Hungary occupies a unique position in European politics. Situated at both a geographical and political crossroads of Europe, the country has for many years pursued a foreign policy based on balance rather than rigid alignment. This strategic approach is not expected to disappear with the political change in Budapest. Under Péter Magyar, it is not the direction of Hungary’s foreign policy that is expected to change, but rather its style and implementation.
Under Viktor Orbán’s government, Hungary has become one of the most controversial members of the European Union (EU) in the last decade due to its developing relations with actors such as Russia and China. Budapest has deepened economic ties with China while maintaining working relations with Russia, all while remaining committed to both the EU and NATO. The emergence of Péter Magyar as a leading figure in a new political era does not mean abandoning this balancing strategy. On the contrary, it can be said that a more moderate and flexible foreign policy will continue. In this context, it is expected that Hungary will maintain its strategic balance principle while changing its foreign policy priorities and implementation methods in the coming period.
In Hungary, the concept of a “balanced foreign policy” is closely linked to the country’s historical experience. Hungarian political tradition has long been aware of the risks that can arise from dependence on a single great power. 21st-century political history has shown that excessive reliance on external actors can limit national sovereignty and weaken strategic autonomy. Therefore, modern Hungarian diplomacy envisages developing multiple partnerships simultaneously. This approach reflects not only geopolitical concerns but also a broader national strategy aimed at preserving independent decision-making.
While this policy expanded Hungary’s room for maneuver, it also led to significant tensions with Brussels and drew criticism for weakening EU unity during a period of increased geopolitical instability. Foreign policy is strongly intertwined with political identity, further reinforcing rhetoric about the preservation of sovereignty. Accordingly, under Viktor Orbán, Hungary attempted to build a foreign policy that frequently resisted pressure from major European powers. Budapest argued that the EU should function as an alliance of sovereign states rather than a centralized political structure. This perspective led Hungary to oppose or criticize certain EU policies, particularly in areas such as migration, sanctions, cultural issues, and institutional reforms.
It can be said that Orbán pursued a “Peak to the East” strategy. During this period, Hungary expanded economic cooperation with China, encouraged Asian investments, and supported infrastructure projects connected to Eurasian trade networks. Industrial investments by Chinese companies, particularly in battery factories, gained increasing importance for the Hungarian economy. Budapest also maintained its dialogue with Russia, especially in the energy sector, despite rising tensions between Moscow and the West.
From a strategic perspective, Orbán’s policy aimed to maximize the advantages Hungary could gain in the changing international order. The Hungarian government envisioned a shift in the global system, moving from a single bloc to a multipolar structure where power was distributed among multiple major actors. In such an environment, smaller states could benefit from flexibility and diversified partnerships.
However, this strategy has also led to serious tensions. Many European governments have viewed Hungary’s stance as an approach that complicates the functioning of the EU and places it too close to Eurasian powers. Disagreements between Budapest and Brussels have damaged political trust and led to Hungary’s partial isolation in some EU decision-making processes. From this perspective, it has been argued that Hungary’s balancing strategy weakens European unity during periods of geopolitical crisis.
Orbán’s foreign policy can be characterized by the principles of sovereignty, conservatism, and resistance to foreign intervention. Therefore, foreign policy has also become part of Hungary’s internal ideological struggle. Relations with Brussels have often been presented not merely as diplomatic disagreements, but as conflicts over national identity and political independence.
Péter Magyar has emerged as a political figure capable of attracting both conservative voters dissatisfied with the current government and moderate pro-European voters. Magyar’s political style differs significantly from Orbán’s confrontational approach. While Orbán frequently resorts to harsh rhetoric and political polarization, Magyar has so far presented a more conciliatory profile and is open to institutional cooperation. However, the goal of pursuing a balanced foreign policy is expected to be maintained in the new government’s term. Nevertheless, Magyar is not expected to completely reverse the strategic orientation in foreign policy. Hungary’s economic realities make such a radical change difficult. The country is still dependent on foreign investment and integrated into European markets. Therefore, it is in a position that can be seriously affected by global competition between major powers. For this reason, it is predicted that the principle of balancing will most likely be maintained in the new leadership’s term. What is expected to change is how Hungary establishes this balance and the methods it uses to implement this strategy.
In an interview published in the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita in May 2026, Magyar stated that it is likely the EU will resume importing Russian natural gas after the end of the war due to its lower cost. Magyar also noted that competitiveness concerns and geographical conditions support this possibility.[i] He further pointed out that liquefied natural gas transported via the Baltic Sea and then routed through Poland and Slovakia is “significantly more expensive” compared to gas supplied from Romania, Russia, or Austria.[ii]
Regarding the war against Russia, Magyar emphasized that Ukraine has the right to protect its territorial integrity and independence, but stated that Hungary’s situation is different due to the Hungarian minority living in Ukraine. He argued that this community is deprived of fundamental rights, particularly in matters of language use, cultural expression, and local autonomy. He also stated that his government would be willing to “open a new chapter” in relations with Ukraine once these fundamental issues are resolved. According to him, addressing this issue is a necessary condition for Hungary to support the start of Ukraine’s EU membership negotiations.[iii]
Even Hungary’s approach to Ukraine reflects this balancing act. While Hungarian leaders express support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, they have consistently conditioned their support for Ukraine’s EU accession process on the protection of the rights of the Hungarian minority in Ukraine. This dual approach (combining principled recognition with conditional engagement) demonstrates the ongoing effort to reconcile national interests with European commitments.
A deterioration in relations with China also seems unlikely. Chinese investment has become a significant element of Hungary’s industrial development. Hungary could introduce stricter oversight mechanisms and greater transparency; however, completely severing ties with China would entail significant economic costs. Therefore, Hungary will continue to view China as an important economic partner while simultaneously seeking to align itself with the concerns of European powers on this issue.
One of the most striking aspects of Hungary’s modern foreign policy has been its increasingly close relations with the Turkic world. Despite being geographically and politically part of Central Europe, Hungary has significantly developed diplomatic, economic, and cultural relations with Turkic states such as Türkiye, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan in recent years. This policy has become particularly visible during the Orbán era and is expected to maintain its importance in the future.
Hungary’s ties with the Turkic world are based on a combination of historical symbolism, geopolitical pragmatism, economic interests, and strategic diversification. A significant turning point in this process was Hungary’s accession as an observer state to the Organization of Turkic States (OTS). Budapest viewed this accession not only within the framework of cultural diplomacy but also as a strategic platform for economic and geopolitical cooperation. Its observer status in the OTS demonstrates Hungary’s multifaceted diplomatic approach, particularly in the context of energy security discussions in Europe.
Energy security has been one of the fundamental motivations behind Hungary’s policy towards the Turkic world. Hungary has long sought to maintain cost-effective energy supplies for its economy while reducing vulnerabilities related to energy dependence. Therefore, cooperation with Azerbaijan and broader Caspian energy projects have gained strategic importance. The Southern Gas Corridor and its associated transportation networks have increased the importance of Turkic states as alternative energy partners for Europe. Consequently, regardless of leadership changes, Hungary’s relations with the Turkic world are expected to remain a permanent element of its foreign policy.
The fundamental challenge for the Magyar era will be striking a balance between sovereignty and integration. While Hungary greatly benefits from EU and NATO membership, it also aims to preserve its political identity and strategic autonomy. Balancing these goals requires diplomatic skill and political realism.
In many ways, Hungary reflects a broader European dilemma. Governments across the continent face increasing pressure to choose between economic pragmatism and geopolitical commitment. The rise of new global power centers is making traditional alliance structures more complex. For medium-sized states like Hungary, a firm alignment with one side can limit economic opportunities, while extreme neutrality can lead to mistrust among allies.
Therefore, Hungary’s foreign policy will be tested by ongoing international crises, economic competition, and domestic public opinion expectations. The current government’s main challenge will be to build trust with its European partners without bowing to them, to protect national sovereignty without promoting isolation, and to maintain economic resilience without weakening Hungary’s strategic position. The success of this strategy will determine not only Hungary’s international standing but also its role in Europe’s future political architecture.
[i] Hetzmann Mercédesz, “PM Magyar: After Ukraine war, EU will return to Russian gas, FM Orbán meets Ukrainian counterpart”, Daily News Hungary, https://dailynewshungary.com/magyar-after-ukraine-war-russian-gas/, (Date of Access: 03.08.2026).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid
