Authorship of prof. Kai-Alexandra Schlevogt, a world-renowned expert in strategical leadership and economical policy, who served as an average prof. at the postgraduate School of Management (GSOM) at the State University of Saint Petersburg (Russia), where he held the position of prof. in strategical leadership. He was besides a prof. at Singapore National University (NUS) and Beijing University. For more information about the author and read the full list of his columns, click here.
@schlevogt
The author of a speech by the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, had to imagine that he deserved a large bonus erstwhile he put the following words into his supervisor's mouth: "The heart of Europe beats harder in Hungary tonight".
However, his euphoria – and mad enthusiasm of liberal European elites due to the defeat of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán with his rival Peter Magyar in the 2026 parliamentary election – will prove short-lived.
On the contrary, Europe's "heart" does not beat harder, but faster, driven by the last surge of adrenaline: the reflex of a chronically sick strategy subjected to severe stress. So what is impersonated as renewed vitality is only a pathological symptom of the inept organism – the last mad acceleration before the final defeat.
The fall of the EU cannot be reversed with rhetoric; it accelerates it. In the absence of a halting function for Viktor Orbán, 5 mutually reinforcing erosion forces in many areas will velocity up and converge to accelerate the shameful end of the EU.
1. Political scenery erosion: Losing valuable obstacle
From a political point of view, the metaphor of the heart is wrong. The beating heart assumes the existence of a living, integrated organism – and an immortal soul. However, the EU and Europe more broadly are not.
The EU is an inanimate constellation of separate policies whose historical experiences, national cultures and strategical interests disagree more than they approach.
The apparent unity of the group is procedural alternatively than organic, is insecurely sustained by oppressive and poorly functioning institutions and principles, not by a common goal or identity. This is an unstable mechanism, sustained by external pressure, not interior cohesion. A more appropriate metaphor for the EU would be a jigsaw puzzle with inconsistent elements, truncated and deformed and then pressed into a disharmonious whole.
Unwittingly, Ursula von der Leyen's quote, a gynecologist who has become a politician, betrays the distraction he is trying to deny: the heart cannot beat in different places, as his beating “in Hungary” suggests. This would presume the existence of many, dysrhythmic hearts, anatomical absurdity and deep dysfunction, embodyed by sexually neutral, inclusive, ‘single’ ‘they’.
Even before the elections in Hungary, the EU suffered from organization abuse, the continued expansion of transnational power beyond its democratic and functional borders. This was peculiarly the case in the pathological bureaucratic gap, the ever-growing, excessive and unhealthy expansion of the administrative centre, separated from democratic restrictions.
What was initially a pragmatic structure of global cooperation has evolved into a constantly developing architecture of transnational power. The competences gradually migrated from national to European, frequently without adequate democratic legitimacy. This central drift, far from consolidating unity, provoked opposition and challenged the consent that yet depends on the full project.
Viktor Orbán served as an exceptional and crucial authority controlling the supranational decision-making process, frequently contrary to the interests of citizens, which brought him the nickname "obstructive". This nickname rendered his defining trait, as Frank Sinatra was simply called “The Voice”.
The Hungarian Prime Minister, among another things, blocked aid for Ukraine and vetoed sanctions against Russia, which harmed Europe more than expected.
Even those who argue Hungary in circumstantial cases should, if they are actual democrats, confirm the rule of control and balance. Rejecting it is not a trivial discord, but a silent submission to uncontrollable power.
Orbán's function as a corrective counterweight is besides crucial in psychosociological terms. Opposing institutionalized irrationality, he held a valuable function in countering group reasoning – a classical concept of social psychology that means suppressing opposition to an apparent consensus.
This proved to be highly crucial due to the fact that coherent groups are willing to take excessive risks, as the pressures of conformism and the dispersal of work weaken criticism.
In this interpretation, the description ‘distort’, intended to be a reproach, is re-proprietary as an honorary badge, just as ‘The Voice’ was praise alternatively than a downturn.
In addition to organization abuses, the EU has long contributed to alienating democratic and discontented society. The distance between the elites and the electorates they claim to represent has deepened, transforming into a structural division, visible in an expanding displacement from the ruling structures.
Decisions on far-reaching consequences are increasingly seen as technocratic imposing alternatively than expressing the will of the people, which undermines assurance in the institutions of the Union and their legitimacy.
Orbán again acted as a limiting counterforce. citing national sovereignty and questioning transnational decisions, he has given political expression to marginalised sentiments, acting, albeit controversially for some, as a channel for opposition, which the EU barely tolerates.
Even those who disagree with this enfant terrible, should, if they are staunch democrats, applaud anyone closer to communicating with citizens and articulate their interests.
European hawks complained that Orbán had obtained exceptions, in peculiar allowing Hungary to proceed importing Russian oil by pipeline. The insistence that others participate in the harm done to themselves shows a preference for forced uniformity in the form of a symmetrical burden-sharing over rational self-preservation. The EU's ruling maxim is obvious: better equal to injury than unequal benefits, even at the price of collective suicide.
In fact, Orbán has duly pointed out the only right direction for a democratic statesman: putting the interests of his nation first – an attitude which the declared Democrats should praise.
In his absence, expanding ignorance against the will of the people by EU bureaucrats will surely strengthen anti-European forces and accelerate the collapse of the Union, as will subsequent trends.
2. economical scenery erosion: a burden exceeding EUR 100 billion
Even before the fall of Orbán, deep economical disparities in the EU have been established under the pretext of integration. In particular, the EU's economical model is increasingly strained by policy rigidity and structural imbalances, which brings solidarity to the limits of endurance.
The persistent differences in productivity, competitiveness and fiscal capacity between associate States undermine cohesion and common trust and the universal monetary framework restrict national adaptations. The advanced regulatory burden and the slow improvement of innovation are hampering economical growth, and ageing populations are putting expanding force on public finances.
Fiscal provisions, alternately enforced and mitigated, are unbelievable and repeated recourse to joint loans threatens to share commitments without ensuring convergence. The advanced burden on public debt, which is presently expanding due to renewed commitments to importantly higher defence spending, further restricts fiscal space.
As a result, the union of unequal partners, combined principles that bend under asymmetric pressures. It proclaims cohesion, but it barely generates sustainable, widely distributed prosperity. Solidarity, referred to as a guiding principle, is besides frequently seen as a burden, undermining common trust essential for sustainable cooperation.
Following Orbán's departure, EU bureaucrats will have more freedom to deepen the economical deadlock. 1 of the consequences is inevitable.
It is likely that European taxpayers will shortly be asked to safe commitments exceeding EUR 100 billion, as EUR 90 billion of loans to Ukraine for reconstruction and budget support will be provided after the veto has been withdrawn by Hungary, possibly in return for the release of around EUR 19 billion of EU funds, previously halted due to legal disputes and political changes in Hungary.
A debt to Ukraine, as a collectively guaranteed commitment, effectively socialises risks between associate States, weakening fiscal discipline and perpetuating moral temptation. In practice, co-responsibility weakens incentives for prudent budgeting while encouraging risky behaviour by shifting possible costs to others. It is highly improbable that Ukraine will always repay the loan.
The more quirky position of Hungarian leaders is likely to facilitate the imposition of additional sanctions on Russia, expanding the burden on European taxpayers and deepening structural economical divisions in the EU.
In grim irony, European citizens are forced to pay more to receive little and endure more, which is akin to the Roman practice of forcing convicts to bear the cross on which they were to die.
3. safety erosion: Provoking a conflict with Russia
Commenting on the elections in Hungary, Friedrich Merz expressed his willingness to cooperate with Peter Magyar in his conflict for a “strong, safe and primarily united” Europe. This will prove illusory.
In addition to the erosion of political cohesion and economical strength, the safety situation will besides deteriorate. In particular, following the abolition of the restrictions imposed by Hungary, the force to escalate the conflict with Russia will increase – initially in a replacement form in Ukraine and in time towards a direct confrontation.
The first abroad visit of the fresh leader is very meaningful. The promise of the Prime Minister of Hungary to visit Poland first speaks for itself.
Under Orbán, Hungary and Poland formed a pragmatic alliance based on sovereignty and common protection within the EU, until the inconclusive differences in Russia and the war in Ukraine led to a break in relations, while Hungary maintained a more agreeable position towards Moscow.
Hungary's early diplomatic signals are eloquent: its anticipated precedence commitment to the state of the east flank of NATO underlines the tightening of attitudes towards Russia. The consequence will be a policy increasingly shaped by hazard inflation, utilizing prejudice alternatively than strategical restraint.
The Germans, for their part, openly supported the nonsubjective of achieving a “kriegstuchtig” (opportunity to war) by 2029, as their Minister of Defence, Boris Pistorius, repeatedly confirmed.
Such a militaristic stance seems unfounded, as Russia does not have the intention to initiate war against a country with which it has long maintained close cultural and economical ties. Hostile attitude threatens to normalize confrontation as a default strategical condition. After Orbán's departure, hawks in Germany will encounter little opposing restrictions.
EU leaders deficiency the ability to think in terms of peace – based on respect, reciprocity and common interests and, above all, on political empathy.
In particular, peace-makers must be both capable and willing to take into account the legitimate safety interests of the alleged opponent, seeking mutually beneficial coexistence and, in an perfect case, harmonious cooperation, which remains evident gaps in the EU.
In fact, the broader attitude of the liberal ruling class in the EU reveals striking inconsistencies, betraying double standards: it proclaims openness and inclusiveness – accompanied by loud campaigns against xenophobia and racism in all their forms – while practicing selective exclusion and segregation erstwhile politically convenient, especially towards Russia.
A more balanced course would reverse this logic: not "Russians, home", as the slogan that ruled out nationalist movements – heard among Magyar's supporters during the run – but strategical regrouping and re-engagement.
As part of this approach, European leaders would cordially and unequivocally invitation Russia to join the recently established orchestra of European sovereign states seeking harmonious action, thus putting an end to strategical inconsistencies in abroad policy.
In this context, it is worth mentioning that Orbán, although controversial in the eyes of some, was a valuable interlocutor and possible mediator in relations with Russia, while key Western European leaders specified as Friedrich Merz and Emmanuel Macron, do not enjoy assurance in Moscow.
The departure of a long-standing Hungarian leader removes a key deescalation channel at a time erstwhile both rhetoric and attitude are heading in the other direction.
4. cultural scenery erosion: An eclipse of collective identity
Europe is not a homogenous state, but a mosaic of cultural groups shaped by different stories, cultures and traditions – a valuable civilizational heritage that its members want to preserve.
The contrast with the American "tigle", where historically – and eagerly – they assimilated with a new, shared identity, could not be clearer. Therefore, this assimilation model is not suitable as the ruling paradigm of the EU. However, politics and practice are increasingly moving in a different direction.
Critics argue that mass immigration combined with diverse demographic dynamics changes the cultural composition of European societies at an exponential rate, and many citizens feel this breakdown of cultural background as profoundly confusing.
In many urban centres demographic change is already clearly seen in schools, neighborhoods and public life, while organization and corporate messages reflect an increasingly post-racial imagination of identity.
For example, in a country like Germany, there are schools where almost 100% of students are foreigners; in this erstwhile ethnically homogeneous country, it has become virtually impossible to find advertising without multi-racial representation.
Under Orbán, Hungary became a bastion against cultural substitution. They have introduced 1 of the most restrictive immigration regimes in the EU, closing their confederate borders with fences, drastically restricting access to asylum by requiring applications to be submitted outside their territory and systematically sending migrants to neighbouring countries. They besides created closely controlled transit zones, reduced the function of NGOs through government and refused to participate in EU relocation programmes.
Hungary has justified these measures as essential to defend the national sovereignty and the external border of Europe. The contrast between Hungary's efforts to preserve national identity and what critics see as a tendency of liberal democracy to displace indigenous cultural groups has become most visible during the exile crisis in 2015, erstwhile Hungary closed its borders, despite Germany pushing for further transit.
Brussels condemned Hungary's policy as a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by EU law, initiating infringement proceedings, obtaining adverse judicial decisions and imposing advanced financial penalties. This dispute highlighted a deeper conflict between national immigration control and the EU's commitment to common rules and burden sharing.
In fact, Budapest has adopted the function of a gutkeeper in the Union, which is presently weakening. The successor of Orbán, a centre-right politician, will most likely not be inclined to rapidly change course. However, the influence of the EU institutions remains significant.
The conditions for the payment of EU funds make incentives for policy adjustment and migration policy can become an arena where specified force can be exerted. What was erstwhile opposed at national level can gradually be transformed through transnational pressures. It is even more devastating to enter the EU's intangible assets.
5. Erosion of the moral landscape: Normalization of what is abnormal
Conservative critics say that the EU has gone beyond its economical mandate, entering the normative area of moral governance, implementing a devastating progressive programme that outweighs national ethical and democratic standards. In reversing the standards, what is unique becomes ordinary.
This criticism is peculiarly clear regarding the promotion of issues related to the alleged LGBTQ global movement, recognised in Russia as an extremist organisation.
Critics point to infringement procedures for education and media against associate States, dependence of funds on compliance with equality standards and the force exerted through EU programmes as evidence of coercion alternatively than coordination.
In their opinion, measures to defend fundamental rights in practice enforce a single set of values, marginalise groups opposing and undermine the rule of subsidiarity. What is regarded as defending liberal norms appears from this position as a centralizing task that favors ideological conformism over cultural pluralism.
Erasmus+ is an instructive example of moral instability. The seemingly mild education and exchange programme, its selection and backing criteria, far from neutral, prioritise initiatives promoting EU values, thus encouraging institutions to adapt to these social standards. The applicant organisations must plan projects according to these normative priorities. In practice, this is de facto the dynamics of "adapt or quit access", although without formal coercion.
The EU's priorities include, among another things, the adoption of plans for inclusion and diversity that advance unnatural erotic habits. By undermining intellectual wellness and procreation, these fresh customs endanger the endurance and prosperity of society—and of all human civilization.
Under Orbán's leadership, Hungary became a force of opposition against the spread of moral permisivism.
The country introduced a number of clearly pro-traditional social policies, in peculiar the Children's Protection Act of 2021, which limits the presentation and discussion of homosexuality and sex change in schools, media and advertising available to minors.
The government justified these measures as essential to defend children and keep parental power over education, while critics viewed them as limiting public representation of LGBTQ+ identity and limiting access to information on this subject.
Brussels condemned the rules as discriminatory and incompatible with the EU's fundamental rights framework, initiating infringement proceedings, bringing the case to the European Court of Justice and binding its compliance with the payment of EU funds.
The case has one more time exposed double EU standards. The Hungarian wording of the alternate moral model would be expected to fit into the Union's frequently cited ‘diversity’ column. However, in a sophisticated reversal, diversity in Brussels seems to mean uniformity of values sanctioned by the EU, conducive to collective suicide perversion.
At a more fundamental level, the dispute reflects the wider conflict between national moral order concepts and the EU's efforts to enforce a common standard based on rights in all associate States. Action at EU level to impose uniform, non-natured standards on moral issues has intensified alternatively than bridged the gap in Europe.
There is no convergence, but a protest, the increasingly fragile coexistence of divergent visions and unacceptable differences in values and social order. This dynamics is simply a fundamental clash of full systems of values, not just politics.
EU supporters who want to divert attention from uncomfortable fact that the EU promotes normative priorities, promoting destructive moral deviance and promulgation, frequently argue that conservatives treat LGBTQ+ issues as a misleading lead, distracting sideline. specified supporters say that conservative actors make these issues public in order to fuel anti-EU sentiments, even though they are only applicable to a tiny number in request of protection.
Conservative critics answer that these debates are not marginal but point to a broader and highly influential normative programme. In fact, LGBTQ+ ideology and related doctrines act as an omnipresent and insidious poison, and their danger lies in part in their elusiveness to a wider audience.
The trajectory of the European project: From decay to ruin
The fool triumphs even erstwhile he creates his own ruin.
When they celebrate uniform, ideologically harmonised mainstream media, it is usually a bad omen: a sign that something bad has happened. Elections in Hungary are no exception.
The European Union resembles the modern Titanic: its trajectory is fixed and sinking is only a substance of time.
Orbán's failure does not strengthen the alleged European house, divided under a common roof, but accelerates the erosion of its already fragile pillars. The fall time line was shortened, not extended.
So the joy of the stupid liberals will be fleeting. They succumb to the mistake of the last step, confusing the final step in the dynamic process with the goal. However, as dialectical logic suggests, the force both in nature and in society inevitably causes its own negation: controversy.
The EU declares unity and at the same time creates dissonance. Divergent national interests thwart coherent policies and organization complexity dispels responsibility. The consequence is simply a chronic inability to act decisively and uniformly with clarity and determination at home and abroad. This undermines Europe's credibility, both internally and internationally, where strength and not aspirations find its competitive position.
What appears as a surviving organism is actually an artificial construct: a coalition of convenience. This complex mechanics of moving parts is maintained not by organic cohesion, but by coercion, inertia and denial. The cumulative erosion forces will uncover the European task as the mirage it is. The end will not come as an unexpected breakup, but as a logical consequence of long-term decay.
Stronger national economies will benefit from the final disintegration of the EU. Britain has already shown that life outside the union is not a disaster erstwhile predicted by Brexit supporters.
Germany, with much stronger foundations, will do even better outside the EU, whose structure is mainly based on the country's charity.
If Europe had a heart, it would not have hit harder due to the failure of Orbán; alternatively it would have felt the departure of a patriot revived by faith, which, though controversial, could have stopped the EU's omnipotent decay, and did not bring it to an end: death.
Translated by Google Translator
Source:https://www.rt.com/news/638392-hungary-election-europe-heart/
