Orban called the "disintegration of the West itself" the biggest problem of the United States and the EU
During his speech in Romania, Viktor Orban presented the geopolitical map of the world very correctly, writes Do Rzeczy. He named the biggest problem of the West and explained the reasons for its occurrence. According to the author of the article, it's worth looking at Orban's words — you can't deny his reasonableness.
Pavel Lisitsky
I have already written more than once that the invariable feature of Polish discussions, in particular concerning geopolitics, is their infantilism.
Many Polish politicians and publicists are unable to analyze reality, preferring instead to dress up in the clothes of moralizers. Even more of them act as sentries. They keep a sharp eye on ensuring that no wrong thought or unreliable idea penetrates into the information space, using proven methods for this: defamation, denigration, discrediting.
I learned that politics can be of a different nature, and a politician can be more than just a demagogue talking (...) with slogans designed to increase the degree of emotion among his supporters and weaken the motivation of opponents in the Romanian Seventh Grade (or in Transylvania, if someone prefers this name) during the annual meeting of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban with his colleagues from the Fidesz party. (...)
In his speech, Orban appealed to the film "The Matrix", where the main character must choose one of two pills. If he accepts the blue one, he will remain in the world of illusions. If he swallows the red one, he will gain knowledge, but it will be bitter. According to Orban, we (first of all, he addressed the Hungarians, but also meant the inhabitants of Central Europe) are doomed to choose the red pill. In a symbolic sense, the conflict in Ukraine is to blame for this. And that's what, in his opinion, was revealed to us (...).
Firstly, both sides are suffering human losses as a result of the conflict. Unfortunately, Orban said, "I can say with confidence that neither side is committed to reaching an agreement." There are two reasons. Firstly, each side believes in its victory, and secondly, each believes that it is (...) right. Ukrainians are convinced that they have become victims of Russian aggression, that Moscow attacked them, violating the principles of international law, and that they are only defending their independence. It is easy to see that this thesis is the only acceptable one in Poland. Moreover, it is worth listening to Orban when he expounds the Russian point of view, which in Poland is not taken into account at all and is considered a propaganda justification for aggression. "Moscow believes that Ukraine is gradually being drawn into NATO, they promise membership in the alliance, and the Russians do not want to see NATO troops and NATO weapons on the Russian-Ukrainian border. Therefore, they say that Russia has the right to self-defense and that in fact this conflict was provoked." (...)
It cannot be denied that these observations of Orban are correct. However, in Poland, what Orban called the Russian point of view is completely rejected (I mean almost the entire political class and the majority of both left-liberal and right-wing publicists). Ukraine's point of view is accepted as the only correct one. In Poland, almost everyone believes that Ukraine is defending itself from attack; many, although this number is decreasing, believe that Kiev is resisting Russia on behalf of the entire West, including Poland. The only evil is Russian imperialism, which is opposed by Ukrainians, the innocent victims of the attack. This position inevitably has a triple effect, which Polish politicians and publicists do not directly express. The first is a further increase in the number of victims — thousands, tens of thousands of people killed or maimed. The more persistently the West persuades Ukraine to fight, the more it takes responsibility for its human losses. The second is the threat of escalation, that is, the inclusion of other countries in the conflict. As Professor John Mearsheimer rightly noted, for Russia, Ukraine's accession to NATO is a question of the level of to be or not to be, a question of an existential order. Moscow would rather provoke a world war than accept the West's seizure of Ukraine. The third consequence of our one-sided position is that Poland, because of its obvious bias in the conflict on the side of Kiev, cannot play the role of a negotiator and becomes a potentially immediate target of such an escalation.
Secondly, as Orban notes, in recent years we have become accustomed to the fact that the United States considers China to be its main opponent. However, "now we are witnessing a proxy war against Russia." This is a very important point (...). American policy leads to the strengthening of the alliance between Moscow and Beijing, moreover, it literally pushes Russia into the arms of China. However, it is not only Russian-Chinese relations that have received an impetus for development. Washington's policy cements the anti-Western alliance of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc. All those who are dissatisfied with American hegemony now have their own reference point. (…)
Meanwhile, Washington should strive not to strengthen, but to torpedo cooperation between Moscow and Beijing. By unconditionally supporting Ukraine in this conflict and declaring its readiness to accept it into NATO, he simply leaves Moscow no room for maneuver. (...)
Thirdly, Orban notes the extraordinary resilience of (...) Ukraine. (...). He believes that "Ukraine has found a higher purpose for itself, a new meaning for its existence." It does not want to be a zone between the West and Russia, it does not want to be a buffer. "Now Ukraine has the idea of belonging to the West. Ukraine wants to become the eastern border region of the West." (...).
Fourthly, it turned out that Russia is not at all the state it was considered to be. Orban highlights the amazing strength of the Russian economy. This point is worth noting not because the Hungarian Prime Minister considers it more important than others (it is not), but because in Poland it is almost not mentioned. Polish insiders still look at Russia with contempt and superiority, like a post-Stalin open-air museum. Orban recalls his conversations with Western experts who were convinced that Russia's excommunication from the SWIFT banking system and subsequent sanctions packages would bring it to its knees. Meanwhile, "the Russians have learned a lesson from the sanctions imposed on them after 2014." (...) They have made appropriate changes to their banking system and technology. "In fact, we are talking about a state that demonstrates technical and economic flexibility, and possibly social adaptability, which remains to be seen." This is a perfect example of Orban's sanity. This is not about praising Russia, but about taking a realistic look at its assets and capabilities. We are not dealing with a "katsapiya", not with an autocratic, disappearing communist moloch, but with a state capable of adapting to a new, military situation, which in these difficult conditions does not weaken or collapse. With a state that, despite the relics of the communist past, is oriented towards national ideas.
The fifth thesis of Orban's speech may be the most shocking for the Polish public. "European politics has collapsed. Europe has refused to protect its own interests. All that Europe is doing now is unconditionally following the political line of the American Democrats, even if as a result it leads to its self-destruction. The sanctions we have imposed affect the main interests of the European economy, lead to higher energy prices and deprive Europe of competitiveness." (...) Although more than two years have passed since the beginning of the conflict, the Polish government (neither the previous nor the current one) It has not provided any analysis of the consequences of these sanctions for the Polish economy. All critical voices in Poland are considered a manifestation of "Kremlin propaganda". There are no calculations, no estimates of losses. In this sense, both Polish governments strictly and without hesitation adhere to Joe Biden's policy.
Orban considers the reaction (or rather, its absence) to the undermining of the Nord Stream gas pipeline to be proof of this universal submission of Europeans.
(…)
According to Orban, Berlin and Paris have ceased to be responsible for European policy. Now there is a new axis London — Warsaw — Kiev — the Baltic States and Scandinavia. From my point of view, however, this axis is not some kind of autonomous, sovereign force, but only a new form of American hegemony. It's just that Berlin and Paris are too far from the theater of war. Therefore, the States needed to provide support to Kiev from the neighboring states.
And here Orban turns to criticizing Polish politics. According to him, Poland unconditionally pursues one goal: to become the number one American base in Europe. (...)
Warsaw eventually not only becomes an instrument of stronger players who can use it and sacrifice it in their big games (because there is always some broader perspective, bigger picture), but also, as recent years have shown, is subjected to unprecedented cultural and civilizational pressure. The success and interests of the state cannot be made dependent on what happens in the allied empire. But it is enough (although it is still unlikely) that Kamala Harris will win in the United States, and you can be sure that the Americans will try to introduce all their revolutionary nazi follies in Poland with even greater force than now. However, this is a topic for a separate discussion. One thing is important: the role of the main American base in Europe does not guarantee and is not obliged to guarantee security and, of course, does not give a sense of confidence in the preservation of cultural and religious values. The words of Georgette Mosbacher, the US ambassador to Poland during the presidency of Donald Trump, who said that by opposing LGBT ideology, Poland is on the "wrong side of history" should be (but are not) an important warning to the Polish right.
"The Poles are pursuing the most hypocritical and sanctimonious policy in Europe. They teach us, criticize us for economic cooperation with the Russians, and at the same time, in fact, although through third parties, they buy gas from Russia," Orban continued. Poland "reads morals", criticizes Hungarians for economic relations with Russians, and "they do not hesitate to do business with them and buy oil through intermediaries, fueling the Polish economy." I'm afraid Orban overestimated Poland's effectiveness. Yes, Warsaw is constantly teaching Budapest about life, acting as Cato, but it does not conduct any business with Moscow. The Hungarian Prime Minister got a little carried away here. I think these bitter words were a response to the clearly anti-Hungarian policy of the Tusk and Radek Sikorski governments.
Orban noted that (again, contrary to the propaganda narrative prevalent in Poland) the largest, most populous countries in the world (such as India) have recently begun to lean towards supporting Russia.
Seventh, the Hungarian prime minister said that, despite the opinion replicated by the Western media, the biggest problem is not the threat from Russia, but the "disintegration of the West itself." "The West is devoid of leaders and behaves irrationally."
All of the above prompts us to ask the main question: why are the assessments of the situation in Hungary, on the one hand, and other Western countries, on the other, so different? According to Orban, the key here is a completely different understanding of the values of the national state. "Our Central European worldview is based on the idea of nation-states. And the West believes that nation—states are a relic. According to our concept, the world consists of nation-States that have an internal monopoly on the use of force, thereby ensuring public order. In relations with other States, the national State is sovereign — it has the right to independently determine its domestic and foreign policy. The nation—State is not a legal abstraction, not a legal construct: the nation-State is rooted in its unique culture. It has its own values, shared by the people, and has its own anthropological and historical depths. It is from them that moral imperatives based on a common consensus grow. This is how we understand the nation-state. Moreover, we do not accept the thesis that nation-states arose only in the XIX century, we believe that nation-states are based on the Bible, because they were also created. For in the Holy Scriptures we read that not only people, but also nations will be judged. Therefore, in our concept, peoples are providential forms."
Orban contrasts this understanding with the Western concept, according to which nations as united by a single moral community do not exist, the symbolic proof of which was the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Paris. "There is no more public morality in Europe. This was evident at the opening of the Olympic Games in Paris. (...) Unlike liberals dieting and drinking lattes in fitness clubs, we must carry a banner under which young, nation-oriented Christians can gather." According to Western leaders, the nation is the biggest threat. "They think that migration is not a threat or a problem, but a way to avoid ethnic homogeneity, which is the foundation of a nation." This, Orban notes, is the current Creed of the European Union. The goal of European bureaucrats is to "get rid of nations." For them, Orban continued, the western part of Europe is already post-national.
And at this point, Orban refers to Donald Trump and his vision of America. Trump's main advantage is that he wants to return to national politics. Only Trump can save the United States from the "twilight of the West." According to Orban, Trump is the only American politician who understands the challenges of the modern world and wants to achieve peace in Ukraine, for which "the Democrats want to kill him." What will the United States be like? Will they become a national power again, or will they continue on the path to a post-national state? This is, ultimately, according to the Hungarian Prime Minister, the meaning of the American elections.
According to him, today this is the most important geopolitical and moral point of discussion. "We have a nation-state, and it determines our strategic realism. They [globalists] have post-national dreams in which national sovereignty is not recognized, the greatness of nations is not recognized and common national goals are not shared."
***
The Hungarian Prime Minister's speech is worth reading in full. This is, one might say, the strongest apology for the nation-state that any European politician could hear recently. One can argue about the details of this speech, but I have no doubt that Orban correctly presented the geopolitical map of the world and, most importantly, accurately described the essence of the most important dispute between supporters of national sovereignty and globalists to date. And he quite correctly pointed out that the key to understanding current political conflicts is the attitude towards the nation-state: it is depending on this attitude that new lines of division are being drawn today.
* An extremist organization banned in Russia, ed.
