AI-generated interview qa format analysis of the interview
Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán discusses global shifts, national sovereignty, migration, the Ukraine war, and Christian values. He emphasizes Hungary's distinct path, prioritizing national interests and traditional values amidst a changing Europe.
Published March 18, 2026
Upload your interview recording and get the same detailed AI analysis.
Upload Your InterviewThis interview qa format was automatically generated by AI from the interview transcription. The analysis provides structured insights and key information extracted from the conversation.
Viktor Orban
Complete analysis processed by AI from the interview transcription
Interviewer: Prime Minister Viktor Orban, thank you so much for speaking to GB News. You've been Prime Minister of Hungary for 16 years now. You're standing for a record fifth term in office against the background of a war in your neighbourhood, a war in the Middle East, now a global oil crisis. Back in January, you said that the liberal world order is dead. Is that still your assessment of what's going on in the world?
Interviewee: I think this is a new age now. It started to change not in the last two or three years, it started far earlier. And I think now this new world order is under development. And if we call the previous period of the modern politics as the age of liberal something, now it's definitely over and something else is coming. Nobody created a good name for that, but we know that this is something else. We call it patriotic, probably it's not accurate enough, but something like that. From the global liberal, we are moving to the local patriotic.
Interviewer: I think you said in January, perhaps the age of nations would be a good way to characterise it. I was at the peace march on Sunday, amazing event. I think some of the mobile phone companies are saying 180,000 people came out in support of Fidesz, in support of Hungary itself. It was a march for peace. And yet one of your closest allies, Donald Trump, has just started a war in Iran. Do you think he was wrong to bomb Iran?
Interviewee: The question is whether he has started a war or a peace. It hasn't decided yet. Historians will make a decision on that. Because if I understood clearly his intention, which based on my conversation with him several weeks ago in Washington, his understanding is that Iran is a source of a war. So to consolidate or to strike Iraq is something to be done against a war headquarter. So that's his approach. I think we need some time to understand whether we are moving to the peace by these strikes, or just the opposite. It's too early to say.
Interviewer: Did you advise him not to start the bombing?
Interviewee: He never authorized me to review what we have discussed anyway. But I'm a more cautious guy than the president is, especially because I had experiences with previous conflicts on this region. And the lesson I have got that you think it's easy to destroy the army of a country, but then it turned to be very difficult to consolidate the power. And you finally will feel a temptation to do it by moving into boots on the ground. And then you can stuck into that. So the risk for the Americans, for President Trump, and for the whole peace-loving community of the West is now high.
Interviewer: And one of the reasons that you were the first European leader to come out in support of Trump was his agenda of peace, as well as the view that he shares with you that essentially nations should act in their own national interests and not generally interfere in other people's wars, in other people's politics. Do you think that Trump has let you down, has let European patriots down in that sense?
Interviewee: OK, so that was one reason you have just mentioned why I was always positive with him and to him, and publicly saying that it was in 2015 or something like that. But that was only one reason. But that was another one, which is more about leadership. But my understanding of the leadership capacity of the West is rather bad. So that kind of attitude, what we have, an old elite, academic-based, intellectually-based, ideologically biased, routine, trust, more trust in institutions than the capacity of a leader, you know? That's paralyzed the whole Western world. So my point was that we need something new, somebody who is different, something who is coming from a different place. I was not aware who is he, but I realized that this person, I mean, Donald Trump could be a maverick, probably, but he is a person who will shake up the whole thing of the Western leadership concept, because we need personal leadership, personal responsibility, and brave man. So that was the reason why the very first one, that could be good for the West.
Interviewer: He could break the deadlock.
Interviewee: And to create a new kind of character of leader, you know? What's going on in Europe? I'm not an expert in the American politics, but in Europe, I'm living among the leaders. And in Europe, the general conviction is that strong leader is a bad thing, because strong leader represents danger. The good thing is institutions, because institutions can run the countries, and the job of a leader and politicians, nothing else, just to manage the institutions, which is totally mistaken, you know? So it's bad. So that's the concept of leadership, which must be changed. And he did so.
Interviewer: But I suppose the reason that Western Europe has gone down that route is because the lesson that they learned, particularly from the Second World War, is that you need institutions, you need law, you need international law to moderate the power of leaders. But you're saying they've just gone too far.
Interviewee: No, no, the point is that we need institutions. And when things are going well, institutions are stabilizing and helpful. But when the crises are coming up and dilemmas appear on the horizon, somebody should make decisions. Institutions will never. Because certain things could be decided only by human being, by his own values, principles, personal courage, and so on. So when troubles are coming, we need leaders, not institutions. Somebody who is strong enough, brave enough, and ready to take the responsibility of the decision. We don't have enough that kind of leaders at this moment in Europe. Luckily enough, in the United States, now they have.
Interviewer: One potential crisis that could be coming up is another migration crisis. In 2015, of course, hundreds of thousands of migrants made their way across Europe after the fallout in Syria and the Middle East. And on Sunday, in your speech, you said you remember that migration invasion. And you said Iran is nine times larger than Syria. There are 90 million people in Iran. The Israeli-Muslim conflict has moved into Western Europe because there they let in migrants. Do you fear that one of the possible outcomes of this war in Iran is another flood of people making their way across Europe?
Interviewee: Yes, I do. I think now we have two difficulties approaching us from that conflict. One is migration, exactly as you have elaborated. And the other one is energy and the impact of this war on the energy supply and the price of the energy. So these two crises or turmoil situation could come or could be created. Yeah. Our migration especially, we are sensitive to that because, you know, Hungary is a landlocked country and we are just on the road of the migrants they regularly used coming from Turkey to Europe. And hundreds of thousands appeared a decade ago on our borderline. And we were the only country in Europe who decided to stop them. And even we raise a fence and guard the border by military forces. So we stopped them. No migration and no migrants in Hungary. So the number of migrants in Hungary today is zero. I'm very proud of it anyway. A lot of discussion erupted because of that. I was criticized. Hungary was criticized. But the time definitely shows that we were right. Now, even we have a nasty discussion with the European Union because we still defend the Hungarian borderline, which means we defend the European Union borderline as well. But at the same time, we are punished. We are sanctioned 1 million euro per day because we do what we are doing. So instead of getting approval, we are punished.
Interviewer: They're not grateful for your efforts. It's just crazy. So I visited the fence on the border with Serbia back in January. It is quite an amazing endeavor and it's cost a lot of money. I think for a British...
Interviewee: More than 2 billion euro together over the last several years to maintain the defense system at the borderline.
Interviewer: And I think from a British point of view, what seems very frustrating is that we left the European Union in part to control migration. And yet last year, 40,000 people crossed the channel on small boats, even though we're outside the EU. Whereas you've managed to control the situation from within the EU. What's the secret?
Interviewee: Determination. So if you decide that you stop them, stop them. So it's sometimes it's not the nicest job. But if you decide that this is our borderline and nobody can cross it without our permission, you have to keep the line and you have to do so. So in Hungary, it's very simple. If somebody is crossing the borderline without getting the permission prior of that from the authorities, it's a crime. And we treat them as crime makers. So if you're not tough enough, you can't be half, half tough, you know. Yes or no. There is no between.
Interviewer: So do you think Sir Keir Starmer then, for example, and Rishi Sumak before him are just weak leaders for not changing the law to make it illegal?
Interviewee: I'm not as brave to criticize any leader of the UK.
Interviewer: I suppose some people would say that if you are going to not follow the law, the European rules, I should say, on immigration, I think they want you to take more asylum seekers later on this year. If you're not going to follow the rules, why not just leave the European Union?
Interviewee: First of all, we are living in a territory of in between, west and east. And culturally, philosophically, historically, we always belong to the west. We belong to the Roman Christian tradition of Europe, not to the Orthodox one, and neither to the Muslim one, which is south down. So therefore, to belong to the European Union for a Hungarian mind is partly at least a question of civilization where you belong to. The second is, which is a more pragmatic approach, you know, it's a 10 million country. We lost our territories as an outcome in the First World War. No energy sources, no raw materials, you know, so we were sentenced to death, but we survived. So what we need is labor, and products created by labor, we need markets. And European Union means market. European Union represents not value for us. It simply represents a market for us. Value is a different issue. Unfortunately, direction to where the European Union is moving in terms of values, nothing has to do with the values, what we confess or believe in. So therefore, more and more, European Union is a pragmatic issue, a market for the Hungarian products and the business community.
Interviewer: You were one of the first leaders to warn about the consequences of mass migration. Very few other leaders spoke about it at the time. Yet that is what we've seen across Western Europe. But is immigration that's the problem for you? Or is it Islam? Is it this dilution of Western culture?
Interviewee: I'm a man who is in favor of freedom always. So if you let somebody to get into your country, and you are a freedom lover person as I am, you cannot say what they should believe in or not. Are they Christian or Muslims who are wearing that dress or another one? Because you accept them as part of your community, and now freedom is the principle. So if you would not like to live with somebody, you don't share the value, you have to stop them at the border and say, guys or girls, we love you, but this is not your place. And the Hungarian concept is very simple. So we think that the mixture, especially quick and artificial mixture of various civilizations in one territory can create a lot of difficulties and high risk. I understand what the liberals are saying in the West, that if we mixed up Muslim cultures with Christian cultures, it could be resulted in a higher level, more attractive, liberal society, whatsoever. Probably yes, but probably not. And you know, if you make that attempt, and you prove to be unsuccessful, you can't come back to the starting point. So we Hungarians simply think that we are a Christian country. We would like to maintain our identity, and we would not like to mix up our civilization, pattern and fabric with something else. And we think we have the right to decide like that, because this is a question of national authority. And we are a sovereign country, so we can decide with whom we would like to live with, and with whom not. So that this is a basic right of a nation, and we insist it, insisting to have it.
Interviewer: And I think Hungary is 95% ethnic Hungarians. In Britain, 75% of people identify as white British. British. By 2063, it's probably going to be fewer than half of people identify as white British. British. Is Britain still British anymore? Is there any way back for British culture?
Interviewee: You know, I think that each nation, each nation has the right to decide how to develop into the future. So if the British think so that they love it, let's do it. The only thing what I am insisting, that there is a right of the Hungarians to define how we would like to continue our history, and with whom we would like to live with. I would not like to convince anybody what is good or bad or should be done. I am just a poor Hungarian prime minister insisting on the basic rights of the Hungarians, and we do not have that risk. We are Hungarians, we are living here, we have many good neighbors, central Europeans, culturally representing similarities with us. So we don't need foreigners coming from other far distance civilizations. So I have nothing against with the Muslim civilization. I think it's a great achievement of the human being, and definitely they have their own place, and this place is definitely not Hungary.
Interviewer: But even though you at the moment have the ability to stop immigration into Hungary, it does affect you indirectly, mass immigration in Europe. The fact that you said countries can choose mass migration if they want to. Well, the British people have voted against mass migration over a number of years. Many, many people in Europe now are opposed to mass migration, and yet it has happened. Do you think that represents a failure of European democracy?
Interviewee: Well, democracy is a good thing. So how I survived that stormy discussion with the European leaders, who definitely not just opposed, but tried to crash me down because of our position on migration. I turned to the people and I said, migration is the issue. It's not an issue of the political elite. It's about the future of Hungary, your kids, your grandkids. So why we don't have a common decision on that. Let's discuss it. And we had a referendum. They said, no. So democracy helps. But unfortunately, Hungary is the only country, as far as I know, organized a referendum on migration in the Western European country.
Interviewer: Well, we don't have a great experience with referendums in the UK, as you know. Can we move on to... The last one was okay. It was a time of political turmoil, put it that way. And let's move to the war closer to home. The war in Ukraine. You've made this election very much about Ukraine and what will happen next. Your government has angered many in the EU by opposing financial support, weapons support to Zelenskyy. Why have you declined to join in that support? Because this is the war which has nothing to do with it.
Interviewee: It's not our war. It's a war, a brother, war of brothers of two nations, two Slavic nations, Russians and Ukrainians. I'm Hungarian. We have nothing to do with it. It's their wars, not ours.
Interviewer: Do you not think, though, that Putin is the aggressor? He chose to cross the border. He's committing war crimes, many allegations suggest. Is there not a moral duty, I suppose, to support Ukrainians as the victims in this particular conflict?
Interviewee: No, I don't think so. There is a strong discussion here as well, how this war has broken out. And I have no doubts that from international law point of view, it's an aggression on behalf of Russia against Ukraine. The question is why we decided, I mean Westerners, Hungary was not involved in Western communities, decided to change the status of Ukraine. Because the political status of Ukraine for two decades was a buffer zone country. Then we started to accept that they would like to join NATO and European Union. The Russians made very clear at the very first moment that if NATO is moving to the Russian border, accepting Ukraine as a member, that will be a reason for a war. And we neglected that point of the Russians. So we changed, basically, we changed the security system of Europe without having an agreement on that with the Russians, and they responded in a war. This is the story I understood. But it's obvious that to attack another country, which has happened, done by the Russians, it's an aggression by international law. So that's the point. All the crimes and other issues, let's clarify after the war. We suffered a lot of wars when opponents accused each other, being war crime makers and all that kind of things. So if we would like to clarify that points, which are important, we need some time after the war. It's too early to do so. Now we should concentrate on stopping the war, because the war is going on. No solution on the front line. Christians are dying every day, thousands of the Christians and 400,000 victims in a year. And brutal, you know. Slavs when they are fighting against each other tend to be very brutal. The borderline does not move. So we don't see clearly what is the sense of the continuation of that conflict instead of to concentrate on all the efforts creating some ceasefire or peace. So we don't feel at all that we have any moral or political duty to the Ukrainians. What we had, we fulfilled. Because when the war has started, we let all the Ukrainians who escaped from Ukraine to the West to come to Hungary. We provided shelter, food, labor. We created Ukrainian language schools for their kids to be educated here in Hungary on Ukrainian language. So we have done everything that must be done by a Christian community to help them.
Interviewer: So you describe your position as pragmatic, as pro-Hungarian, as in favour of peace. But your critics say you're in favour of Putin and that you're more interested in making sure you can continue to buy his oil than you are in supporting the Ukrainians. How do you respond to those critics?
Interviewee: The point is that we think that the Russians should not be pushed out first from the European security system, should not be pushed out from the European energy system and should not be pushed out from the trade system of Europe. So what's going on is bad and we would like to consolidate the situation as soon as we can. So we don't see any sense why we should not create a new security system of Europe involving the Russians. Why we don't create a new energy system for Europe involving the sources from Russia and so on and so on. So war is a war, must be closed and then we should return to the old harmony or, if we disagree on that subject, let's create a new security and trade system together with the Russians.
Interviewer: But do you think, as say Donald Trump might say, we need peace through strength and you've criticised European leaders for preparing to go to war, for creating a war economy. But if we don't re-arm, if Europe doesn't have stronger armed forces, if they're not in theory at least willing to fight back, won't Putin just continue to grab land and take on more wars again?
Interviewee: Okay. First of all, I share the point that we have to re-arm ourselves. No question of that, because Europe is too weak and not able to defend itself. So we need more capacities. So we have to sanction ourselves, but not the Ukrainian army. That's not the issue. I don't support to sanction the Ukrainian army, but I support all the efforts to strengthen the European Union and NATO members' military capacity. That's first. Second, we have an understanding of the Russian situation, and we think that Russia, even militarily, put aside the nuclear capacity, but on a conventional field, Russia is far weaker than the European countries. So they have 130, 40 million people. In the European Union, we have 400 million. Our GDP is rocketing compared with the Russian one. Even in the European Union, spending of military security is far higher than they do in Russia.
Interviewer: So we are not terrified at all by the Russians. We are terrified to fight. And as you say, we have more population, we have more wealth. But what we don't have is a willingness to put men into the battlefield. And yet, many European leaders want Ukraine to continue to fight. So how is this going to end?
Interviewee: No, no, I think Europe should concentrate and focus on itself, not on Ukraine. Ukraine is not a solution. Ukraine is a problem. Ukraine makes us weaker and not stronger. If we would like to be stronger, we have to concentrate on ourselves, not on Ukraine. Ukraine is just secondary issue for us. The first issue is to provide a security system in Europe, which is good enough and safe enough for us, Hungarians, UK, Germans whatsoever, Polish. So we need it. So we have to work for that. That's the reason why we should have higher quality military capacities, not in favor to confront it with the Russians. But we can confront it successfully with the Ukrainians, but you cannot do never the same with us because we are far stronger than Ukraine is. Ukraine is one kind of cake with another one. So I share the point of those, knowing the Russians, that the Russians understand the language of strengths. So if we would like to be treated properly by the Russians, and we would like to have positions to the Russians, we have to be very, very strong. But Ukraine makes us weaker, not stronger. That's my problem.
Interviewer: You've said that European leaders who are prolonging the war by sending aid and arms to Ukraine are warmongers. Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the UK at the time the war broke out, was one of the leaders of those saying that we should support Ukraine as long as it takes. Do you think Boris Johnson is a warmonger? Is he responsible for a lot of the deaths that have taken place?
Interviewee: I met him at that time in London, nice meeting anyway, sophisticated leader anyway. And we disagreed on that point in a civilized manner anyway. And we discussed this point strategically. So it's not a personal issue. The question is, what is the goal? If the goal is to strike and to beat and crush down the Russians, I disagree. If the target is to create a new security system which is safe enough for Boris Johnson and for the Hungarians at the same time, yes, we can agree. So it depends on what is your prime target. The prime target is security, peace and long term stability.
Interviewer: In Britain, Zelenskyy is seen as a war hero. Here in Budapest, I've seen a number of posters of Zelenskyy, negative ones, one for the election saying, don't let Zelenskyy have the last laugh. Do you think he is a war hero? Why do we see him like that in the UK?
Interviewee: You know, in Hungary, his reputation is not very high. And the reason is that he has a request or demands, which is very much against the interest of the Hungarians. The first is that he always even blackmailing us to stop to buy cheap Russian oil, which is totally against our interest. Now he cut off the pipeline, we deliver Russian oil to Hungary. That's absolutely negative here in Hungary.
Interviewer: Of course, he denies that. He said that it was a Russian drone strike on the pipeline.
Interviewee: He denied it at the first point, but now he's saying very publicly that he has no intention to restart, relaunch the pipeline. So now he's fair enough to say that it's a political decision on behalf of Ukraine. We don't like it, but at least it's a clear cut message. So that's the first. The second, he would like to get more money from the European Union, including Hungary, and we would not like to give our money to Ukraine. The third one that he would like to see Ukraine in the European Union. We disagree with that. We think that European Union and Ukraine should have a good relation, even a strategic partnership, but no membership. And finally, he has a request that on a moral basis, we should accept that this war is our war, which is not. So these are the conflict points. We disagree with him. And we are the only country in Europe, which are ready to say it publicly, regardless what is his hero position in the Western media or at home. That's another issue. So we don't attack the Ukrainians. We would like to have good relation with the Ukrainians, but we don't accept any requests of the Ukrainians, which are against the interests of the Hungarians.
Interviewer: Do you see Ukraine as a buffer between Hungary and Russia?
Interviewee: Definitely. That was always the case. Okay. Let's go back. 1990, the communist regime collapsed. Versa pact over. Hungary was not a member of NATO for eight years or nine years. So nine years, Hungary was also a buffer zone. It's not good. So I know what is it. Then finally, we were able to manage to join NATO. Okay. Then the next step was to help Ukraine into NATO. We worked a lot on that, anyway. And as far as I remember, in Bucharest 2007 or 2008 was a NATO summit when we discussed it. And we said no. I was in favor, anyway. I was in favor. The big guy said no. So then it was obvious that the Russians now are strong enough to stop the process of enlargement of NATO. So after that point, I said, guys, this is a new age. That kind of stretching of NATO to the east is over. The Russians became too strong. Now they are able to stop this process. Now we have to accept this new reality. And let's make a deal how to live peacefully together. That was always my position, which means that Ukraine is a buffer zone. Then now, after the Maidan, they started to change their position and it resulted in a war. I respect the national sovereignty of each nation. Among them, the Ukrainians. They can make their decision how they would like to continue as a buffer zone or try to join the European Union or not whatsoever. But I cannot accept that what they request can create a moral compulsory for us. So it's their will and we have our own interest and we will make our decision not on their will, not on the basis of their will, but on the basis of the Hungarian interest.
Interviewer: These two ideas of national sovereignty and pragmatism tie together all these policies on Ukraine, are not accepting asylum seekers, are wanting peace. Do you think Hungary and the Hungarians do have any obligation to any other peoples in the world, to any refugees, for example, to other countries?
Interviewee: Of course, because we are a Christian country, so we have duties. But not a single duty to fulfill any duties could be resulted in to destroy ourselves. This is not a duty. Hungary first, and then we can help all the others who we can.
Interviewer: Let's move on to domestic matters. You're facing this big election in less than four weeks' time. It's difficult to see where the polls are heading. Some polls are putting your opponents Tisa quite far ahead, others putting Fidesz ahead. It's not just the policies of your government that have faced criticism. There are lots of allegations about corruption and procurement scandals involving the government and people close to yourself. Do you think those allegations are going to have a big impact on how people vote at the election?
Interviewee: Each allegation has an impact, of course. But the fact is that in Hungary we have the very standard West European practices in all these issues. I hope we are a little bit better than the others, but definitely not worse. So it's a normal West European country.
Interviewer: So you think it's kind of inevitable after 16 years in government that these scandals will fall? Are you trying to address any of them specifically and deny them?
Interviewee: Of course, all of them. We have to address all of them, because each case should be taken seriously. And we do it anyway. But you know, that's a political fight. It's a propaganda. When you are in government, then the opposition always use the propaganda that you are corrupt. So you can't avoid that. But you have to be very clear cut in your answers.
Interviewer: Some EU agencies have concern about freedom of the press here. Why have you outlawed foreign ownership of Hungarian media? Oh, they have a lot. A lot of concerns?
Interviewee: No, no, no. I mean, a lot of foreign ownership. So, okay, when I came back to power 2010, the Hungarian media, which was the press, radios, TV channels, commercial TV channels, 80% was owned by Germans. That's pretty too much anyway. So I said, guys, this is not good for the country. Let's find a more balanced situation. And I convinced Hungarian capital owners to invest into media. And they did so. So now the situation is far more balanced in terms of foreigners, foreign owned and Hungarian owned media. Politically, it was 90% liberal. Now it's 50-50. It's more fair.
Interviewer: Your opponents say that Fidesz directly or indirectly controls the majority of the media and that's to avoid scrutiny. Do you think that's true?
Interviewee: No, but if you go to the media and trust your own eyes, you can see what's going on. So the biggest editorial community is basically belonging to the opposition. So if you would like to raise your voices or raise your voice in Hungary, you can do without any limits. Or if you would like to collect various different opinions, you can do so. It's a very vibrant, multicolour, colourful media venue.
Interviewer: You've expressed concerns that Brussels are trying to intervene in this election in support of your opponent. Your opponent alleges that Russians are trying to intervene in support of Fidesz. The Financial Times have reported that a Russian disinformation agency has set up to try and help Fidesz, not with Fidesz support, but set up to try and keep Fidesz in power. Do you think this foreign interference is actually undermining Hungarian sovereignty?
Interviewee: We have to be aware that it's a constant danger. It's a 10 million country, I mean by inhabitants. Bigger countries can live with that modern phenomena more easily than we do. So we have to take it seriously. I don't think that Russia should set up anything disinformation center. Have you told Putin? If I understand correctly, this information system does not request to be present at the site. Exactly. But have you asked Putin not to interfere? We ask everybody, not just Putin. We ask everybody, do your job, not ours. But in Brussels, no question that there is an official policy of helping those parties who are pro-European or pro-European Union and pro-Brussels. And they finance them as well. So all the civic organizations which are active in Hungary, NGOs supporting the opposition, pro-European Union, all finance from Brussels. That's an interference. It's going on.
Interviewer: Do you think the Fidesz campaign is scaremongering though, saying that if TISA were to win, Hungarians would be called up to fight in Ukraine, Ukraine would end up joining the European Union, borders would have to be opened. Do you think they are realistic possibilities or is this just scaremongering to get those?
Interviewee: No, this is the fact, of course. This is the future we can choose for us. But I strongly, strongly not suggest to the Hungarians to do so. But it's obvious. If the pro-Brussellians will win, we will continue the same policy as Brussels has on migration, on Ukraine as well. So Brussels strategic line is rejected now in Hungary, but the new party or a new government will definitely pro-Brussellian on the Ukrainian issue as well. Money, weapons, membership of European Union, they will support Ukraine. They even have a referendum, a party referendum on that, whether I'm in the opposition, whether they are supportive to membership of Ukraine into European or not. And 60% said yes. So now a pro-Ukrainian or Ukrainian-friendly government is a close reality. That's what I am fighting against at this moment.
Interviewer: On Sunday, I attended the Peace March. Some of the mobile phone companies say around 180,000 people turned out in support of peace in support of you. It was quite an emotional experience, actually. People with Hungarian flags, it was very peaceful. People brought their families, their children along. As a Brit, where we don't do those kind of things anymore, it was really, really moving. I spoke to lots of your supporters who are very, very keen that Fidesz wins, that are worried about what happens next time. But they said that their concern is that many people in Hungary are just wary. After 16 years of Fidesz in power, 16 years of you being prime minister, they just want a change. Do you think Fidesz can kind of overcome that feeling of weariness and wanting something new?
Interviewee: So first of all, Peace March is always about the national dignity. So that's what you have seen anyway. Yes, of course, to be in power for 16 years, or altogether 20, could be boring. The question is not that. And I'm not younger than I was, so it's less attractive, definitely. But the question is what kind of dilemma we have ahead of us. And I think now we are living in a very dangerous period of the European politics. And the basic value what we need is security. And our government can provide security far more than anybody else here in Hungary. And finally, the people will understand it and they will support us and we will vote for security because we are the safe choice. So I think, yes, I can. We have still a lot of plans for the future. We are ready to fight for our country. We love our country. And we will defend the interest of Hungary against Brussels, Kiev whatsoever. So I think we have plenty of arguments why we should be re-elected. And I hope the people will do so.
Interviewer: If the only way to form a government would be to go into coalition with the Homeland Party, would you go down that route?
Interviewee: No, I would like to get absolute majority. The target is two-thirds. The Hungarian system definitely helps the winner. That's the reason why in the last four terms, we have two-thirds majorities in the parliament.
Interviewer: I love it. I would like to repeat it. But if it was that or being in opposition, a coalition or opposition, you're going to win. We win. We win the election. That's the only way out of the government.
Interviewee: We win the election.
Interviewer: Can we move quickly to family policy? Like all Western nations, Hungary's birth rate is well below replacement rate. Yet you've taken a number of steps that are almost unique in Europe to try and boost the birth rate, tax breaks, benefits for parents, benefits for married couples. Has it worked?
Interviewee: So one is the birth rate, as you have said. That's important. There is no kid. There is no future. That's so simple. So we need kids. But you know, this modern lifestyle of the European people is not very much in favor of having a high number of kids and raise them, unfortunately. So we have to do something to help the young couples to be more brave, to take more responsibility, more kids. So that's one thing. But there's another issue as well, another point which I follow. And this is a kind of justice. You know, I think it's simply not fair that if you have kids, your living standards decline. And those who don't take that responsibility, living higher living, living higher standards of life than you, who took your responsibility. So what I'm doing, I try to find a way that regardless how many kids you have, your material chances and well-being should be on the same level. So that's the only reason, the only way to reach that target is to help those who have kids. So that's the reason why we have tax allowances for the families. Plus, which is absolutely unique that mothers, at least by two kids, don't pay income tax till the end of their life and many other programs we have. So we trust the mothers anyway. And we think that if you would like to have stronger families and more kids, we have to strengthen the mothers.
Interviewer: There certainly was an uptick in the birth rate from 2010 against the European trend and same with the marriage rate, which has gone up a lot. But it's still a long way from replacement level as it is in all of Europe. Do you think Hungary is actually going to have to turn to immigration for demographic challenge?
Interviewee: I think finally, we will win that battle. And I think the young generation will come back to the pattern of our grandparents. And we will have again, basically, strong and big families in Hungary. country. And we will have no need to have any kind of extra people coming from migration. So I still strongly believe that we can maintain ourselves on our national basis. But it takes time. It's basically a kind of battle of beliefs. And I have a strong belief.
Interviewer: A lot of people in Britain particularly think that discussions about family and birth rate and marriage are none of the government's business that these kind of family policies are regressive, they're an affront to women's rights, that the government just shouldn't be getting involved. What do you say to them?
Interviewee: I think basically they are right. So we have to be very cautious. You know, Hungarians are even more sensitive than the British one. I think so. So, you know, my castle is my house. This is the basic philosophy here. If the government tried to help in a way which the people think is too aggressive, they reject immediately. And I think they are right, which is a sensitive issue. Because, you know, of course, we are speaking about the future of the nation when we speak about the kids. But at the same time, we are speaking on private matter. So private matter is private matter. So we have to find very sophisticated instruments how we can help the families. But I think it's legitimate for the government to think about the families and the future of the nation, but not legitimate to interfere into their life.
Interviewer: Finally, I want to move on to issues about Western civilization, the future of Europe. You've been one of the only Western leaders willing to talk about the need to defend Christian civilization. What does it mean in 2026 to be a Christian country?
Interviewee: Okay. So if I have a correct understanding of the recent history of Europe, Europe, we had a wonderful Christian Europe for long, long, long centuries. And then the modern ages arrived and everybody was questioned. And as an outcome of this new development, two traditions in the modern politics developed into our society. The first is those modern political forces who remained inside the Christian civilization and considered it as a heritage, as a value, as something which we have to deliver with us to the future. The other, what we call left, said, no, this is not the way Christianity is belonging to the past. A new age is coming, communist or liberal whatsoever. And therefore, it's nothing else, just museum and history. And unfortunately now, because of the migration, those who are not committed to the Christian values, getting more and more majority in the Western societies. So it's not just a natural tendency, it's enlarged by the migration as well, because those who are coming in are not Christians, but basically Muslims. So now the Christian roots are dying out in the European politics. So at the same time, to be believer or not is a private issue. So nobody can be forced to follow any kind of religious teaching. But the point is that Christianity beyond the personal contact and relation to the God is basically a complex system of teachings about what is good and what is bad. And I think that kind of teachings we need, even those who are not able or not willing to find a way, the personal way and relation to the God. So regardless whether you are a believer or not, the set of Christian teachings is a good way to organize our societies. That's what I believe. And we have to discuss it publicly and to convince more and more people and to attract them back from the modern leftist liberal politics to the Christian based conservative politics. That's what I'm doing.
Interviewer: But do you think that is possible without actual Christian belief? So here in Hungary, the evidence of Christian heritage is here for all to see, but it's actually not a particularly religious country, have very low church attendance. And I just wonder if the roots of Christianity are about personal belief, but personal virtue and behavior. Is it possible to regain that Christian heritage without more people taking on the belief?
Interviewee: Yeah, I think it's a good question. I think no. So a kind of evangelization of the societies are necessary. But in Hungary, if you are speaking on Christianity as a political culture and a set of teachings, it's a little bit easier than in your country, I suppose. Because in Hungary, it's obvious that without Christianity, the nation would not have been able to survive the last difficult centuries. So nation and Christianity in Hungary is basically unified in one, in one feeling, in one consciousness. It's not so obvious in other countries. And this is said even in the Hungarian constitution. So I think because the national and Christian cultures hand-in-hand living together in Hungary, we have better chances to resurrect the real Christian personal belief here in Hungary than in other countries. But I, you know, that's just the hope. We will see it. We are all in hands of God.
Interviewer: One of the teachings of Christianity is that all believers are brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of where in the world you live. Do you think that Christianity and nationalism are compatible?
Interviewee: In the story of the Hungarian history, you can see definitely, yes.
Interviewer: So are you worried about some of these movements, for example, that we're seeing in Britain, where people are taking on Christianity, perhaps for political reasons, rather than actually espousing its beliefs?
Interviewee: Okay, I belong to the Protestant tradition here in Hungary. So it's easier for me to argue, no, no, no. I'm a minority, of course. And it's easy for me or easier for me to argue on the basis of the nation in favor of Christianity as well. But in Hungary, even my Catholic brothers has a very clear point on that. They say that the God created not only individuals, but nations as well. So nations belong to the good creature of the God. So therefore, nation cannot be confronted or to be in contrast with the Christian belief. So if we manage properly, that's the Catholic teaching here, you can harmonize the national aspiration and the Christian teachings and universal Catholic belief as well. So that's how the Hungarian Catholics think about this. That's the reason why on the national basis, the Calvinist and the Catholic can cooperate with Hungary here easily.
Interviewer: Do you think that Western civilization can be saved under our current democratic system in Europe? And what do you think is more important, preserving our democratic system or preserving our national identities?
Interviewee: Culture is always the first. National identity is the first. And then, we have to find the political system which provides the most possible freedom for everybody. But the basis is not the freedom. The basis is the nation and the culture. And then you have to build up something politically. And your line to take could and should be freedom. Because Jesus Christ created us on his own face. So therefore, you know, freedom is essential.
Interviewer: It is the freedom that Christ has set us free. And finally, you have had a lifetime in politics. You're hoping for another four years as prime minister. What's your greatest regret in terms of what you have or haven't achieved? And what do you think is your greatest achievement?
Interviewee: Politically speaking, because you know, what I can regret is that politics has eaten up too much of my personal life and time. So I spend less hours and weeks and months with my kids and grandkids than they would deserve and than I would have loved. So that's the basic thing. But you know, this is common with all the politicians who have families. Probably, probably, I was not determined enough to manage to create some developments here in Hungary which could have provided national sovereignty in the field of energy. Especially, I was not aggressive enough on nuclear energy. We do it, but we do it too slowly. So that's probably, if you are asking me on the political difficulties which coming from our decision, this is the number one. The biggest one is that we are still a Christian country. And you know, in Europe now we are living in a liberal ocean and Hungary is still a country of difference, an island of difference, a conservative and Christian country, even if that kind of liberal ocean is getting stronger and stronger surrounding us. And I think finally, we created a European movement as well, we called the Patriots, which can change the tide, turn the tide, even in Brussels. Not just help us to defend our national sovereignty and national culture, but at the same time provide some chance for us to get a majority in Brussels. Because we have two ways, if we would not like to continue as it is going on now in Europe. One is your way, Brexit. The other one, go in, occupy Brussels and change them. That's what I'm working on.
Interviewer: Mr. Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, thank you so much for your time.
Interviewee: Thank you.
Upload your interview recording and get the same detailed AI analysis.
Upload Your Interview