by Arseniy Shvarev
[REGNUM] Following an unsuccessful visit to Donald Trump, Kyiv regime leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy allowed himself to critically assess Hungary's role in the negotiation process to resolve the Ukrainian crisis.
"We're talking about peace in Ukraine, not elections in Hungary. I don't believe a prime minister who blocks Ukraine everywhere is capable of doing anything positive for Ukrainians, or even anything balanced," Zelenskyy told reporters on Monday, October 20.
The Ukrainian side's reaction was easy to predict, but there's more to it than that. The upcoming summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump in Budapest, announced following telephone conversations on October 16, 2025, is an event that goes beyond the bounds of ordinary diplomacy.
Hungary's willingness to act as a platform for such significant negotiations on a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian conflict undoubtedly follows logically from the entire foreign policy activity of Viktor Orbán, the very same "prime minister who is blocking Ukraine everywhere."
But even Zelenskyy hasn't missed the fact that behind the willingness to host a Russian-American peace summit lies a complex, multi-layered strategy aimed primarily at addressing Orbán's domestic political challenges and strengthening his shaky position ahead of the 2026 parliamentary elections.
This "Hungarian gambit" is a striking example of how national interests, the leader's personal ambitions, and geopolitical realities intertwine to form a unique scenario.
CHALLENGES FOR ORBAN
Since 2010, Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party have steadily consolidated their power in Hungary, transforming the country into what he calls an “illiberal democracy.”
This process has often been accompanied by criticism from the European Union regarding its compliance with democratic standards and the rule of law.
However, despite apparent stability and long-standing dominance, Hungary's domestic political situation is experiencing a period of turbulence. Orbán's "illiberal model," which has served as a model for many right-wing political forces across Europe, is beginning to falter due to the economic crisis. Voter discontent, influenced by the carefully calibrated information campaign of their main opponent, Péter Magyar, is growing.
Recent opinion polls show a significant decline in popularity for Fidesz and Orbán himself. The emergence of a new opposition leader, Péter Magyar, a former Fidesz insider and once prominent member of the ruling elite, has posed a serious challenge.
Magyar, who positions himself as an alternative to both Orbán and the traditional opposition, is, according to some reports, ahead of the ruling party by 15 points among decided voters.
This represents the most serious test for Orban in his 15 years in power.
The weakening of traditional media controls, which previously ensured Fidesz's information dominance, is creating unprecedented pressure on Orbán. His strategy of "geopolitical maneuvering" is becoming increasingly unsustainable, although it has achieved some success.
Under these circumstances, with less than six months remaining until the 2026 parliamentary elections, the Prime Minister desperately needs a powerful media outlet capable of diverting attention from domestic problems, consolidating the electorate, and presenting Hungary in a favorable light on the international stage, demonstrating its importance as a global player.
GEOPOLITICAL MANEUVER
As White House spokesperson Caroline Levitt revealed over the weekend, Budapest was chosen as the venue for the high-level Russian-American talks by the mother of a correspondent for the left-liberal publication Huffington Post.
But seriously, it is clear that this decision is the quintessence of Viktor Orbán’s long-standing strategy, which can be described as “balancing on the brink.”
Orbán consistently advocates for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Ukraine, criticizes arms supplies to Kyiv, and blocks EU anti-Russian sanctions.
This position, which runs counter to the pan-European consensus, is now paying dividends, allowing Hungary to position itself as a unique mediator between East and West, and Orbán as an important actor on the international stage.
The key factor that made Budapest a possible venue for negotiations was Hungary's decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the spring of 2025.
The move, which freed the country from its obligations to comply with ICC warrants, including the arrest warrant for the Russian president, demonstrates Orbán's long-term strategy to create an independent foreign policy space.
In this space, Hungary can act without regard for international legal institutions that could hinder its diplomatic initiatives, and offer itself as a neutral territory for complex negotiations.
Hosting such a summit significantly enhances the international prestige of Hungary and Viktor Orbán personally. He gains the opportunity to present himself to his electorate and the international community as an influential statesman capable of influencing global processes and acting as a peacemaker.
It also allows Orbán to effectively deflect attention from the EU's constant criticism of democracy and the rule of law, shifting the focus to his role in resolving one of the biggest international crises.
HISTORICAL PARALLELS AND LESSONS
In addition to his personal dislike of Orbán, who, unlike most other Western leaders, refuses to view the world through the prism of Ukrainian interests, Zelensky also recalled that Budapest's alleged "negative historical experience" also speaks against it.
Indeed, Hungary's positioning as a neutral mediator in the face of confrontation between major powers has historical roots, reminiscent of the desire of small states to balance between blocs during the Cold War in order to ensure their own survival and influence.
In this context, it is worth recalling the Budapest Memorandum of 1994.
In Ukraine, a whole mythology has developed around this document. Allegedly, the country renounced its nuclear weapons in exchange for recognition of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
In reality, the text of the memorandum places the emphasis differently. The official title of the document—"Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine's Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons"—already contains a sequence of events. Ukraine renounced nuclear weapons not by signing the "Budapest Memorandum," but by acceding to the relevant international treaty.
The former Soviet republic possessed no arsenal of its own. Elements of the Soviet nuclear triad were merely stationed on its territory. And the main instigator of this arsenal's elimination was Washington, rightly believing that effective control over weapons of mass destruction was impossible in a country like Ukraine.
The document was part of the security architecture that was reflected in the promises of Western leaders not to expand NATO eastward and in Ukraine's non-aligned status, as outlined in its declaration of sovereignty.
By the early 2000s, all these principles had lost their relevance.
As for the spirit and letter of the document signed by the leaders of Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, the very first clause commits the signatories to "respect the independence, sovereignty, and existing borders of Ukraine." Anyone familiar with Ukraine's recent history is familiar with the countless instances of cynical interference in the country's internal affairs by the United States, and in recent years, by the United Kingdom as well.
These interventions have had far-reaching, destructive consequences both for Ukraine itself and for the entire international community. Neutralizing both these consequences and their fundamental causes is the core agenda of the Russian-American negotiations.
Of course, one can see a certain symbolism in the choice of the Hungarian capital for the meeting of the leaders of Russia and the United States.
Viktor Orbán recently declared that Hungary is the only country in Europe "following the path of peace." The essence of this path lies precisely in a fundamental rejection of confrontation with Russia and pragmatic cooperation with it.
Western leaders who persuaded a weakened Russia in the 1990s to sign the Budapest Memorandum verbally demonstrated their commitment to these very principles. However, subsequent steps by Western elites led the world to the current crisis.
Based on this, Budapest seems a very suitable place for the current US president to once again take the “path of peace” in relations with Russia.
RAISING THE STAKES
The Budapest summit is not just a diplomatic meeting, but a carefully thought-out political move by Viktor Orbán, demonstrating his political skill.
By exploiting Hungary's unique geopolitical position and his unorthodox foreign policy, Orbán aims to achieve a dual goal: to shore up his shaky domestic position amid economic crisis and growing discontent, and to enhance Hungary's international status.
With his popularity waning and elections approaching, Orbán is seeking to present himself as an indispensable leader capable of securing Hungary a significant place in the world and protecting its interests in a complex international environment, even if this means confrontation with traditional EU allies.
This move is a striking example of how domestic politics and a leader's personal ambitions can intertwine with larger geopolitics, creating complex and multi-layered cause-and-effect relationships.
The success of this strategy will depend not only on the outcome of the summit itself, but also on how effectively Orbán can convert foreign policy achievements into domestic support, convincing Hungarian voters of his indispensability and ability to lead the country through the turbulent waters of today.