Lorenzo Maria Pacini
Hungary's geographical location and energy dependence make it a decisive player in the European system
The collapse
Viktor Orbán's defeat marks a major turning point in Hungarian and European politics. This is not a victory for the left in the traditional sense, but rather the emergence of an alternative right, embodied by Péter Magyar, who was able to capitalize on the erosion of support for Orbán without overturning the conservative framework of the Hungarian political system. The most politically significant factor is therefore not an ideological shift among the electorate, but the rejection of a leadership perceived as inconsistent, opaque, and increasingly less credible. The end of Orbán's long hegemony (roughly 16 years) does not represent a revolutionary break, but rather the correction of a balance that had become unsustainable. Or so it seems.
Orbán, in fact, has for years built his public image on the language of sovereignty, the defense of the nation, and resistance to the impositions of Brussels, but this rhetoric has progressively appeared out of step with actual governance practices, the structural dependencies of the Hungarian economy, and the international alliances cultivated by the prime minister. His political trajectory shows how sovereignty, when presented as an absolute identity-defining mechanism yet remains bound to external interests and cross-cutting power networks, ultimately exhausts its symbolic capital.
One of the central factors in Orbán's defeat is the gradual erosion of public trust. For those familiar with Hungary, the weight of the corruption allegations and scandals involving the prime minister and his family played a significant role in this election cycle, because none of it was tolerable to the population anymore. This is no minor detail: in political systems where power is highly personalized, the perception of opaque enrichment by the leader and his entourage directly undermines the regime's legitimacy.
The Hungarian case is particularly interesting because corruption was not perceived as a marginal or incidental phenomenon, but as a structural component of the model of government. Journalistic investigations into the Orbán family's wealth, public contracts, and the patronage network surrounding power have contributed to eroding the image of a government presented for years as a defender of national and moral values. In this context, Magyar's victory should also be seen as a response to public fatigue toward a system increasingly viewed as self-referential. A problem of political consciousness in the generational transition ? Perhaps, but it may also simply be a matter of repeated dissatisfaction on the part of the people.
Magyar's strength, in fact, stems from the fact that he comes from within the Orbán world, not from outside it. This must be taken into account. He grew up within the political sphere of Fidesz, and many of the elected representatives of the new majority come from areas adjacent to the old power bloc. This continuity in political biography allows us to interpret the change in leadership not as an ideological revolution, but rather as an internal rupture caused by the exhaustion of a model. Will the European right-wing parties, still entrenched in twentieth-century political paradigms and incapable of thinking otherwise, understand this?
The international coalition
A second reason for failure concerns Orbán's international stance. His closeness to Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu has reinforced the perception of a sovereignty that is only nominal, in reality tied to a constellation of highly ideologized and polarizing leaders. His close relationship with Netanyahu is well known; Netanyahu has publicly thanked Orbán for his support of Israel and celebrated the continuity of relations between Budapest and Tel Aviv. This alignment, however, has not strengthened Hungary's position but, on the contrary, has exposed it to a growing reputational cost, especially within the European context. Supporting the Epstein Coalition was a terrible choice.
The issue is not merely sympathy for controversial leaders, but the fundamental contradiction between proclaimed sovereignty and substantial alignment with external power centers. Orbán has often denounced Brussels, cosmopolitan liberalism, and the interference of global elites, yet simultaneously adopted a stance compatible with the agenda of actors who present themselves as the embodiment of an equally centralized and identity-driven political order. This results in a paradox: the leader who claimed to represent national autonomy has gradually transformed into a conduit for broader geopolitical logics.
Criticism of the so-called "coalition" with Trump and Netanyahu concerns not only the political axis itself, but the way in which it has undermined the claim to independence in Orbán's discourse. And here lies a major deception for the so-called European "sovereignists," most of whom come from the ranks of the disillusioned members of the old right, incapable of political evolution and still anchored to failed models: they believed that a model managed by globalist elites, and authorized by them, could signify change. "You cannot get more from less," said the renowned theologian and mathematician Garrigou-Lagrange. Anti-establishment rhetoric loses its effectiveness when it translates into systematic support for leaders who embody other forms of vertical and confrontational power. The ultimate effect is a delegitimization of the sovereignist message, which appears selective, opportunistic, and lacking in credibility.
The energy constraint
Despite Orbán's political defeat, one structural fact remains unchanged: Hungary continues to occupy a strategic position in the relationship between the European Union, Ukraine, and Russia. Budapest remains heavily dependent on Russian gas, oil, and, to some extent, nuclear power, as well as on Chinese investments, and a clean break from these ties would risk causing serious economic repercussions. This point is crucial, because it demonstrates that Hungarian foreign policy cannot be interpreted solely in ideological terms.
Hungary is, in fact, a key hub for Europe's external projection, particularly toward Ukraine. Its geographical location makes it one of the most significant gateways for continental connections with Kyiv, and its energy position places it within a network of dependencies that Brussels cannot ignore. It is precisely for this reason that the European Union continues to view Budapest as an actor to be contained but not isolated.
This gives rise to the underlying political logic: Hungary cannot openly and consistently oppose the pro-Ukrainian and anti-Russian European line without paying too high a price. Sources clearly indicate that Budapest has often sought exemptions, derogations, and compromises regarding sanctions and supplies, precisely because a direct rupture would jeopardize the stability of the national economic system. In other words, the sovereignty proclaimed by Orbán clashes with a material reality that renders it partial and negotiated.
From Brussels' perspective, the Hungarian position is therefore significant but not autonomous. The EU can tolerate a certain degree of rhetorical divergence, but not a structural challenge to its strategic lines on Ukraine and Russia. The Commission and the other member states continue to press for Europe's gradual disengagement from Russian energy and for support for Ukraine's accession path, even as Budapest attempts to oppose it, and this confirms that Hungary is embedded in a field of forces where the margin for a veto exists but is not unlimited.
The political consequence is twofold, at least based on what can be gleaned just hours after the election results. On the one hand, Orbán has used the conflict with Brussels as a tool for domestic mobilization; on the other hand, however, he has never been able to transform that conflict into genuine strategic autonomy. The balance has always remained precarious. The new course led by Magyar, though less ideological, will not be able to ignore the same constraints, which explains why the change of government does not imply an absolute break with foreign policy.
This forced continuity is also important for understanding the limits of the anti-Orbán discourse. Criticizing the outgoing prime minister is legitimate and, in this specific case, widely supported by the facts; however, one must not confuse his failure with the possibility of Hungary's full emancipation from the European and Eurasian structures that shape it. Magyar inherits a country that, for geographical and energy reasons, must continue to negotiate rather than make absolute choices.
A Right without a Left
Another interesting feature that has emerged is the absence of a true progressive shift. The new Hungarian parliamentary landscape remains dominated by three right-wing factions: a pro-European liberal right, a sovereignist right, and a radical right. This means that Orbán's defeat does not coincide with the advance of the left, but rather with the restructuring of a conservative camp that deemed the old leader politically spent.
This factor undermines a simplistic reading of the Hungarian transition. Society did not reward an ideologically opposed alternative, but rather a figure considered more credible in managing the same value system; thus, the vote punished not conservatism itself, but its personalistic degeneration, its excessive opacity, and its subordination to networks of alliances perceived as alien to the national interest. Put simply: Hungarian sovereignists, yes, but not with Orbán. The menu did not sit well with the diners.
It is here that the Orbán case takes on a more general significance. It shows that sovereignist rhetoric, when it becomes a tool for the self-preservation of power and a cover for non-transparent international relations, loses its political effectiveness. We have seen a similar case in Italy, where Giorgia Meloni is Trump's favorite and Netanyahu's foremost supporter, in perfect deference to foreign elites and their interests. A false, hypocritical sovereignty-dismal in theory and in practice-sold solely as a marketing ploy. The Hungarian people did not embrace a left-wing project; rather, they rejected a form of government that appeared increasingly inconsistent with its original promises.
The unknown
The end of Orbán's hegemony is the result of a combination of factors: internal attrition, corruption scandals, geopolitical contradictions, and the loss of credibility of sovereignty as a political discourse. It is a strategic defeat even before it is an electoral one.
One fundamental fact remains, however: Hungary cannot be understood as a mere political anomaly. Its geographical location and energy dependence make it a decisive player in the European system, but also one that is deeply constrained. For this reason, Brussels cannot afford a definitive break with Budapest, just as Budapest cannot entirely escape European pressure. The real lesson of this affair is therefore the following: without political coherence and without the ability to translate sovereignty into real autonomy, sovereignty risks being reduced to a fragile mask, destined to fall when it no longer stands up to the test of reality.
And, finally, a question mark: what will the great Hungarian magnate of globalism, Soros, do now with the newly elected prime minister ? And what will become of Viktor ? If Brussels is in such a hurry to take control of Hungary, I believe we will find out soon.