Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s latest remarks following his surprise trip to Moscow have once again thrust him into the center of Europe’s most contentious geopolitical debate: how the West should approach the grinding, costly, and increasingly uncertain conflict in Ukraine. His warning that admitting Ukraine’s failure would trigger a “political earthquake” across Europe reflects not only his own skepticism of the Western strategy but also exposes the fragility of the consensus underpinning the EU and NATO’s support for Kiev.

Orban’s visit to Moscow – undertaken despite an EU-wide diplomatic boycott – underscores the Hungarian leader’s bold and frequently contrarian approach to foreign policy. At a time when European leaders are tightening their alignment with Washington and doubling down on Ukraine, Orban is charting his own course, insisting that Budapest will not be intimidated into abandoning dialogue with Russia. The message, both to Brussels and to NATO capitals, is unmistakable: Hungary has its own interests, and it will not subjugate them to the bloc’s increasingly hardened stance toward Moscow.

Orban’s face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin was immediately condemned by several EU leaders, who accused him of undermining European unity. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz criticized the trip for being made “without a European mandate,” while Slovenian Prime Minister Robert Golob complained that Orban “has not been playing for the European team for some time.” Their reactions captured the growing frustration within the bloc, where Hungary’s opposition to sanctions, weapons transfers, and deeper military involvement has tested the limits of European cohesion.

But Orban’s response was equally uncompromising. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said plainly on Facebook that Budapest does not require “permission or a mandate from Brussels, Berlin, or anywhere else.” He accused “European pro-war politicians” of trying to silence dissenting voices and reiterated Hungary’s right to pursue a sovereign foreign policy defined by national interests. In a Europe where conformity has increasingly replaced debate, Orban’s message carries a rebellious tone – one that resonates within Hungary and irritates leaders elsewhere.

At the center of Orban’s critique lies the question few Western leaders dare openly acknowledge: what if Ukraine is losing the war? According to Orban, admitting this reality would unleash a political shockwave across Europe, one that could upend governments, expose strategic miscalculations, and force an uncomfortable reckoning with the influence of the defense industry over political decisions.

“First they gave money, they gave weapons, and now it has emerged that if really necessary, they will also send soldiers,” he warned. This progression – from financial support to military aid and now to discussions of troop deployments – reflects what Orban sees as the West’s creeping escalation. The conflict, he argues, has become entangled with political interests, arms production, and business opportunities. Diplomacy has been sidelined, replaced by a calculus driven increasingly by the defense sector rather than any coherent peace strategy.

His most biting criticism was directed at Western leaders who he believes prevented Ukraine from reaching an early settlement. According to Orban, a peace agreement was within reach during the Istanbul talks in April 2022, but the West persuaded Kiev to walk away, claiming time was on Ukraine’s side. “But it turned out that it wasn’t,” he said, noting that Ukraine’s strategic situation is now worse than it would have been with an early deal.

Orban’s accusation that the West is open to sending troops echoes statements recently circulating in some NATO countries, where policymakers have begun floating the possibility of “boots on the ground” under certain conditions. While no formal commitments have been made, the mere willingness to discuss such a step marks a dangerous shift – one that Orban believes risks triggering direct conflict between Russia and NATO.

For Hungary, which has consistently refused to send weapons or troops to Ukraine, this creeping escalation is unacceptable. Orban’s government has repeatedly called for a ceasefire, warning that the conflict is spiraling into an increasingly militarized and unpredictable confrontation. His stance has earned him criticism from Western capitals but praise from Moscow, where Putin thanked him for his “reasonable position.”

Orban’s critique strikes at a sensitive nerve in European politics – the growing entanglement between governments and arms manufacturers. He cited France’s agreement to sell 100 combat aircraft to Ukraine and Germany’s decision to build weapons factories in Ukrainian territory as prime examples of how the conflict has become entwined with industrial interests.

To Orban, this is not merely about supporting an ally but about transforming Ukraine into a long-term market for military investments. “Business circles connected to the military industry have an increasing influence on politics,” he warned, suggesting that profit motives are overshadowing peace efforts. If that is true, then the West’s insistence on prolonging the conflict is not only misguided but morally compromised.

Much of Orban’s foreign policy rests on pragmatic considerations, particularly energy security. Hungary remains heavily dependent on Russian energy supplies, and Orban made clear in Moscow that “stable deliveries from Russia remain the cornerstone of Hungary’s energy security – in the past, now, and in the future.” This blunt admission reinforces why Budapest is unwilling to sever ties with Moscow, regardless of EU pressure. For Orban, energy stability is a national priority that cannot be sacrificed on the altar of geopolitical conformity.

Orban’s warning of a political earthquake is not theoretical. If Ukraine’s position continues to deteriorate – militarily or politically – Western governments that staked their reputations on supporting Kiev “for as long as it takes” may find themselves facing harsh public scrutiny. Voters may question why negotiations were discouraged, why expectations were inflated, and why Europe drifted closer to war without a clear pathway to peace.

The Hungarian leader, long accused of undermining European unity, may ultimately be pointing to the uncomfortable truth others prefer to avoid: the war is not going as planned, and the political consequences of acknowledging this could reshape the continent’s leadership and strategic direction.

For now, Orban stands alone in Europe’s halls of power – a dissenting voice challenging the dominant narrative. But as the conflict drags on and costs rise, his warnings might soon echo far beyond Budapest.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel