Maria Kiseleva: More than once you have said that you do not agree with the sanctions against Russia. Where is the boundary beyond which Hungary might use its veto?

Around Berlin. Based on the European concept, the European Union’s greatest asset lies in its unity. This is equally true of foreign policy, military policy and security policy, because Europe’s self-image is influenced by the fact that after World War II its fate was decided by two great powers outside Europe. The most important element in the entire European Union’s cohesive force is Europe’s desire to reclaim the right to decide its own fate. But this needs strength, and if there is no unity, there is no strength. Therefore, as long as the Germans want to maintain the sanctions against Russia, this can hardly change – regardless of whether Hungary agrees or not.

What are the consequences of this war of sanctions? Which Hungarian sectors have suffered most in consequence of the sanctions and the response to them?

Hungary is suffering for two reasons: from the sanctions and from the measures taken by Russia in response. This is painful because the Russians do not want sanctions against Hungary and similarly Hungary does not want sanctions against Russia. Yet despite this we are sustaining losses. Compared to Russia, Hungary is a small country. We are not each other’s enemies, and yet we are now mutually causing each other losses. We do not want a cold war. Therefore, beyond the economic losses, we are now trying to rescue our other relations. There are situations when we are on opposite sides of an issue, but both parties are aware the whole time that they are not enemies. The case of European sanctions is just such a situation. We are suffering greatly in the area of agricultural products, and indirectly we are also suffering a great deal due to the slowdown in Russian investment in Hungary. After all, why would a Russian business want to invest in another country which is imposing sanctions on its own country? One of the most important topics of yesterday’s meeting was that, in spite of the negative political climate, we should encourage investors to invest in each other’s countries.

NATO decided at the beginning of February to open centres in six countries (Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania). This decision was heavily criticised in Moscow. Why is Hungary not on this list? And do you agree that this is a response to Russia’s aggressive policy?

We believe that we must come to an agreement. I understand the reactions of the Baltic States. Their perception of security risks is different from ours. We understand and accept that they pursue their own path. At the same time, Hungarian-Russian relations are different. This, too, is a turbulent story. It is not an easy story at all – but it is different. Back in 2009, when I was in opposition, I agreed with President Putin when he received me in St. Petersburg that in Hungarian-Russian relations we should both attempt to concentrate on the future, rather than on history and the past. This is what we are doing now. Hungary does not need special security measures, as they would not increase our security, given that Russia is no threat to us.

But is Hungary able to maintain this position? After all, Hungary is bound by its NATO agreement.

Yes, we are a NATO Member State. We have always been good and loyal allies, and we will remain so. But we are allies, and not hostages. NATO is an alliance of free countries, and we do not wish to give up the right to make sovereign decisions within the boundaries of that alliance.

You earlier pledged to build an illiberal democracy in Hungary, and this created quite a stir in the press. Could you explain the essence of this illiberal democracy and tell us what elements of the regimes in Russia and Turkey you would like to adopt?

First of all, we are talking about something of an intellectual nature, while everything in European politics revolves around practical measures. European leaders rarely make statements or comments of an intellectual nature because they only ever create problems. My case is no exception. But I make these statements once a year as part of a free university event. So this is how you should view what I am going to say. A situation has emerged in Europe in the past twenty years in which one of the three main intellectual tendencies – Christian democracy, social democracy and liberal democracy – has gained overwhelming dominance, and the followers of this tendency have monopolised democracy for themselves. This is why in Europe people are now allowed to say that democracy can only be liberal, but you are not allowed say that democracy can only be Christian democratic or that democracy can only be social democratic. I take the view that if any one of these competing ideas monopolises democracy, it simply stifles intellectual debate. You cannot conduct a reasonable debate on the premise that if I am not liberal, I cannot be a democrat either. This is a form of discrimination, a cunningly devised discrimination. It is a threat to intellectual freedom. For my part, I entered politics at the end of the eighties in the name of intellectual freedom. I am not a socialist, but how can you exclude the socialists from a debate on democracy? If they do not accept liberal precepts, does that mean that they are not democrats? Why should we, Christian democrats, accept that we can only be democrats if we are also liberal? This is unfair, and I therefore did not use the term “anti-liberal”, because I acknowledge a number of values of liberalism but I do not accept that it should have a privileged status. This is why I said “illiberal”, or in other words “non-liberal”. Of course, in the English-speaking world this is the gravest blasphemy of all; in those countries, those who want anything “illiberal”, or an “illiberal democracy”, are seen as wanting nothing short of hell on earth. But this is not something we should be afraid of, or else we could lose our freedom and end up in a state of liberal non-democracy. As regards Russia and Turkey, that is another question. I challenge the assertion that there is anyone in the world who can determine the only true description of democracy. I disapprove of someone wanting to impose something on the rest of the world that was successful in his own life, regardless of cultural differences. Why should the Russians build a political system like ours? Russian culture is different, it has its specificities. The Russians themselves will decide what they want – we cannot act like masters. Who authorised us to act like masters? Similarly, we take the view that pushing the idea of democracy in the Arabic world at the time of the Arab Spring caused more harm than good, because we failed to take into consideration the fact that it is a different culture. As regards the question directly, Turkey is a very successful country, and Russia was also doing very well until the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine, which is now causing the Russian economy grave problems. I would merely suggest that it is worth exploring why others are more successful. I treat with reservation any approach that looks upon those who are more competitive than us as less valuable than our own political system. This is arrogance on the part of the Europeans which our performance at present does not warrant. We have reason to be modest. At the same time, we must not abandon our self-esteem, because there is no doubt in our minds that the European way of life, with its quality, freedom, freshness and broad horizons is an extremely valuable one, which we are proud of. There is good reason why many countries around the world envy this lifestyle; however, as regards our economic performance, we must exercise modesty.

How deep and how long will this crisis be between Russia and the European Union? In your view, how could this rift between Russia, Europe and the United States be resolved?

My impression is that the American and European approaches to this issue are widely divergent. As regards the European approach, we found the common points in the Minsk II ceasefire agreement, on the foundations of which relations between Russia and Europe could be rebuilt. One of these is peace, that is arms must be laid down and troops withdrawn. The other one is that we must strive to engage in closer economic cooperation. It is worth supporting the free trade agreement and economic cooperation between the European Union and the Eurasian region that was initiated by the Russians. We must acquire mutual interests in each other’s economies on the basis of mutual economic advantage. Our universities must cooperate – for instance, Hungary receives two hundred Russian students every year. We must create the fabric of day-to-day life – the fabric of Russian-EU cooperation which keeps us on the path of peace, even in times of dispute.

Do you think that other European countries also wish to create this fabric, or is it only Hungary?

In the present situation, one can only speak for oneself.

You have mentioned just now, and made statements in 2007 (and in also ’89) in which you criticised Russia and President Putin. In 2010 you embarked on a policy of “Eastward Opening”, and hailed Russia as one of Hungary’s most important partners. What has changed?

This is politics. From time to time, we criticise each other. Politics is a dangerous business. Things get mixed up easily. Short-term interests with medium-term interests, day-to-day affairs with long-term issues, political issues with personal issues. I find it is important that political decision-makers should maintain an attitude of respect in their relations. And in addition to respect, you also need a certain degree of generosity. No one is without fault. But if we constantly bring up each other’s personal faults, how are we to live together? This is a simple law of human nature: it is the same in families, and it is also true in politics. Respect and generosity. Hungary has received those from President Putin. We have respect, and while we are a smaller country, we have generosity. We received President Putin with the respect that is due to the leader of the Russian people. We do not normally talk about personal things in politics, but I shall make an exception here. I was Prime Minister from 1998 until 2002. I remember the Russia of those times and I could only think of what I saw with feelings of the deepest sympathy. This is a people destined for great things, and a country destined for great things was suffering and felt that it had no future. And I saw the change that occurred in 2000 when President Putin arrived on the scene. I saw that this country was again beginning to believe in its own future. A leader who is able to restore the faith of his own people in the future does the greatest thing he can.

A little bit about the conflict in Ukraine. Catherine Ray said that they remain concerned about the continued fighting in and around Debaltsevo, and President Putin, too, voiced his concerns in this context. How do you see the prospects for this ceasefire now? What do you think the chances are of a peaceful resolution of the whole conflict, and what are the first steps? What is the most important task?

President Putin made an important statement yesterday, which we find easy to support. It would be good if a UN Security Council resolution were adopted on the Minsk ceasefire. This could make the ceasefire more enduring, and a peaceful settlement could begin. We support this proposal.

Are Hungarian leaders concerned about the Hungarians in Transcarpathia on account of the conflict? What measures do you expect?

We are a national government. We Hungarians have the fate that large Hungarian communities found themselves beyond the Hungarian state borders without ever having left their native land and home. We lost wars, and this is the punishment we were given. But it does not follow from this that we should give up on the rights of these communities. It is our continued duty to speak for them, to pass on their opinions to decision-makers, and to stand up in the international arena in defence of their interests if we see that any injustice is done to them or their rights are supressed. We are following the events in Transcarpathia closely, and I must say that we have not yet experienced manifestations of Ukrainian nationalism directed against Hungarians in Transcarpathia. We sincerely hope this will remain so; on a number of occasions President Poroshenko has pledged in public that the Hungarians there will be given the rights they are entitled to.

Is there some agreement with the Ukrainian president, or are you just continuing to hope and expect Kiev to take action?

During the period of the elections – the elections in Ukraine – the Hungarian community in Transcarpathia entered into a formal agreement with Mr Poroshenko, and this is how a Hungarian became a member of the Ukrainian Parliament on Mr Poroshenko’s party list. The agreement which was concluded at the time also extends to other issues, and when I visited Kiev last Friday, I asked the President to ensure that this agreement is fully honoured.

A few more questions on the economy, and then we shall be done. What was the outcome of yesterday’s meeting regarding the unused quantities of gas?

We are the buyers, they are the sellers. There is business only if there is agreement. The Russians understand this, and so do we. Consequently, Russia opted for long-term cooperation with Hungary yesterday, and therefore gave us the opportunity to use the gas that we have not drawn within the boundaries of the existing agreement in the next few years. Hungary has always been a good customer, we have always made our payments on time and always honoured the agreements. This was a generous, and also a fair agreement.

When you talk about a long-term agreement, what time period do you envisage, and are there any details? For instance, have you already succeeded in agreeing on a price with Gazprom? What will the terms and conditions be?

The present rescheduling will be made under the terms and conditions laid down in the agreement, which we find satisfactory and will take care of Hungary’s gas supply for about four to five years. I think we made a good decision when we did not conclude another long-term agreement, because no one knows how international prices will develop. Today the market is nervous and volatile. We have to wait until it calms down; this may take one to two years. And then we shall see on what terms we can negotiate a long-term agreement. Until then this rescheduling solves our problems.

What agreement did you come to yesterday regarding the Turkish Stream?

This is a sad story for us. The South Stream should have been built, but Russia has withdrawn from that project. However this came about, the outcome is not in our favour. We agreed yesterday that Russia supports a concept in which gas is to come to Hungary via Greece, Macedonia and Serbia. And if the countries concerned agree, Russia is able to participate in this project.

So, to put it bluntly, you will lobby in the European Union for the Turkish Stream?

There are competing ideas on the table in the EU. This rivalry is between different routes. So it is not enough to be good; you must be better than the others.

And do you see a realistic chance of this project being realised?

One of the fundamental themes of Hungarian politics dates from the mid-1800s. Ferenc Deák, who is referred to in Hungarian political history as the Sage of the Nation, said: “I can also carry on fighting when there is no hope.” So we shall fight.

Are there any unresolved issues regarding the new Paks nuclear reactor blocks?

Not between Russia and Hungary; we are already in the implementation phase.

Yesterday President Putin talked about a loan of EUR 10 billion, and a loan of EUR 12 billion was also mentioned just now. Will the situation that has recently developed in the economy affect the price of this loan, because of the rouble, and what currency is the loan tied to?

Luckily, it is not tied to the rouble, or to the forint. This is good news for everyone.

Then it is in euros.

The financial terms and conditions are in order.

What requirements does Hungary set in terms of return on investment for the case of the Paks atomic power station, and to what extent does the Russian project satisfy the Hungarian party?

If we implement everything the way we planned, we shall have struck one of the best deals in the history of Hungary. We only have to keep firmly to the agreement. We Hungarians are innovative, and always come up with new and better ideas; it is not easy to stay on the chosen path. But if we are disciplined, we shall succeed.

What is the nature of the relationship between Hungary and Brussels, and after the visit of Chancellor Merkel do you still perceive the pressure that was exerted on Hungary earlier?

The pressure on us dates from earlier times; it is considerable pressure, and is sometimes mixed with strong dislike. We do everything differently, and there are some who do not like this. We have done everything differently, and we are successful. There are many countries which did everything the way they were told to, but they are not successful. We in Europe are full of arrogance, and find it hard to bear the thought that someone else may also be right. But this is what politics is about: you find sometimes that you were wrong and someone else was right. You must be able to own up to this. It takes some strength of mind and humility; but these are scarce commodities around here. We created a new constitution which – contrary to European trends – is based on Christian and national foundations. This makes others see red: they attacked us like a bull charging a red rag. Then we sent the IMF packing. We said “We do not like that recipe; we shall solve our own problems some other way.” And we did: we are one of the most successful economies in Europe. And we also speak out openly about Russia; we take the view that Europe cannot be competitive globally if it excludes Russia. So it is because of the accumulation of all these things that we have this pressure on us; but there is another pearl of Hungarian wisdom which goes like this: “Only dead fish go with the flow.” We, however, are alive.

There are opinions in the European Union which favour very tough sanctions, while others support less harsh ones. Do you agree with this assessment? And which group is bigger or stronger?

The situation is worse than this. There are some who believe that nothing less would suffice than to exclude Russia from the realm of Europe’s economic relations. They want to pose the question so as to force a choice: European unity or Russia. A bad question can only provoke a bad answer. Therefore, at times like this, the question must be rejected. We are thinking about how to best shape the cooperation between Russia and the European Union. This is a reasonable debate in response to a reasonable question. The choice of which question Europe will embrace as its own has greater implications for Europe than for Russia. When we Europeans decide on the question of cooperation with Russia, we shall not decide on Russia but on the future of Europe. And I do not want to live in a Europe which is in another cold war with Russia. I do not want to live in a Europe which turns the Europeans against the Russian people. And I do not want to live in a Europe which gives up on the fantastic opportunity of combining the wealth of Russian raw materials, Russian energy and enormous Russian economic opportunities with the technological know-how and culture in Europe. If we can connect these two together, we will have a bright future before us. The disturbing and rather inconvenient thing about politics is that we can make bad decisions as well as good ones. This is what we live with in Europe, day in and day out.

Thank you very much for the interview.

Prime Minister's Office