Political autonomy in international affairs is a concept that America abandoned long ago. Likewise, the premise of being unbound by permanent alliances and avoiding perpetual involvement with foreign military entanglements is also a relic of a distant and mostly forgotten past. Instead, policy predicated upon national interest and the principle of restraint inherent to the latter has been replaced by secular zealotry and a call to ideological crusade.
It is therefore no coincidence that one of the most powerful and authoritative priestesses of the faith arrived in Budapest this past February. When the head of USAID, Samantha Power, comes to your country and spouts off about America’s role in facilitating “civil society” and “independent journalism,” you are not only right to be worried—you have a duty to stay vigilant.
A prudent statesman
The reason behind the liberal internationalist empire deploying one of its greatest political warriors to the Central European country should be obvious. It is because Hungary’s President Viktor Orbán is one of the most effective practitioners of statecraft in the world today. Effective statecraft here means approaching international relations in a manner that prioritizes the interests of one’s own country. Orbán understands that the task with which he is entrusted as head of state is not to figure out the best way to relinquish national sovereignty to centralized ideologues.
Rather, his primary objective is to increase the security of his people—inherent to which is minimizing external threats from foreign countries. His commitment to do this, rather than ‘spreading democracy’ and implementing left-wing social policy, makes him a heathen in the eyes of the secular faithful.
Orbán’s interview with the Swiss publication Die Weltwoche is an excellent example of this fact. He criticized Western policy in Ukraine for its total subservience to the United States government. The Hungarian president also stated out loud what every honest observer of international affairs implicitly knows to be true: the European-U.S. approach to the Russo-Ukrainian war is careless at best, and actively trying to push escalation at the worst. Far from a Putin apologist, Orbán clearly articulated the perspective of the war as held by the Russian president. And he did it without empty moralizing over a struggle between good and evil. His attempt to step back and actually understand the dynamic of events that led to the war in itself sets him apart from nearly every other leader in the transatlantic world.
At the same time, there is talk of Orbán visiting Kyiv sometime in the near future, where he will ostensibly meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In a symbolism-laden move, Moscow subsequently suspended the visa-free entry of Hungarian diplomats to the Russian Federation. Orbán has also commented that the primary focus in the ongoing war must be “to ensure that Ukraine prevails,” despite his uneasiness regarding the prospect of Kyiv becoming a member of NATO in the next several years. These are not contradictory positions. Even if Putin did have geopolitical ambitions beyond eastern Ukraine, this is not at present logistically or operationally possible (and won’t be at any point in the near future). Kyiv’s ascension to the transatlantic alliance would guarantee further escalation that would otherwise not take place.
Orbán understands this. His prudent statesmanship has naturally earned him the lambast of the Western world’s self-proclaimed defenders of democracy, and has been met with the disapprobation of the international foreign policy press over his failure to demonstrate a visceral hatred of Putin even before the current war began. Even now, they shrug aside his expressions of support for Ukraine, and instead condemn him for not expressing a full-throated support for neoliberal dogmatism.
Clearly, Orbán’s intention is not to bow down before Moscow or Kyiv; rather, it is to understand the conflict in its totality so that a realistic path to ending the conflict can be developed. This type of measured approach is representative of the fact that he navigates the landscape of international relations according to the security interests of the Hungarian people—not the ideological precepts of an elite ruling class.
Lessons from Budapest
The technocrats who function as the cogs of the liberal international order do not understand this concept. Their allegiance is only to the universalist values of the secular religion described earlier. A refusal to adhere to the tenets of the faith must subsequently be met with punishment. This is the root of the recent spat between Orbán and the EU over the latter’s suspension of up to $30 billion in funds. Brussels claims the right to dictate the institutional structure of Hungary’s judicial system. It also demands the country accept the magisterium on LGBT rights.
Orbán’s refusal to simply prostrate himself before the foreign policy diktats of the Brussels and Washington elite without first considering Hungary’s national interests is inextricable from his understanding of the liberal international order in general. His envisioned outline for the future of conservatism—“no migration, no gender, no war”—at CPAC Budapest this past May is a near perfect antithesis of the central tenets of neoliberalism. Being a proponent of mutual exchange and peaceful coexistence is not supposed to equate to trading one’s identity for marginal economic gain. Likewise, participating in a military alliance should not come at the expense of the safety and security of one’s own people.
It is therefore also appropriate that Orbán would mention the role of the Democrat Party in the United States as synonymous with the ideological technocrats attempting to impose policy from Brussels. The Hungarian president posited that had Donald Trump been the chief executive of the United States, there would not have been an invasion of Ukraine—or at least the prospects for a negotiated settlement would have materialized by now. Orbán reaffirmed his displeasure with the existing neoliberal framework at CPAC, and stated that he hopes Trump will return to the White House in 2024.
However, it is not the case that the U.S. Republican Party as a whole is much better than the Democrats on these issues. There are many elements in the ‘center-right’ establishment that wish to see an increased role for the United States in the Ukraine conflict in particular, and an even larger U.S. presence in—and subsequent influence over—European foreign policy in general. Consider the words of Republican candidate Nikki Haley, former U.S. Ambassador to the UN: “[The war] is more than just about Ukraine. This is a war about freedom. And it’s a war we have to win.”
The neocon view espoused by Haley (and former Vice President Mike Pence) is entirely out of step with the nation’s right-leaning base. The U.S. conservative movement at present has in many ways become the opposite of that which existed during the Bush era, at least in terms of foreign policy. Most individuals who align themselves with this new conservatism reject the establishment consensus regarding America as the ‘indispensable nation’ tasked with building liberal democratic regimes around the world. It is the heartland’s sons and daughters who have been sent to die on foreign soil for this ill-advised mission. Their sacrifice has been rewarded with economic dislocation and utter contempt by the coastal bastions.
It is therefore something like Orbán’s measured approach to international affairs that has to be the standard for whoever wins the Republican nomination in 2024. The strategic situation of each respective country is of course different in major ways, but the principle stands: the United States should approach the war in Ukraine in a manner that seeks to deescalate the situation and prioritize a pathway to a reasonable and realistic peace. This means conducting an honest assessment of the situation on the ground, as well as taking the respective security interests of both Russia and Ukraine into account.
Unfortunately, this does not coincide with the tenets of liberal internationalism held by the technocratic faithful who are the true arbiters of Western policy. Former Fox News Host Tucker Carlson’s regarding the U.S. approach to the war in Ukraine returned promising answers from those vying for the Republican nomination. These responses effectively channeled the views of a conservative base in the United States that demands a measured and intelligent foreign policy; in other words, a return to the republican principles of the American Founding. One that prioritizes the interests of its own nation—a foreign policy closer to Orbán’s, rather than Biden’s or von der Leyen’s.
Likely candidate Ron Desantis has also expressed something similar to an Orbán-like take on foreign policy, as has candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Liberal internationalists believe that their dreams of globalist grandeur are on the right side of history, and that such a nationalist foreign policy is therefore backwards. They will subsequently seek to use their collective power to suppress it to the best of their ability. But as the war drags on, the desire for peace will only continue to grow across the entire Western world. If conservative politicians are able to mobilize that sentiment into political action, they can win power. A coalition of governments that seek to return to a more balanced system predicated upon actual calculations of relative strength and national interest can then push back on the bankrupt one-world ideology of the technocratic elite.
Resurrecting the Balance of Power: Lessons From the Statesmanship of Viktor Orbán
Political autonomy in international affairs is a concept that America abandoned long ago. Likewise, the premise of being unbound by permanent alliances and avoiding perpetual involvement with foreign military entanglements is also a relic of a distant and mostly forgotten past. Instead, policy predicated upon national interest and the principle of restraint inherent to the latter has been replaced by secular zealotry and a call to ideological crusade.
It is therefore no coincidence that one of the most powerful and authoritative priestesses of the faith arrived in Budapest this past February. When the head of USAID, Samantha Power, comes to your country and spouts off about America’s role in facilitating “civil society” and “independent journalism,” you are not only right to be worried—you have a duty to stay vigilant.
A prudent statesman
The reason behind the liberal internationalist empire deploying one of its greatest political warriors to the Central European country should be obvious. It is because Hungary’s President Viktor Orbán is one of the most effective practitioners of statecraft in the world today. Effective statecraft here means approaching international relations in a manner that prioritizes the interests of one’s own country. Orbán understands that the task with which he is entrusted as head of state is not to figure out the best way to relinquish national sovereignty to centralized ideologues.
Rather, his primary objective is to increase the security of his people—inherent to which is minimizing external threats from foreign countries. His commitment to do this, rather than ‘spreading democracy’ and implementing left-wing social policy, makes him a heathen in the eyes of the secular faithful.
Orbán’s interview with the Swiss publication Die Weltwoche is an excellent example of this fact. He criticized Western policy in Ukraine for its total subservience to the United States government. The Hungarian president also stated out loud what every honest observer of international affairs implicitly knows to be true: the European-U.S. approach to the Russo-Ukrainian war is careless at best, and actively trying to push escalation at the worst. Far from a Putin apologist, Orbán clearly articulated the perspective of the war as held by the Russian president. And he did it without empty moralizing over a struggle between good and evil. His attempt to step back and actually understand the dynamic of events that led to the war in itself sets him apart from nearly every other leader in the transatlantic world.
At the same time, there is talk of Orbán visiting Kyiv sometime in the near future, where he will ostensibly meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In a symbolism-laden move, Moscow subsequently suspended the visa-free entry of Hungarian diplomats to the Russian Federation. Orbán has also commented that the primary focus in the ongoing war must be “to ensure that Ukraine prevails,” despite his uneasiness regarding the prospect of Kyiv becoming a member of NATO in the next several years. These are not contradictory positions. Even if Putin did have geopolitical ambitions beyond eastern Ukraine, this is not at present logistically or operationally possible (and won’t be at any point in the near future). Kyiv’s ascension to the transatlantic alliance would guarantee further escalation that would otherwise not take place.
Orbán understands this. His prudent statesmanship has naturally earned him the lambast of the Western world’s self-proclaimed defenders of democracy, and has been met with the disapprobation of the international foreign policy press over his failure to demonstrate a visceral hatred of Putin even before the current war began. Even now, they shrug aside his expressions of support for Ukraine, and instead condemn him for not expressing a full-throated support for neoliberal dogmatism.
Clearly, Orbán’s intention is not to bow down before Moscow or Kyiv; rather, it is to understand the conflict in its totality so that a realistic path to ending the conflict can be developed. This type of measured approach is representative of the fact that he navigates the landscape of international relations according to the security interests of the Hungarian people—not the ideological precepts of an elite ruling class.
Lessons from Budapest
The technocrats who function as the cogs of the liberal international order do not understand this concept. Their allegiance is only to the universalist values of the secular religion described earlier. A refusal to adhere to the tenets of the faith must subsequently be met with punishment. This is the root of the recent spat between Orbán and the EU over the latter’s suspension of up to $30 billion in funds. Brussels claims the right to dictate the institutional structure of Hungary’s judicial system. It also demands the country accept the magisterium on LGBT rights.
Orbán’s refusal to simply prostrate himself before the foreign policy diktats of the Brussels and Washington elite without first considering Hungary’s national interests is inextricable from his understanding of the liberal international order in general. His envisioned outline for the future of conservatism—“no migration, no gender, no war”—at CPAC Budapest this past May is a near perfect antithesis of the central tenets of neoliberalism. Being a proponent of mutual exchange and peaceful coexistence is not supposed to equate to trading one’s identity for marginal economic gain. Likewise, participating in a military alliance should not come at the expense of the safety and security of one’s own people.
It is therefore also appropriate that Orbán would mention the role of the Democrat Party in the United States as synonymous with the ideological technocrats attempting to impose policy from Brussels. The Hungarian president posited that had Donald Trump been the chief executive of the United States, there would not have been an invasion of Ukraine—or at least the prospects for a negotiated settlement would have materialized by now. Orbán reaffirmed his displeasure with the existing neoliberal framework at CPAC, and stated that he hopes Trump will return to the White House in 2024.
However, it is not the case that the U.S. Republican Party as a whole is much better than the Democrats on these issues. There are many elements in the ‘center-right’ establishment that wish to see an increased role for the United States in the Ukraine conflict in particular, and an even larger U.S. presence in—and subsequent influence over—European foreign policy in general. Consider the words of Republican candidate Nikki Haley, former U.S. Ambassador to the UN: “[The war] is more than just about Ukraine. This is a war about freedom. And it’s a war we have to win.”
The neocon view espoused by Haley (and former Vice President Mike Pence) is entirely out of step with the nation’s right-leaning base. The U.S. conservative movement at present has in many ways become the opposite of that which existed during the Bush era, at least in terms of foreign policy. Most individuals who align themselves with this new conservatism reject the establishment consensus regarding America as the ‘indispensable nation’ tasked with building liberal democratic regimes around the world. It is the heartland’s sons and daughters who have been sent to die on foreign soil for this ill-advised mission. Their sacrifice has been rewarded with economic dislocation and utter contempt by the coastal bastions.
It is therefore something like Orbán’s measured approach to international affairs that has to be the standard for whoever wins the Republican nomination in 2024. The strategic situation of each respective country is of course different in major ways, but the principle stands: the United States should approach the war in Ukraine in a manner that seeks to deescalate the situation and prioritize a pathway to a reasonable and realistic peace. This means conducting an honest assessment of the situation on the ground, as well as taking the respective security interests of both Russia and Ukraine into account.
Unfortunately, this does not coincide with the tenets of liberal internationalism held by the technocratic faithful who are the true arbiters of Western policy. Former Fox News Host Tucker Carlson’s regarding the U.S. approach to the war in Ukraine returned promising answers from those vying for the Republican nomination. These responses effectively channeled the views of a conservative base in the United States that demands a measured and intelligent foreign policy; in other words, a return to the republican principles of the American Founding. One that prioritizes the interests of its own nation—a foreign policy closer to Orbán’s, rather than Biden’s or von der Leyen’s.
Likely candidate Ron Desantis has also expressed something similar to an Orbán-like take on foreign policy, as has candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Liberal internationalists believe that their dreams of globalist grandeur are on the right side of history, and that such a nationalist foreign policy is therefore backwards. They will subsequently seek to use their collective power to suppress it to the best of their ability. But as the war drags on, the desire for peace will only continue to grow across the entire Western world. If conservative politicians are able to mobilize that sentiment into political action, they can win power. A coalition of governments that seek to return to a more balanced system predicated upon actual calculations of relative strength and national interest can then push back on the bankrupt one-world ideology of the technocratic elite.
READ NEXT
Putting Down Our Parent Civilisation: Do We Live in the West, or Euthan-Asia?
Trump’s Triumph—a Turning Point for Europe?
Pan-Conservativi: A New Global Conservative Reality