Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Calm as a Strategy: Why Ukraine Should Avoid a War of Words with Hungary Ahead of the Elections

In high diplomacy, it's not loud statements that matter, but quiet calculations. Professor László Bruszt urges Kyiv to a measured response — and explains why this could protect Ukraine's interests during a critical pre-election period in Hungary.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

March 11, 2026 · 2 min read

Calm as a Strategy: Why Ukraine Should Avoid a War of Words with Hungary Ahead of the Elections
Віктор Орбан (Фото: Olivier Hoslet/EPA)

Context: why this topic matters now

Currently relations between Kyiv and Budapest are under additional strain against the background of a number of specific events: the blocking of an EU loan of €90 billion (20 February 2026), public statements and diplomatic escalations in early March, and an incident involving the detention of Ukrainian cash couriers near Budapest on 6 March. Against this backdrop, parliamentary elections will be held in Hungary on 12 April 2026, the result of which could directly affect Budapest's future course toward Ukraine.

Expert position

"Ukrainian officials should respond more calmly to aggressive statements by Hungarian politicians. Ukraine does not need a verbal confrontation with another neighbor. Most Hungarians would like to see a free and flourishing country as a neighbor and a full-fledged EU member"

— Laslo Bruszt, director of the Institute of Democracy, professor of sociology at Central European University (Budapest)

Why calm may be more beneficial for Ukraine

Rationality: verbal escalation at this moment could strengthen electoral moods in favor of the ruling coalition in Hungary, which is interested in political risks and external crises as a mobilization tool.

Practical consequences: decisions by the Hungarian government have already affected Ukraine's economic interests — the suspension of transit of Russian oil and the blocking of the European loan directly affect finances and reconstruction. Verbal confrontations can complicate work on diplomatic channels to recover funds and restore cooperation.

Social space: experts note that in democratic election cycles external rhetoric is often used as an element of domestic politics. Therefore moderate diplomacy can reduce the possibility of instrumentalizing the Ukrainian issue within Hungary.

Brief chronological snapshot of key facts

  • 20 February 2026 — Hungary blocked an EU loan of €90 billion in response to the halt of Russian oil transit through the "Druzhba" pipeline.
  • 5 March 2026 — President Zelensky made a public statement about a potential blocking of the loan, apparently addressed to a specific individual.
  • 6 March 2026 — seven Ukrainian cash couriers were detained near Budapest; they later returned to Ukraine, while the funds remain under the control of Hungarian authorities.
  • 12 April 2026 — parliamentary elections in Hungary, which may determine the country's future foreign policy course.

Conclusion: tactics instead of emotion

According to Laslo Bruszt, what matters for Ukraine today are not loud responses but preserving options for diplomatic maneuvering. That means combining public firm defense of national interests with careful behind-the-scenes work — so that political changes in Hungary do not turn into a new risk factor for Ukraine's security and reconstruction. The ball is now in the partners' court: declarations and rhetoric must be turned into concrete steps that will guarantee our country's financial and energy resilience.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026