of the Russian ruling class during the recent years of conflict. To go so far as to say that the limit has been crossed – something Putin would later echo in the summit’s plenary session – means there are no more resources to waste on patient waiting; it means the Bear has been awakened from its hibernation at the wrong moment; it means the consequences of these actions will be of epochal significance.

Lavrov added one more thing: “We are ready to strike Europe in an exemplary manner, not as we did in Ukraine.” Take note of these words, dear European friends. Reread them and reflect on their weight. Nothing more needs to be said.

An Italian professor asks Putin a question

We come now to one of the most dangerous moments of my career. The plenary session took place, as is traditional, with the Russian president in attendance and Fyodor Lukyanov moderating. I took the floor and asked a two-part question:

“I come from Italy, a country that currently does not have good relations with Russia. As a European, I would like to ask you: What conditions will Russia set for developing a new security system for European countries? And, if we imagine a post-European Union Europe, will you consider it part of a great Eurasian partnership, or, in your view, will the United States and Russia always be competing for these territories?”

Putin began with the second part, and the order is no coincidence:

“Italy is, in fact, located in Europe, and I am speaking of a Eurasian partnership: it goes without saying, therefore, that we will consider – and already do consider – Italy a Eurasian partner as well.”

Immediately afterward, he clarified that the fate of the European Union, and Italy’s continued membership in it, “is none of our business.” Moscow does not even intend to discuss it, because any comment on the matter would be interpreted as an attempt to break up the EU, “while we do not want to break up anything at all. We only want to build and cooperate.”

On the conditions for a new security system, the response was clear: “We have no preconditions.” The obstacle, in his view, lies on the other side. Some European politicians consider it unacceptable for a single country to open a dialogue with Russia, and Putin has called this demand a diktat even harsher than that of the Soviet era. The comparison was carefully crafted: the USSR was a unitary and highly centralized state, whose republics were part of a single state structure; the European Union, in theory, is not, but in practice behaves as if it were. “No one is forbidding us; we’re ready.”

At that point, Lukyanov interjected with a provocative remark typical of an experienced moderator: since Brussels forbids it, wouldn’t it be better to contribute a little to the disintegration of the EU, so as to make it easier to deal with individual countries? The answer came without hesitation: “But there’s no need – they’ll fall apart on their own.”

Then Putin addressed me directly. “Our Italian colleague knows this better than we do,” he said, and began running the numbers: Italian public debt at 140%, the deficit around 3%, and in other European countries close to 5%. The figures were rounded but not far from the truth. According to Istat and Eurostat, at the end of 2024, Italy’s public debt stood at 135.3% of GDP and its net borrowing at 3.4%. The point of the passage, however, wasn’t about the decimal points. All problems start with the economy: living standards fall, unemployment rises, and citizens of the major European economies feel it firsthand – and this, he said, “also undermines the very foundations of the European Union. But that’s not our business; we don’t interfere.”

He concluded by reiterating the offer in a balanced manner: dialogue with the Union as a whole, if the Union so desires, or with individual countries, without preconditions. “But there must be no preconditions on the European side either.”

Trying to grasp the magnitude of these words, the political balance they reveal, and the strength of a statesman who cares not only about the good of his own country but also that of an entire other continent is a true lesson in what politics is all about.

Listen to Putin’s entire speech, and you will understand how, in less than five minutes, it is possible to capture the decline of all of Europe, in all its facets, while at the same time wistfully reiterating that Russia has done everything in its power to offer its assistance. But the choices of Europeans are their own, whatever flag they may fly. Russia respects and will always respect the fundamental principles of its foreign policy and its political tradition. No miraculous messianism, no improvised savior.

Europe – or rather, the Europeans of this Europe – what do they intend to do?

Rereading my travel notes

Rereading my notes upon my return, the first thing that stands out is the convergence of views. The strategist, the economist, the foreign minister, and the President have each expressed, in their own words, the same assessment: today’s Europe has exhausted its credit with Moscow. The second thing that stands out is that each draws a different conclusion from that diagnosis.

For Karaganov, the conclusion is coercive and takes on an almost eschatological tone: Europe has had its chance, and what follows is no longer a matter for diplomacy. For Oreshkin, it is a matter of cold, hard accounting: Europe is not worth the investment needed to win it back. For Lavrov, it is a limited diplomatic withdrawal, focused on the political structure rather than the people. Finally, for Putin, the door remains open – but toward individual states, not toward Brussels – accompanied by the expectation that economic erosion will do the rest.

The apparent contradiction between the “too late” stance of the first three and the “no preconditions” stance of the fourth is resolved precisely in Lavrov’s characterization. The result is a coherent line, which I would call “bilateralization”: Moscow will not deal with the Union as a political entity as long as its current leadership remains in place; it offers individual member states channels without preconditions and lets Europe’s internal difficulties make those channels attractive. The reference to Italy as a Eurasian partner “already today” must be understood within this framework: it is not a courtesy; it is an indication of which interlocutor Moscow prefers.

I certainly cannot claim that the four exceptional interlocutors had reached an agreement – that goes without saying – but I found this convergence truly “prophetic.” Valdai has always been the venue where the breadth of Russian debate is showcased to a foreign audience. I can say that these perspectives are compatible and mutually reinforcing: Karaganov’s tough stance makes Putin’s offer appear moderate; Oreshkin’s figures lend credibility to the idea that Moscow does not need to make concessions; and Lavrov’s formula balances firmness with openness.

The 2010–2012 sovereign debt crisis gave rise to the European Stability Mechanism and the banking union; the pandemic led to Next Generation EU and the first large-scale common debt. Within the Union, crises have generated at least as much centralization as fragmentation. “They will fall apart on their own” is therefore a gamble, not an observation – even if the gamble costs little to those making it: if the EU holds together, Moscow has at least offered dialogue; if it collapses, it already has bilateral channels in place.

The indicators to watch over the next twelve to eighteen months are fairly clear. The first concerns bilateral visits to Moscow by EU heads of government, in addition to the previous visits by Viktor Orbán in July 2024 and Robert Fico in May 2025. The second is whether unanimity holds during the semi-annual renewals of sanctions, where a single veto is enough to open a crack. The third concerns national exemptions from the timeline for phasing out Russian gas. The fourth – and most significant for us – is the possible opening of a structured channel by a major capital, including Rome.

What do I take away from this? As an Italian, the phrase I’m taking with me isn’t the one about disintegration; it’s the other one: “We already consider Italy a Eurasian partner as well.” It contains both an offer and an observation directed at us. If the door that Moscow says is open is actually closed, it’s closed on this side – and it wasn’t Rome that closed it of its own accord.

How long can a country with a debt exceeding 135% of GDP afford to leave it up to others to decide who can speak with whom? No one in Moscow asked me that. It’s a question I brought home with me on my own. And every Italian of good conscience, every European who still has a heart, knows the answer.

The European Parliament’s debate on Monday, October 5th, comes at an awkward moment for Brussels. After years of confrontation with Viktor Orbán, the European Commission now believes Hungary has done enough to justify releasing €4.2 billion in cohesion funding and restoring full access to Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe.

The question before MEPs is therefore deceptively simple: have the conditions really been met, or has Brussels simply found a convenient political moment to declare victory?

The answer matters well beyond Hungary. The original dispute was not some abstract quarrel over Brussels etiquette. In 2022, the EU suspended €6.3 billion in Hungarian cohesion funding after identifying deficiencies in public procurement, conflicts of interest, corruption controls and the effectiveness of prosecutorial action. The conditionality mechanism was deliberately designed to make access to EU taxpayers’ money dependent upon safeguards for the rule of law and the protection of the EU budget.

That principle is important. If membership of the EU means anything, it cannot mean that governments receive billions regardless of whether public money is properly administered.

But Hungary has changed politically. Viktor Orbán’s 16-year rule ended with Péter Magyar’s decisive election victory in April. Magyar campaigned partly on repairing Hungary’s relationship with Brussels and unlocking the billions frozen during the Orbán years. His government subsequently notified the Commission that it had implemented the required reforms.

The Commission has now accepted that argument — albeit partially. Its September 23rd proposal says Hungary has addressed the rule-of-law breaches affecting the EU budget, citing improvements in public procurement, the anti-corruption framework, prevention of conflicts of interest and prosecutorial effectiveness. If the Council approves the proposal, €4.2 billion in cohesion commitments will be reinstated and Hungarian students and researchers will regain full access to Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe.

That is a substantial political prize for Magyar, and a substantial test for the EU.

The danger for Brussels is obvious. Having spent years insisting that European money must not subsidise corruption or institutional capture, the Commission cannot now appear to have changed the rules simply because a more congenial government has arrived in Budapest.

There is, however, an equally serious danger on the other side. If Hungary has genuinely implemented the reforms demanded by Brussels, continuing to withhold money would make the conditionality mechanism look less like a defence of European values and more like a political punishment system. That would be profoundly damaging. Rules that apply only to governments Brussels likes are not rules at all.

This is why Monday’s debate matters – and the €4.2 billion is only part of the story.

The Commission has made clear that other Hungarian funds remain blocked. Around €3.5 billion is affected by a separate mechanism, including approximately €2.7 billion linked to horizontal conditions concerning the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including academic freedom, LGBTI rights and asylum.

Meanwhile, Hungary is still seeking access to roughly €10 billion under the Recovery and Resilience Facility. The new Hungarian recovery plan includes measures on anti-corruption, public procurement, transparency, judicial independence and stakeholder participation, with payments tied to the achievement of specific milestones.

So this is not a clean victory for either side.

For Magyar, the release of €4.2 billion demonstrates that his strategy of accommodation with Brussels is delivering tangible results. For the Commission, it provides an opportunity to demonstrate that conditionality can work: reforms are made, the Commission verifies them, and money is released.

But the real test will come afterwards. Brussels must monitor whether the reforms survive political pressure. Anti-corruption bodies must remain genuinely independent. Public procurement must be transparent. Prosecutorial safeguards must work in practice rather than merely on paper. And the judiciary must be capable of challenging the government when necessary.

That is where the European Parliament should concentrate its fire. The temptation will be to turn Monday’s debate into another referendum on Viktor Orbán. That would be yesterday’s argument. Orbán has gone. The more important question is whether Hungary’s new government has actually dismantled the machinery that generated the dispute.

There is a wider lesson here for the European Union.

Conditionality can only work if Brussels is prepared both to withhold money when standards are breached and to release it when standards are met. Anything else undermines the credibility of the entire system.

The Commission says Hungary has crossed that threshold. The Council must now decide whether it agrees.

MEPs should therefore resist both triumphalism and cynicism, if the reforms are real, Hungary should get its money.

If they are cosmetic, Brussels should keep the cheque in the drawer.

Brussels Moves to Release €4.2bn to Hungary as Magyar Unwinds Orbán-Era Dispute

Some expected a change in Hungary’s pro-Russian foreign policy after Viktor Orbán’s fall. But they failed to take into account the domestic political pressures on Hungary’s prime minister Péter Magyar.

An unexpected source of tension in Ukrainian-Hungarian relations came at a meeting of the newly formed ‘Carpathian Eight’ (C8) in late September. At the meeting in Kyiv, PM Magyar was embroiled in a sharp exchange with Ukrainian foreign minister Andrii Sybiha, who criticised Budapest for not taking part.

Magyar responded to Sybiha by claiming that Hungary had been included in the C8 without his consent.

“To claim that a sovereign country is a member of an international cooperation (Carpathian Integration) without prior consultation or consent of the country concerned is completely unacceptable,” Magyar said on social media.

This comes after Hungary-Ukraine relations began to improve rapidly following the formation of the Tisza government in May.

Under Orbán’s government, relations had fallen to a historic low, raising the prospect of escalation. In June, Magyar announced that he had reached an agreement with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky on settling the rights of the Hungarian minority in Transcarpathia, hailing it as a historic deal.

Ukraine’s Deputy PM Vsevolod Chentsov informed me that legislation on minority education rights will be submitted to Parliament. I welcome this step after weeks of 🇭🇺🇺🇦 expert consultations. Thank you to all Hungarian and Ukrainian colleagues for their constructive work. Looking…

— Anita Orban (@_OrbanAnita) October 2, 2026

Since June, however, Hungary has repeatedly blocked Ukraine’s EU accession negotiations, arguing that progress on settling the rights of Hungarians in Transcarpathia has fallen short of expectations.

Orbán’s Fidesz party previously used the same argument to block Ukraine’s integration efforts.

Three months after the so-called historic agreement, Ukraine’s foreign minister Sybiha wrote that although Orbán had lost the election, Orbánism (a policy based on isolation and obstruction) prevailed in Hungary.

“Orbanism has done no good, neither to Hungary nor to the broader region, in the past — and it will not do anyone any good moving forward,” said Sybiha on social media.

Domestic Hungarian politics can explain the dispute.

MOL, an oil company, signed a memorandum with Ukraine’s Naftogaz at the C8 meeting on the possible establishment of Ukrainian oil storage facilities in Hungary.

The deal was criticised by Fidesz politicians, and Magyar’s government strongly distanced itself from the deal, too. Fidesz may have contributed to Magyar entering the dispute over C8 participation so very forcefully.

What is the Carpathian Eight?

In August, Zelensky announced the creation of the C8 to bring together countries from the wider Carpathian border region. The Ukrainian president said its members would focus primarily on the economy, security, the environment and investment.

Ukraine described it as a project intended to strengthen cross-border cooperation even with countries that do not provide it with military aid. Alongside Ukraine were to be Romania, Serbia, Poland, Slovakia, Czechia, Austria and Hungary.

Michal Lebduška, an analyst at the Association for International Affairs in Prague (AMO), said that it was one of many regional initiatives. While he did not believe it would trigger “major cooperation”, it could nevertheless be important.

The inaugural summit of the newly formed C8 was held last month (18 September) in Bukovel, in the Ivano-Frankivsk region, around 160 km from both the Slovak and Hungarian borders. Zelensky called it “an important beginning” and thanked the countries of the Carpathian region for being among Kyiv’s most reliable allies.

From Ukraine’s perspective, however, the meeting had mixed results. On the one hand, several leaders travelled to Bukovel in person, lending the gathering greater diplomatic weight. Polish PM Donald Tusk, Romanian president Nicușor Dan and Serbian president Aleksandar Vučić all attended in person.

On the other hand, the remaining countries sent lower-ranking representatives. Slovakia’s PM Robert Fico had initially indicated that he would attend, and was originally due to meet Tusk. At the last minute, however, he announced that he could not attend the summit due to sudden illness.

Slovakia was ultimately represented by Marek Eštok, state secretary at the foreign ministry.

Andrej Babiš’s Czech government all but completely ignored the initiative. As Respekt magazine wrote, Babiš declined the opportunity to visit Ukraine and did not send any representative to Bukovel.

So Czechia was represented at the summit only by opposition deputy Senate president Jiří Drahoš.

And Austria was ultimately represented by Christine Schwarz-Fuchs, president of the Federal Council.

Hungary sent Ádám Ceglédi, the acting chargé d’affaires at the Hungarian embassy in Kyiv, as the Hungarian foreign ministry confirmed to Telex.

Ukraine expected stronger support

“There are many different forms of cooperation in this region: the Visegrád Four, the Slavkov format and the Central European Initiative. Ukraine is interested in improving its relations with some countries,” Péter Techet, a foreign-policy analyst and researcher at the Institute for Danube Region and Central Europe in Vienna, said.

According to the analyst, Ukraine may have hoped that Orbán’s fall would bring a clear shift in Hungary’s Ukraine policy. Anita Orbán, as foreign minister, has confirmed this by pursuing a foreign policy moving away from Russia.

However, Ukrainians did not take Magyar’s domestic political interests into account.

Magyar panders to anti-Ukraine crowd

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

More than a year ago, we launched our Hungary Briefing, a weekly round-up of the election campaign. Since the historic vote in April to remove Viktor Orbán, the series has followed the new Tisza government and its first moves in office. This week’s topics:

• Two ministers from Orbán’s government have been held in custody.
• Former prime minister Orbán may have ordered the detention of Ukrainian cash couriers.
• The newly established National Asset Recovery and Protection Office has begun work.
• The European Public Prosecutor’s Office could also help recover stolen funds.

It has been an eventful few days in Hungarian public life. Efforts to hold former officials accountable are gathering pace: two former ministers have been remanded in custody over suspected breaches of fiduciary duty involving billions of forints and the acceptance of bribes.

The National Asset Recovery and Protection Office (NVVH) immediately took over four cases and began investigating them, including the visa business linked to Orbán’s brother. Meanwhile, a chief prosecutor who resigned from his post claimed in an open letter that Orbán himself had ordered the detention of Ukrainian cash couriers.

Two ministers from Orbán’s government have been held in custody

“The landing is beginning as part of ‘Operation Purgatory’,” prime minister Péter Magyar announced on Monday (28 September) morning. Later that morning, Hungary’s parliament lifted the immunity of Miklós Seszták, an MP and former development minister from the Christian Democratic People’s Party (KDNP); Balázs Hankó, an MP and former culture and innovation minister from Fidesz; and prime minister Magyar.

Prosecutors requested that Hankó’s immunity be lifted on suspicion of breach of fiduciary duty: he is suspected of causing losses of 17 billion forints (€46.5m) to the state budget. Authorities are investigating Seszták on suspicion of accepting bribes and other offences. The former minister and the then chief executive of Hungarian National Asset Management are suspected of receiving approximately 12.6 billion forints (€34.2m), in bribes through an intermediary between 2015 and 2018.

Magyar himself requested the lifting of his own immunity after the deputy prosecutor general asked the speaker of parliament to initiate the procedure over an incident in June 2024. According to the Office of the Prosecutor General, Magyar deliberately dropped the phone of a man filming him into the Danube, an act it classifies legally as theft.

After the vote on his immunity, Seszták went to the Central Investigating Chief Prosecutor’s Office, where he was taken into custody. He said he had committed no crime and wished to give a statement. On Wednesday, a court ordered the former minister’s remand in custody.

Hankó initially waited in the Fidesz parliamentary group’s office for police to take him away. Under the rules, however, he should have presented himself at the Central Investigating Chief Prosecutor’s Office.

Under the Act on the National Assembly, police may enter the parliament building and take action there only with the speaker’s specific permission, while the Parliamentary Guard may neither forcibly bring him before the authorities nor take coercive measures against him. Parliament speaker Ágnes Forsthoffer therefore firmly called on Hankó to leave the building and cooperate with the investigating authorities.

Hankó subsequently held a press conference with his wife and children present, claiming that he was the target of a politically-fabricated case and declaring his innocence. He finally accepted the summons at 7.20 pm and left parliament, setting off to give a statement amid carefully-staged scenes. Orbán’s social media page live-streamed the entire episode (while the Fidesz leader was in Belfast cheering on Hungary’s national football team).

In a statement, prosecutors said that Hankó and his associates had used National Cultural Fund resources for purposes other than those prescribed by law on 1,079 occasions between 3 September 2025 and 30 March 2026.

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

A blacksmith, a groom, a soldier, a slave: the faces and stories of these and other inhabitants of an ancient Roman city in modern-day Hungary have been brought back to life with astonishing accuracy in a new exhibition in Budapest, the Associated Press reported in July (as cited by BTA). The exhibition, which runs until […]

A metal detector has pulled a small lead statuette of Venus Pudica out of a forest in the Buda Hills, northwest of Budapest. It is the first religious object recorded at the Roman village of Pilisszentiván–Hárs erdő, a rural settlement in the province of Pannonia. Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE) has been excavating it for four […]

The former prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán, has denounced a new political offensive against his Fidesz political formation following the arrest and 30-day pretrial detention for Miklós Seszták, a lawmaker and former national development minister under Orbán.

A Budapest court on Wednesday ordered 30 days of pre-trial detention for Seszták following a corruption investigation that may just be beginning of a wave of prosecutions targeting the former Orbán government.

Orbán accused Magyar’s Tisza government of “neo-communist tactics.”

“The Tisza authoritarian rulers are raising taxes, fuel prices are soaring, and they are wrecking the Hungarian economy. Authoritarianism creates new victims every day. Today it’s them, tomorrow it’s you. They would rather stage political theatre than face reality. Our message to every Hungarian is this: the Tisza authoritarian rulers will not break our patriotic community. We will not let them. They cannot imprison half the country,” he continued.

Neo-communist tactics. The Tisza authoritarian rulers are raising taxes, fuel prices are soaring, and they are wrecking the Hungarian economy. Authoritarianism creates new victims every day. Today it’s them, tomorrow it’s you. They would rather stage political theatre than face reality. Our message to every Hungarian is this: the Tisza authoritarian rulers will not break our patriotic community. We will not let them. They cannot imprison half the country.

— Orbán Viktor (@PM_ViktorOrban) September 28, 2026

An investigating judge at the Buda Central District Court found sufficient grounds to suspect official bribery and other offenses and said detention was needed to protect the inquiry, the Budapest Metropolitan Court announced. The ruling is not final. Seszták’s lawyer filed an appeal, and the former minister has maintained his innocence.

Exclusive: ‘The situation is dire’ – The Trump administration has largely abandoned Hungarian conservatives amid mass purges, warns editor-in-chief of Hungary Today

The order came two days after parliament voted 139-0 to lift the immunity of Seszták and another Orbán-era minister, Balázs Hankó. Fidesz and its Christian Democratic People’s Party allies boycotted the session and called the proceedings political persecution.

Prosecutors and the newly created National Asset Recovery and Protection Office allege that between 2014 and 2018, Seszták accepted bribes totaling hundreds of millions to more than 11 billion forints (€30 million) from construction contractors tied to state bus company Volánbusz and other projects, together with a former state asset-management official. Seszták has called the accusations baseless.

Balázs Orbán, the former prime minister’s political director, compared the events to 1950s political prosecutions and to cases against conservative politicians in Poland.

“This is the political arbitrariness of the communist 1950s, unfolding in Hungary in real time. You can watch it live on @PM_ViktorOrban’s Facebook page: a former Hungarian minister is being arrested following a direct and public demand by Péter Magyar, the Hungarian Prime Minister backed by Brussels,” he wrote.

This is the political arbitrariness of the communist 1950s, unfolding in Hungary in real time. You can watch it live on @PM_ViktorOrban’s Facebook page: a former Hungarian minister is being arrested following a direct and public demand by Péter Magyar, the Hungarian Prime Minister backed by Brussels.

— Balázs Orbán (@BalazsOrban_HU) September 28, 2026

Magyar’s government rejected the accusations. Officials are attempting to present the probes as an effort to examine alleged corruption from Orbán’s 16 years in power. Magyar noted that a former minister had been placed in pretrial detention for the first time since 1990.

“This is the first time since 1990 that a former minister has been arrested. He is suspected of bribery,” wrote Magyar.

The court has placed @PM_ViktorOrban's former minister and current member of Parliament, Miklós Seszták, in pre-trial detention. This is the first time since 1990 that a former minister has been arrested. He is suspected of bribery involving 12 billion forints.

— Magyar Péter (Ne féljetek) (@magyarpeterMP) September 30, 2026

Fidesz vice president and MEP Kinga Gál called Sept. 28 “a dark day for Hungarian democracy” and accused Magyar of turning police and prosecutors against political rivals.

A dark day for Hungarian democracy. In another chapter in the political witch hunt against right-wing politicians, the Tisza majority in the Hungarian Parliament stripped MPs and former ministers Balázs Hankó and Miklós Seszták of their immunity.Balázs Hankó is the target of a politically fabricated case. We never thought we would see such times return to Hungary. Shameful. The Hungarian PM is pressuring police and prosecutors while building a new political police force to pursue his political opponents. He is trying to silence the opposition and dismantle the rule of law. We condemn it in the strongest terms.

— Kinga Gál (@_KingaGal) September 28, 2026

MEP András László said the cases are based on the “political instructions” from the prime minister.

The era of political show trials are back!  Today the authoritarian rule in Hungary reached a new low. The judiciary is acting on the PM's personal instructions.

— András LÁSZLÓ MEP (@laszloan) September 28, 2026

Seszták was taken into custody Monday after walking into the Central Investigative Prosecutor’s Office, saying he intended to give a statement. The new Asset Recovery Office, which began operations Sept. 27, took over the case. His lawyer has argued that parts of the detention process were irregular.

Neither Seszták nor Hankó has been convicted, and both deny wrongdoing.

–

The post ‘Neo-communist tactics’ – Former PM Viktor Orbán warns of wave of political repression after arrest of his former minister appeared first on Remix News.

The Hungarian conservative media landscape is in the process of being bankrupted, gutted, or co-opted by the new Hungarian government under Péter Magyar. However, there remain a few holdouts, including Daniel Deme, who serves as the editor-in-chief of the English-language Hungarian news outlet Hungary Today as well as the German-language Ungarn Heute. Deme describes a “dire situation” brought on by a climate of fear, radical purges, mass layoffs, and little to no aid from key allies, including the Trump administration.

What is the current state of the Hungarian media landscape? How does it compare to the situation under the Orbán government?

Under the Orbán government, there were claims from the left that there were no media freedoms here, that journalists were persecuted. None of that was true. I’d say there was already a 60-to-40 split in the media landscape toward the left’s benefit at that time. But a difficult situation arose from the fact that Hungarian conservative right-wing media wasn’t independent enough, and that was really the case. It was very much talking to its own bubble.

I don’t think it was controlled by the government or presenting a government-controlled narrative. I think it was voluntary. But I think the culture of Hungarian conservative journalists was such that they wanted to stick to the central narrative, which was very close to the government.

On the other hand, you had foreign-funded left-wing media outlets. There were a few exceptions that survived commercially, but in very many cases they were funded by the Open Society Foundations and by the Norwegian Oil Fund. There’s a Norwegian radical-leftist sort of fund that is feeding the Hungarian liberal and woke environment, NGOs, and media outlets.

EXCLUSIVE: The Trump administration has largely abandoned Hungarian conservatives after Viktor Orbán’s loss, warns @daniel_deme_HU in an interview with @RMXnews.

“So, I think the State Department of the Trump administration is shooting itself in the foot by leaving this… pic.twitter.com/vOAE8iajro

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) September 21, 2026

And of course they were funded by European funds as well—awards, grants. So after the elections, the money that came from government advertising—by the way, they advertised in the left-wing media very heavily as well—just stopped immediately. And from week one, there was a purge of Hungarian right-wing media outlets. It wasn’t just the money that was taken away; the institutional standing was as well.

For example, the largest media conglomerate, Mediaworks, immediately started firing hundreds and hundreds of staff. What we haven’t even seen during communism: it wasn’t just that they removed the former Orbán government’s media managers from these public media outlets—they actually destroyed them. They shut them down.

And it was just outright scary, as if a foreign occupying force had arrived and shot our TV towers to pieces. One day we turned on our TVs and there was a blank screen. There was a black screen with an inscription that the “public media shouldn’t lie, and we are sorry that we lied for years, and this is going to change.” And that was it. That was it for weeks and weeks on end.

At the same time, it also happened with Radio Kossuth, a national institution. That’s a radio station that we used to listen to even during communism. And suddenly they switched it off. They just put some classical music on 24/7, and old people have complained to me that they used to turn it on in the morning and switch it off in the evening when they went to bed. It used to be part of their lives, and then there’s nothing. And now the only public television is completely turned into a Tisza Party mouthpiece.

There are a handful of surviving right-wing publications that, frankly, have not learned their lesson, in my opinion, about how to analyze Hungarian public and political life, and are very much continuing in the same line as before.

There are new shoots, I would say. It’s very hard to tell which ones are going to survive and which ones are not. And this is the situation when you realize one staggering fact: if you find yourself a media manager or an editor-in-chief, you start looking for funds and trying to survive, and you realize that there are no foundations, no grants for national, conservative, patriotic media in the world—anywhere.

Meanwhile there are dozens and dozens of rich funds for liberal, woke media that is spewing propaganda from Brussels or from the Democrats’ set of opinion-makers. So it’s amazing. There were two Hungarian foundations that sponsored some of the patriotic and conservative media in the country. They have both been shut down now and are now controlled by the Péter Magyar government.

So the situation is dire.

On the one hand, the conservative media has completely disappeared. We do not have a single conservative political daily on the newsstands now. Not a single one. Magyar Nemzet, which used to be everywhere, is now nowhere to be found. It has gone into weekly print production. And on the other hand, when you go onto social media and LinkedIn, you see ubiquitous adverts for left-wing journalists at left-wing outlets everywhere. They’re expanding. It’s like a golden age for them.

That’s a pretty dramatic transition. How many people would you estimate have now been laid off in the Hungarian media landscape since Tisza, since Magyar, won?

I would definitely estimate it near 1,000 people. And you have to understand that the Hungarian media landscape is fairly small, and these are almost exclusively members of either the public broadcasters or conservative media—almost exclusively. People have been fired in a completely absurd manner, without any justification, without any wrongdoing on their side. Not even only people who had been biased toward the Fidesz government. Even when they fired the managers of the public media, MTI, they found replacements, a couple of media managers well known in the business, and they were appointed.

One of them was supposed to be the manager of the news department at the Hungarian News Agency, and someone pointed out on social media—I think on Facebook—that yes, he had worked for the left, and he had also worked for right-wing media like Hír TV. Péter Magyar left a single comment on Facebook under one of these comments saying, “I don’t think so.”

The next day, the guy was called into the office of his boss and fired on the spot. When they found out that he had worked briefly at one of the conservative news TV stations, he was fired on the spot and removed. That’s all it takes today: just a short comment on Facebook from our new neo-Stalinist leader, Péter Magyar.

You said there’s not a single foundation in the entire world that supports conservative media in Europe. Liberal institutions outside Hungary were pretty active supporting numerous liberal and left-wing institutions, media outlets, and so on with money—taxpayer money from Europe and corporate money from various corporations, foundations, and so on. Now, where are the Americans? Where is the State Department? Where are the foundations? What is your opinion on this particular issue?

Well, on the one hand, the State Department launched in July a grant for free, sort of conservative institutions in Europe—$5 million, I think, for the entirety of Europe. And I think they have received more than 1,000 applications. Whoever I spoke to, from Italy to Poland, everyone was applying. We applied as well. But it’s a ridiculous amount. $5 million is basically the price of a single bomb in Iraq. So this was just a drop in the ocean.

And I have managed to speak to members of the American State Department—I do not want to describe any more closely who they were—and I basically just asked what they thought about this. And they said, “You’re on your own. You have to fight this fight from your own resources. We have to respect the will of the people.”

And this is very gentlemanly, you know. This is a very noble position from the State Department. They do not want to interfere in other people’s countries. But I have to add very quickly that this is not the way the Democrats see it, or money groups and oligarchs connected to the Democrats. The left does not have these sorts of scruples toward Europe and is continuing to fund the Hungarian far-left media and NGO networks. There’s a glut of funds for them. So I think the State Department of the Trump administration is shooting itself in the foot by leaving this space empty, leaving the Hungarian conservative network to wither. In four years, when they come back, where they used to have allies—honest allies and friends—where they used to have an infrastructure of pro-American political and economic circles, they will have nothing. They will only find NGO networks and political networks that are 100% allied either with the Democrats or with networks funded from the other side of the world, from the East.

I’ve tried to explain this to American diplomats and opinion-makers: there’s been a huge void created after the elections. This void is going to be filled very, very quickly. And if you do not move fast enough, you will find that others will recognize the potential in this network—and so they did. And I do not want to mention the names of the countries, but they are not the United States’ geopolitical allies, let’s say that.

What do you think the motive is from the State Department there? Is it that there are still a lot of left-wing holdouts in the State Department who are directing policy, or do you think this is the conservative mindset of letting the free market work? If the conservative outlets can generate ad revenue and play in this kind of private market, then those are the outlets that deserve to survive. And if they can’t, then they deserve to die.

I think there could be some of this, but the State Department is very well known to be the bastion of the Democrats in the international field. It is still completely dominated by left-wing activist foreign policy. You just have to look at U.S. embassies and their appointments from local talent, or the communications of some of their ambassadors.

We don’t even have an ambassador in Hungary, which kind of shows that our status is not as important for Washington as it probably used to be, or as it should be. You have to remember that Viktor Orbán stood up for Donald Trump in the darkest years and months of the lawfare, when he was being photographed in police stations, when he was getting his mugshot taken by police. Viktor Orbán was the only foreign leader who stood up and paid enormous political capital, invested a lot of political capital, into defending Donald Trump personally and stood by the Republicans in these dark periods.

With Hungarian conservatives face growing persecution, where is Donald Trump?

"You have to remember that Viktor Orbán stood up for Donald Trump in the darkest years of and months of the lawfare when he was being photographed in police stations, when he was getting his… https://t.co/Wtlujt32u2 pic.twitter.com/HmHbkdVx9H

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) September 23, 2026

And yes, there was a lot of support from the United States before the elections, from JD Vance and Marco Rubio, even from Donald Trump himself. Not the support that we needed. What we needed, first of all, was a good look into the far-left financial networks that are tilting the Hungarian political sphere toward the left, toward Brussels, and toward the Democrats. And the other thing was action on the giant tech firms like Facebook, Google, etc., who are openly censoring Hungarian and European media content, influencers, etc. And they’re doing it so blatantly that we expected the new White House to crack down on this undemocratic, biased behavior. And this didn’t happen.

Do you feel that now that Orbán is out of power, the US is actually betraying the Hungarian conservatives?

I don’t think they’re betraying us explicitly. I think there is a recognition of the seriousness of the situation, but I haven’t heard a single word from Republican circles expressing dismay or concern about what is happening in Hungary, and there’s plenty to be concerned about regarding what has happened in the last four months.

What we’ve seen in Hungary being done by the Tisza government is unprecedented in Europe, even in left-wing countries, even in partial democracies like Germany. There’s persecution of right-wing influencers, etc. I’m not going to go into details, but the U.S. State Department is completely silent about this, and I would say now is about time to open their mouths and take a hard look at what’s going on in Hungary.

Orbán invited JD Vance at a sort of inopportune time for his own election campaign. This had already been after the bombing of Iran, and there was a pretty big energy price increase right before Orbán went to the polls. Some people even said that this may have contributed to a larger loss for Orbán in the end. What is your opinion?

Whether the visits by JD Vance or Marco Rubio helped or not, I think they didn’t sway Hungary either way. They were very much welcomed by the Hungarian conservative networks, and I don’t think any of the Tisza Party’s potential voters changed their minds about voting for Fidesz because they understood how important the support of the American administration is. It is very, very important, but they had their minds made up already, and I don’t think these high-level visits changed anything in any way.

You have to separate Fidesz’s campaign performance from what really happened, the result of the elections. There was such an incredibly violent, intensive, and aggressive communication campaign from Tisza’s international and domestic supporters that throughout my 25 years in communications I have not seen anything like this.

We had the Ukrainians close our oil pipeline, Brussels withheld the European funds from the Orbán government, the Polish secret services were spreading fake news about Viktor Orbán, the British intelligence services were fairly active in Hungary, and on Facebook and Google the salvos of thousands of comments in our comments sections and everywhere else were coming from bot farms and paid influencers. And it was just amazing. I don’t think any society could have resisted this intensity of disinformation and demagoguery that we saw in the elections.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that Fidesz had a terrible election campaign, and it’s kind of universally understood even among conservatives that they really messed up their election campaign, and everyone is paying a very high price for this.

Since the election, I’ve seen polling that shows Fidesz tanking even much further than their election results, and Tisza seems to be more popular than ever. This is about four months in now. What realistic chances do you see of the conservatives coming back to power, and how will the Hungarian media landscape—without a real conservative voice, or not much of one going forward—even present the conservative or right-wing viewpoint?

I think some of those polls are right, and maybe not to the extent that they are showing, but Tisza’s popularity has actually grown since the elections and Fidesz has fallen back. That’s partly because Viktor Orbán was such an incredibly dominant personality in Fidesz, and his removal from the political scene is a huge hit for Hungarian conservatives.

And his replacement, János Bóka, is a young and very well-informed and competent person, but I don’t think he’s a full replacement for Viktor Orbán, and some are skeptical about his charisma, etc.

Fidesz’s performance since the elections can only be described as sketchy, and we are expecting Fidesz to do much more than they are doing. And there’s, of course, the other right-wing party, Mi Hazánk, Our Homeland. They are to the right of Fidesz, and very brave and vocal, and they are organizing demonstrations and are very active in parliament as well. They are getting into debates with Péter Magyar, but when it comes to voting, they almost always vote with Tisza.

They even voted for the so-called Asset Recovery Office, which is an absolute betrayal not just of their voters, but of conservative Hungary as well. That’s just a huge misstep. So they are not to be relied on. I think the only solution we can hope for is the emergence of a new conservative party, but we do not even see the sign of anything happening yet, and it seems Hungarian conservative circles are still in shell shock post-election.

The post Exclusive: ‘The situation is dire’ – The Trump administration has largely abandoned Hungarian conservatives amid mass purges, warns editor-in-chief of Hungary Today appeared first on Remix News.

European governments are racing to blunt a fuel shock that even some analysts now refuse to forecast, as Brent crude holds near $100 a barrel and diesel prices climb across Europe.

The international oil market has been expensive for months. What has changed is the confidence of the people paid to explain it. JPMorgan told clients on Sept. 17 that, for the first time since fighting began around Iran about seven months earlier, its commodities team no longer has a baseline view of how the disruption ends. 

“We simply don’t know how to model the endgame,” the bank’s analysts wrote, after several economic thresholds they once assumed would force a diplomatic off-ramp, including oil above $100 a barrel, had already been crossed.

‘Diesel the most expensive ever! This may be just the beginning’

The bank said a Brent price near $90 would have been consistent with known supply and demand in September. Futures instead traded around $100 and higher as traders priced the risk of further losses that no one can yet measure. By Monday, front-month Brent was still hovering near $99 a barrel.

Inventories are doing little to cushion the blow. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has said prices are likely to stay elevated until Middle East oil trade is restored and stocks can be rebuilt. The International Energy Agency’s September report put the scale of the drain in starker terms: observed global inventories fell another 95 million barrels in August, taking the cumulative draw since February to 507 million barrels, or about 2.8 million barrels a day. World oil supply is now projected to average 100.7 million barrels a day in 2026, down 5.7 million from a year earlier.

Diesel shortages are acute

In some countries, such as Hungary, there is a major imbalance in terms of available energy sources. Crude held in strategic storage remains ample, but diesel is quickly running out. Data from the Hungarian Hydrocarbon Stockpiling Association show gas oil stocks at 520.3 kilotons at the end of January and about 390 kilotons at the end of both July and August. That thinner diesel cushion matters in a country where more than 1.3 million passenger cars run on the fuel and the regional market is competing for the same scarce imports.

Pump prices have already moved. Official and commercial trackers put Hungarian diesel around 701 forints a liter in late September on some official series and closer to 730 forints on daily station averages — well above the roughly 593 forints recorded at the end of June. The original worry in Budapest was not whether prices would rise, but how quickly 800 forints would stop looking like a distant ceiling.

Diesel price explodes to record highs across Europe

That speed is not a mystery to central bankers. Bank of Slovenia research covering euro-area data from 2005 through 2026 found that a 10% rise in Brent lifts pretax diesel and gasoline prices by about 6.5% and 6.2%, respectively, over the longer term. A large share of the increase shows up at stations within the first two weeks — faster than the physical chain of shipping, refining and wholesale delivery would suggest. 

The European Central Bank has reached a similar conclusion and added an unwelcome twist: refinery margins can amplify the shock. During the spring spike, Brent briefly reached $138 a barrel while diesel at the refinery gate jumped to $197. ECB staff later estimated that refining margins were contributing about 41 euro cents a liter to euro-area retail diesel in mid-September, and they told reporters those diesel margins may not peak until October.

The way down is slower than the way up. Taxes, refining and transport costs, inventories, margins and local competition all delay relief when crude finally eases. That asymmetry is why governments are acting now, before higher fuel bills work through freight, food and services and lift broader inflation.

Europe-wide crisis

The policy dilemma is the same from Lisbon to Warsaw: protect households and trucking firms without writing a blank check for fossil-fuel consumption. Europe has answered with a patchwork rather than a single rule. Some governments cap retail prices. Others cut excise taxes, sometimes below the European Union minimum. A third group aims help at farmers, haulers and other heavy users. A few still let global prices hit consumers with no cushion at all. The result is that the same barrel of oil can produce pump prices that differ dramatically at the pump across Europe.

Will Germany run out of gas this winter? Experts and energy executives warn of dire scenarios

Here are just a few examples of what Europe looks like in this regard.

• Austria has been running a mineral-oil tax cut of 1.9 euro cents a liter into the end of September. 
• Belgium has implemented an official price ceiling. 
• Croatia cut diesel excise duty by another 3 cents, taking it 10 cents below the EU floor; Zagreb says the average diesel price is 1.91 euros a liter instead of 2.26 euros without the intervention. 
• Cyprus is offering an 8.33-cent discount through Nov. 30. 
• Luxembourg is absorbing 5 cents of the pump price from July through December. 
• Malta is using direct state aid to keep prices below the euro-area average. 
• Portugal decided on Sept. 17 to recycle extra value-added tax receipts from more expensive fuel into tax relief worth about 1.3 billion euros through year-end. 
• Slovenia posted official maxima of 1.748 euros for gasoline and 2.012 euros for diesel in the week of Sept. 22-28. 
• Spain has kept an excise cut below the EU minimum through Sept. 30. 
• Italy reduced and capped diesel duty into early October. 
• Montenegro and Serbia combine retail caps with lower excise taxes.

Targeted aid is running in parallel

• Greece extended a 10-cent-a-liter diesel subsidy into October and is preparing a heating-oil package. 
• France steered relief to agriculture, high-mileage workers and construction rather than a blanket cut. 
• Ireland is rebating duty for commercial haulers and bus operators. 
• Spain added a 402 million-euro program for truckers on top of its general tax reduction. 
• Italy is offering carriers a tax credit for earlier extra costs.

Larger packages are still moving through parliaments

Germany will cut energy tax by 14 cents a liter from Oct. 1 through year-end, about 17 cents once lower VAT is counted, in a 2.5 billion-euro package. 

Chancellor Friedrich Merz said drivers who depend on a car every day “are reaching their breaking point.” 

Berlin is also talking with the oil industry about a temporary price cap modeled on Luxembourg or Belgium, aimed at Jan. 1, 2027. 

The Czech government will restore a station-margin ceiling from Oct. 1, cut diesel duty to the EU minimum and cap retail margins at 2.50 koruna a liter. 

Poland has floated a 60% levy on oil companies’ extra profits to finance about 4 billion zlotys of price relief, though the plan faces parliamentary and constitutional hurdles.

The International Energy Agency has described the response as global, not merely European. In a matter of months, the number of countries applying fuel subsidies rose from 16 to 38, and the number cutting energy taxes rose from 40 to 57. Pew Research Center, drawing on IEA tallies from mid-June, counted 113 countries that had taken at least one energy-cost measure after the Iran war, including tax changes in 55 countries and fuel subsidies in 32. The agency’s own warning is implicit in those numbers: governments are treating the symptom at the pump because they cannot reopen the Strait of Hormuz from a finance ministry or end the war in Ukraine.

The post Europe races to contain energy crisis with patchwork measures appeared first on Remix News.

Péter Magyar’s government has officially announced a foreign policy break with Viktor Orbán’s course; however, this rhetorical shift toward the European consensus poses serious risks for Hungary due to the country’s continued critical dependence on Russian energy resources. On August 25, 2026, the government of Hungarian Prime Minister Péter Magyar published guidelines for Hungary’s delegation […]

András Baka has been elected President of the Republic of Hungary, and in his first speech, he already criticized former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

On Tuesday, Aug. 11, 2026, the parliamentary majority of the Tisza Party, led by Prime Minister Péter Magyar, elected the 73-year-old former president of the Supreme Court as the next head of state by secret ballot, with 140 votes in favor, six against, and no abstentions.

Fidesz, Viktor Orbán’s former ruling nationalist party, and its long-time ally the Christian Democratic People’s Party (KDNP) did not participate in the vote. In their view, the vote was possible only through the illegal removal of Tamás Sulyok, the previous president appointed under Orbán. His term was ended last month, July 2026, by a constitutional amendment passed by the Tisza majority after he refused to resign.

Shortly after the result was announced, Baka took the presidential oath in parliament. In his first address immediately after the election, he strongly criticized the Orbán governments for “wasting a generation’s time.” He claimed that Orbán had produced deep crises across the rule of law, society, the economy, public finances, energy, the environment, healthcare, education, and child protection.

He said he would reject revenge politics, stating: “We cannot build the new Hungary on revenge.”

However, he emphasized that accountability is necessary, while noting that the degree of responsibility differs among those who held power.

Baka defined the presidential role as expressing national unity through party-political neutrality, but not value neutrality. He would not sign laws as a mere formality, would not act as an “extended arm” of the parliamentary majority or the government, and would speak out when fundamental constitutional questions are at stake.

Baka will formally assume office on Aug. 19, 2026, with his term expected to last five years.

The election of András Baka already seemed very likely a few weeks earlier, when Péter Magyar posted a joint photo with him and Bálint Ruff on his Facebook profile. The Tisza parliamentary group finally nominated Baka by secret ballot from a shortlist of three.

The former chief justice’s candidacy was attacked from both the left and the right.

Pro-Tisza commentators again pointed out the complete lack of wider social consultation before his election. From the right-wing perspective, Baka’s previous judicial roles were criticized. First, the fact that he had served as a judge at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for 17 years is deemed highly suspicious. While he was Supreme Court president, he also opposed the 2011 Nullity Act that annulled certain convictions of protesters arising from the 2006 protests and police actions, during which protesters were violently beaten by police while the left was in power.

András Baka was removed from office in 2011–2012 by the Fidesz government through the abolition and reorganization of the Supreme Court, which was replaced by the Kúria. The European Court of Human Rights later ruled that this premature removal violated his rights. The aggrieved former chief justice – who briefly served as an MP for the Hungarian Democratic Forum in 1990–1991 – now assumes the largely ceremonial office of President of the Republic following the similar early removal of Tamás Sulyok.

The post New president of Hungary elected, sharply criticizes Orbán in first speech appeared first on Remix News.

Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s prime minister since 2010, faces an election dogfight. Behind in the polls, he has been effectively endorsed by both the Kremlin and the White House, and a host of conservative world leaders. As wars in Iran and Ukraine exacerbate the fissures that have weakened NATO, as well as the U.S.’s relationship with the European Union, this is an election that is being followed with bated breath in Washington, Moscow, Kyiv and Brussels. 

Before the elections on April 12, a scandal engulfed the Hungarian government. On leaked recordings, foreign minister Péter Szijjártó can be heard deferentially acquiescing to his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov and passing on information from EU meetings. Szijjártó appeared willing to help the Kremlin’s cause in Brussels, to remove oligarchs and their relatives from the EU blacklist, and to block efforts to aid Ukraine. Hungary’s advocacy for the Kremlin’s agenda culminated in its recent veto of fresh sanctions on Russia and over $100 billion in loans to Ukraine. On X, Polish prime minister Donald Tusk wrote that while “Hungary is and will be in the European Union, Victor Orbán and his foreign minister left Europe long ago.” And the Irish taoiseach Micheál Martin described Szijjárto’s calls with Lavrov as both “sinister” and “alarming.”

Szijjárto alleged that “foreign intelligence services, with the active involvement of Hungarian journalists, have been intercepting my phone calls.” It is a plot, the Hungarian government claims, to influence the upcoming polls. Orbán directly blames Ukraine for seeking to unseat his government. The opposition, led by Peter Magyar, has a healthy lead in the polls and describes the Hungarian government’s closeness to the Kremlin as “treason.” According to European intelligence reports, Moscow sent a three-person team to Hungary, overseen by Putin confidant Sergei Kiriyenko who ran an operation to interfere in the Moldovan election back in September. His tactics encompassed “vote-buying networks, troll farms, and on-the-ground influence campaigns.” A Kremlin-linked media consultancy, facing EU sanctions, was hired to dismiss Magyar as a Brussels stooge and portray Orbán as the only candidate strong enough to to be treated as an equal by world leaders, as evidenced by the strength of his relationship with Trump. 

Despite a war with Iran that doesn’t appear to be going entirely to plan, the U.S. president took time out to back Orbán with enthusiasm and at considerable length on Truth Social. Trump said Orbán was “a true friend, fighter, and WINNER.” JD Vance, the vice president, is scheduled to visit Hungary on April 7, just five days before the election. And secretary of state Marco Rubio went to Hungary in February. It is now part of the U.S. National Security Strategy to work towards “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations.” To that end, notes the U.S. government, “the growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism.” Orbán speaks MAGA’s language on immigration, traditional values and the Christian essence of Western societies. He is, like Putin and Trump, in MAGA’s view, an implacable opponent of secular, progressive, globalist politics as symbolised by Brussels.

Orbán, the longest serving current head of government in the EU, has become a figurehead for populist, nationalist movements across the world. The recent CPAC Hungary summit was attended by several of these leaders including France’s Marine Le Pen, Italian deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini, and the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders,who called Orbán “a lion on a continent led by sheep.” Latin American leaders close to Trump , including Javier Milei of Argentina and Jose Antonio Kast of Chile, also attended. Milei, who gave the longest speech at the summit, said Orbán was “a beacon for all… who refuse to accept that the West's destiny is one of managed decline.” This international network, with the United States and Russia included, has a vested ideological interest in seeing Orban continue to remain a thorn in the EU's side. 

But what can Brussels do? The answer, it appears, is not much. The EU is consensus driven; it needs all its parts to act in concert, giving holdouts like Orbán considerable power to hold the whole bloc hostage. But given Orbán’s prominence as an ideologue, when Hungary blocks sanctions or delays support for Ukraine, it is more than a single nation going rogue. Alice Weidler, co-chair of the far-right AfD, the largest opposition party in the German Bundestag, was among those who spoke at the CPAC Hungary conference last month. Robert Fico, prime minister of Slovakia, is an Orbán ally. On April 19, Bulgaria will have its eighth general election in just five years. Former president Rumen Radev’s new Progressive Party leads the polls and shares Orbán’s pro-Kremlin, anti-EU inclinations.

So polarized is the Hungarian election, that right wing groups are deploying their own observers from Argentina, Austria, the Czech Republic, Kenya, Poland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Serbia, Tanzania and the United States to monitor proceedings. EU observers have said the Hungarian government controls the national media and a recent documentary alleges that a desperate government is resorting to vote-buying, gerrymandering and intimidation tactics. It’s hard to see how either Orbán or Magyar will accept the election result without protest, unless the margin is crushing. But, given Trump’s disdain for NATO allies and the EU, an Orbán election defeat would be a much-needed victory for European unity. 

A version of this story was published in this week’s Coda Currents newsletter. Sign up here.

The post How much longer will Orbán be Putin and Trump’s man in Brussels? appeared first on Coda Story.