The political director of the Hungarian prime minister, Balázs Orbán, delivered one of the most articulate and frontal criticisms of the current political direction of the European Union during the forum ‘Battle for the Soul of Europe.’ In an extensive speech, Orbán claimed that the continent is simultaneously facing a migratory, economic, political, and strategic crisis, and that these tensions reveal that “Europe has lost its soul,” understood as the set of principles and orientations that should guide it.
The Hungarian leader defended the relevance of the event’s title, explaining that the idea of “soul” in politics functions as a reference framework that allows us to know who we are, where we come from, and where we are heading. If Europe lacks that framework, he warned, it is because it has stopped recognizing its values and has lost its ability to orient itself morally and politically. In later comments to europeanconservative.com, Orbán summarized his orientation in four principles that, in his view, should guide Europe’s patriotic movements: “no to war, no to migration, no to higher taxes, and no to surrender.”
One of the central points of his intervention was immigration. Orbán rejected the narrative, widespread in some European media, claiming that Hungary “won the migration battle” in 2015. In his view, this is an illusion that conceals the real problem: the European Union has failed to stop the arrival of approximately one million migrants per year, nor has it built a system capable of protecting citizens. He stressed that Hungary’s policy of “zero illegal immigration” has led to the country being fined one million euros per day by European institutions, a sanction he described as “morally incomprehensible,” given that his government, he recalled, has reduced illegal entries to zero. He also cited research pointing to a growing risk of internal conflict in some Western European countries, warning that ignoring these trends will only aggravate social tension in the next decade.
Orbán identified the economy as the second pillar of the multicrisis. He agreed with ideologically distant figures such as Mario Draghi that Europe is entering a cycle of stagnation that could degenerate into a deeper process of economic decline. In his view, this deterioration does not result from natural or inevitable factors but from misguided political decisions, especially in energy and regulatory matters. He criticized Europe for having abandoned models of affordable energy, which has increased industrial costs and weakened the middle class, while the proliferation of regulations has pushed companies to relocate to the United States, China, or the Gulf states. In a comparative tone, he highlighted that “while Germany allocates between five and seven percent of its annual GDP to migration integration policies, Hungary directs those resources toward strengthening families through tax incentives and programs for young people,” reinforcing its commitment to the demographic sustainability of the country.
On the political front, Orbán warned of a growing disconnection between the EU’s elites and European citizens. He argued that, faced with social discontent caused by migration and economic management, “European institutions have chosen to intensify political control instead of correcting their policies.” He mentioned legal proceedings against Hungary, actions against opposition leaders in France, and investigations against sovereignist parties in Germany as examples of what he considered a systematic strategy to preserve power against the rise of political forces critical of the direction of the European project. For Orbán, these dynamics are “symptoms of democratic deterioration that should concern all Europeans.”
The conflict in Ukraine was the final component of his analysis. Although he stressed the moral responsibility of helping Ukraine after the Russian aggression, he denounced that the war has become the central argument used to justify an acceleration of the federalist project. According to Orbán, before the war, centralization was defended by promising economic prosperity in exchange for sovereignty. Now, he said, it is presented as an unavoidable military necessity in the face of an allegedly inevitable war with Russia. This shift, he warned, “could lead to a permanent state of political exception in which freedom of expression diminishes,” national sovereignty is reduced, and European budgets fall outside the control of the member states. He also criticized the European Union for refusing to explore diplomatic avenues to end the conflict, in contrast to what he described as diplomatic efforts by the United States to reach a negotiated solution.
Orbán concluded his intervention with a call for cooperation among conservative and sovereignist parties across Europe. He affirmed that Hungary is preparing to strengthen its position through new electoral victories and that, thereafter, his objective will be to push for a change of leadership in Brussels. Only a profound renewal at the institutional summit, he argued, will make it possible to stop the centralisation process that, in his opinion, threatens to dilute the sovereignty of member states, restrict political freedom, and push the European Union even further away from the real priorities of its citizens. His final message was a reminder of political urgency: Europe must recover its soul if it wishes to recover its direction.
