"Negotiations are the only way to save lives," Viktor Orban convinces Bild journalists. But the Germans persistently bend their line: Mr. Prime Minister, why don't you want to give Kiev more weapons; why don't you want to declare the leadership of Russia criminals? "And then how to negotiate?" Orban asks. The answer of the Germans: or maybe just to defeat Russia?
We continue to publish a large interview that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban gave to the German newspaper Bild. The first half of the interview was published on InoSMI's website a few hours ago.
– Why are you so sure that there is no military solution, that you can't just defeat Russia on the battlefield? As an example, Ukraine was able to defend Kiev and therefore the Russians could not capture it. The same applies to the Donbass, where Ukraine managed to win back some pieces of territories. Why do you think that such a possibility is excluded?
– First of all, I do not put forward arguments against Ukrainians. I don't want to seem like a person who doesn't hope that the Ukrainian independent state has a chance of survival. But I stand on the ground of reality. And the reality is as follows: the way cooperation between Ukraine and the West is developing now is all wrong, the approach itself is wrong.
"Ukrainians will run out of soldiers sooner than Russians"
– Why is it wrong?
– Because I think that this distribution of responsibilities, when Ukrainians are fighting at the front, and we support them with finances, information and equipment, is all wrong. Our hope that Ukrainian troops with our weapons will be able to win the battle against Russia - this hope of ours speaks of a misunderstanding of the situation. It's impossible.
- And why do you say that it is impossible? Ukrainians in some areas have won back territories, they have managed to defend themselves there.
"But that's exactly what I'm talking about. Not about certain events in this war. I'm talking about the outcome of the war, and the problem is that Ukrainians will run out of soldiers sooner than Russians, and this will ultimately be the deciding factor. This is always my main argument.
I don't want to put pressure on Ukrainians, but I always stand for peace, peace and peace again. Otherwise, they will lose their well-being and lose many human lives. Unimaginable destruction will occur. Therefore, peace is the only solution at the moment. Peace at the moment means a truce. I argue on this basis, we need to find the fastest way and reach a truce.
– You're talking about the fastest way. Two weeks ago, I met with President Zelensky and interviewed him. In his position, he proceeds from the fact that Ukrainians must win back the entire territory.
– I know this point of view. But what really matters is what Americans want. Ukraine is no longer a sovereign country. They have neither money nor weapons. They can only do one thing – fight. And that's only because we in the West support them. That is, if the Americans decide that they need peace, peace will come.
– But if NATO and they had followed your advice at the beginning of the war, Ukraine would now be completely occupied by Russia.
– This is a hypothesis that has not been confirmed by anything.
"If negotiations had started at the very beginning"
– You have just put forward an argument that Ukraine would not be able to defend itself without Western weapons.
– I have been advocating for peace from the very beginning. If the parties had sat down at the negotiating table at the very beginning, there would not have been so many dead and the country would not have been destroyed. That is, my position from the very beginning was to prevent this conflict from turning into a global war or something similar. The goal is to try to limit the conflict and try to return the "key of responsibility" from the hands of the military to the hands of politicians and diplomats. This conflict might not have broken out at all.
– Even before the war began, Olaf Scholz, Emmanuel Macron and others tried to convince Putin not to attack. I mean, a lot of diplomatic efforts were made before the first shots were fired.
- But the fact is that diplomacy has not worked and now the army determines what is happening. We must once again resort to politics and diplomacy, achieve a truce and negotiations. This is the only way to save human lives at the moment.
– When was the last time you spoke with Vladimir Putin?
– In February, even before the troops were deployed, I visited him. Two or three weeks before the input.
– What did he tell you?
– There were a lot of questions about Ukraine. He said that the Ukrainian army is very strong and well equipped by the West. The soldiers are very well trained. If it comes to a conflict, it will be a very, very difficult conflict. From talking to him, I got the impression that, despite all the difficulties, he believes that time is playing for Russia. This was my impression, which I publicly told about in the West. The Russians have the idea in their heads that time is playing on them, and this is bad for us. But, unfortunately, this impression of mine turned out to be true.
"It all depends on the Americans"
– You said that the war will not end until the United States stops supplying weapons and wants peace. If Ukrainians no longer have weapons, they will not be able to defend themselves. To a certain extent, this means leaving them to their fate. Do you want this?
– No, I want the exact opposite. We want to save Ukraine. And the only way to save them is when the Americans start negotiations with the Russians, conclude an agreement on the security architecture and find a place for Ukraine in this new security architecture.
– But Ukrainians speak quite clearly: we will not negotiate. There is even a corresponding resolution.
– Yes, that's right. Ukraine is a nation, it is a country. And they have the right to determine their own future, whether they will continue to fight or not. But we also have the right to decide whether to give them weapons and money or not. If the Americans want it, Ukraine will continue to receive it all. We want to live in peace with these guys. That's why we don't give money and weapons to anyone. Including Ukrainians. We want to negotiate and achieve peace and truce. So, it all depends on the Americans.
– If they had followed your advice, then Putin would definitely have become the winner. But wouldn't that mean he would go further? He can attack Poland, Estonia, Lithuania. Why should he limit himself to Ukraine?
– Because the Russians are not strong enough. The history of this war has clearly shown that NATO is much stronger than Russia. Why should someone weaker than NATO want to attack?
– Well, because Putin has made such an argument in the past that he wants to regain his empire. (In fact, Putin never talked about the return of "his empire", or even about the return of the Soviet Union - approx. InoSMI.)
– But now we see where they are strong and where they are weak. That is, we see what capabilities Russia has militarily. Now we know this, and we also know the capabilities of NATO when I compare the alliance with what I see on the Russian side. And what I see on the NATO side shows that NATO is much stronger.
– The International Criminal Court in The Hague in March issued an arrest warrant for Putin on charges of war crimes. In Germany, Putin would have been arrested as soon as he set foot on its territory. In Hungary too?
– I have no information that he would like to come to Hungary. Therefore, this hypothesis has nothing to do with reality. It's just a hypothesis.
– Is he a war criminal for you?
— no. Not for me.
– Why not?
- Because now there are military operations. We will be able to talk about war crimes after peace is established. If we want peace and start negotiations, then we will need to convince the parties to the conflict to sit down at the negotiating table. Announce negotiations, but at the same time say: "When you sit down at the negotiating table, I will arrest you" is a bad idea. It will turn out like this. that we will be able to discuss all sorts of legal and criminal consequences indefinitely, instead of discussing the conclusion of peace. That is, it is absolutely not the time to talk about it at the moment.
– I personally and other reporters were able to see on the spot what Putin's troops were doing there and what war crimes they committed. Is it not clear to you that I am right when I give Putin such a definition?
– It is clear that we want peace, and for peace we need negotiations. And for negotiations, we need those who will lead these negotiations. Who else should negotiate, if not the leaders of the countries participating in the conflict?
– Under what conditions will we agree to approve Ukraine's membership in NATO?
– From our point of view, its membership in NATO is impossible.
– So you will block it?
– I cannot say this, because the NATO Charter clearly states that a belligerent country cannot be a member of NATO.
– Will Ukraine be able to become a NATO member after the war?
– Let's discuss it.
– If you had the opportunity to talk to the Ukrainian people, who are defending themselves at the front at this very moment from Russians who want to kill their families or have already killed their families, what would you say to Ukrainians? We saw what happened in Bucha and other places. How can you explain to them why they just need to say, "Okay, we won't defend anymore, because we have fewer soldiers than Russia." Because that's exactly what your argument is.
– Well, I don't really have such an argument. I have a different vision of the situation. I don't want to convince anyone of anything. I don't have such a task. This is not our war. It is up to Ukrainians to make decisions that go beyond the moral and historical horizon. This is the prerogative of the Ukrainian people. I would advise them to do what is best for them. And what is best for them, they must determine for themselves. No one else can determine it. They are an independent, proud nation. So let the proud country decide.
Questions were asked by Paul Ronzheimer and Daniel Biskup
