According to the signs, there is a brave person around the house of Fidesz who admits not only in closed circles, but also in public, that Balázs Orbán really only said what everyone thinks. András Bencsik, whom the Russian ambassador himself congratulated on the 30th anniversary of Demokrata, on Facebook thanked him the praise, and in the columns of the paper in an opinion piece he agreed with Balázs Orbán’s thoughts that it is known (it cannot be described enough):
“Starting from 56, we probably wouldn’t have done what President Zelensky did 2.5 years ago, because it’s irresponsible, because it seems that he took his country into a war of defense, so many people died, so many territories were lost, I’ll say it again, it’s their right, their sovereign decision, they could do it, but if they had asked us, we wouldn’t have advised them, because in 1956 what happened was what happened. Because we have learned that you have to be careful here and treat the very precious Hungarian lives with care. You can’t just throw them in front of others.”
According to editor-in-chief Bencsik, the difference between ’56 and the current war raging in our neighborhood is that
“We didn’t get weapons from the West, we didn’t get anything, only encouraging radio messages and American chocolate and quick visas for the 200,000 refugees who fled to the West in the reception camps. Historians are still indebted to reveal the full and true story of 1956”.
According to him, Balázs Orbán may have been referring to this when he said, “we have learned that you have to be careful here and treat the very precious Hungarian lives with care.”
“Yes, we lost 200,000 very valuable Hungarian lives. And we suffered a terrible blow. Thank you for Balázs Orbán’s brave words,” sums up the editor-in-chief.
If we understand it correctly, Bencsik argues that, although the heroes of ’56 rebelled against Russian oppression for Hungarian freedom (sovereignty in a fidese word), the Ukrainians should not do this, even though the filthy, trashy, migrant-stroking, bum-stroking West helps them even with weapons.
Viktor Orban approval rating 2024
Analyzing the recent comments and opinions circulating around Hungarian politics has led me to a conclusion that highlights a bold yet divided stance within the country’s ruling party, Fidesz. A series of articles, opinion pieces, and social media posts point to a subtle yet crucial shift in how some high-ranking officials, particularly András Bencsik, approach public discourse.
According to recent news reports, András Bencsik expressed gratitude towards the Russian ambassador for congratulating him on the 30th anniversary of Demokrata, a right-wing Hungarian newspaper [[1]]. Furthermore, in an opinion piece for Mandiner, a Hungarian online news portal, Bencsik wrote a column supporting Orbán Balázs [[2]], a notable figure in Hungarian politics who had sparked controversy with his comments in a podcast.
Bencsik’s public stance, as inferred from his opinion piece and social media post, implies that he is willing to acknowledge views that align with Orbán Balázs’ podcast statements [[2]]. By doing so, he inadvertently validates the original statements that caused controversy in the first place.
What piqued my interest in this particular case was how Bencsik’s views on Orbán Balázs had been shared and circulated across various news platforms, particularly in an opinion piece for Mandiner, as well as a separate acknowledgement for the Russian ambassador’s praise [[1]][[3]]. This behavior seems to defy the typical expectations of public figures associated with Fidesz who may choose to tread carefully in situations that call for honest admissions, preferring not to shake the status quo.
It is also worth noting the nuanced difference between how Bencsik approaches supporting Orbán Balázs in a public forum, while simultaneously paying homage to a gesture by the Russian ambassador. Based on the brief descriptions found in my sources [[2]] [[1]], Bencsik’s stance can be perceived as both patriotic to Hungary while acknowledging Russia’s friendly intentions.
While Bencsik’s acknowledgment may be perceived as a radical divergence from typical approaches, its actual implications for Hungarian politics and potential ties with Russia and neighboring nations remain to be seen. Nonetheless, in light of available data, it can be concluded that this sudden change in openness points to an urgent call for an open discussion about previously unspoken opinions within Hungary’s ruling elite.
From a purely analytical standpoint, observing divergent views from key officials belonging to Fidesz, like that of András Bencsik, highlights why the world of Hungarian politics has become such a delicate yet intriguing case study.
