When Donald Trump announced Budapest as the venue for negotiations on the war in Ukraine on October 17, 2025, it sparked outrage across Europe and firm resistance from Kyiv.
Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy proposed alternatives: Switzerland, Austria, the Vatican, and Turkey, but Trump remained unmoved. Why? The answer lies not in diplomatic expediency, but in personal connections and the electoral crisis of one of the American president’s closest allies, Viktor Orbán.
Contents
- Orbán on the Edge: An Electoral Catastrophe Nobody Predicted
- The Hungarian Disruptor: How Orbán Sabotages Europe and Ukraine
- “You’re Fantastic!”: How Trump Makes Orbán a Star of World Politics
- The Call That Led to Budapest: How Trump and Putin Agreed on a Venue
- Budapest vs. Turkey: When Geography and Logic Don’t Matter
- The Logic of Absurdity: Why Budapest Isn’t About Diplomacy
- Friendship as a Weapon: Why Trump’s Personal Ties Threaten Global Security
- The Bottom Line: Personal Politics Over National Interests
The Hungarian prime minister, who has held power with an iron grip for 15 years, now stands on the brink of political catastrophe. His ratings are plummeting, the opposition has a real chance of winning the 2026 elections for the first time in a decade and a half, and the country’s economy is stagnating at its lowest growth rate in 15 years.
And at precisely this moment, Trump suddenly decides to make Budapest the center of world diplomacy. Coincidence? Hardly.
This article reveals how personal friendship between two leaders transforms geopolitics into a tool of domestic politics, why the choice of Budapest contradicts basic logic, and how Ukraine has become hostage to Trump’s attempt to save his drowning friend.
Orbán on the Edge: An Electoral Catastrophe Nobody Predicted
Viktor Orbán is accustomed to securing victory. Since 2010, he has kept Hungary under the control of his Fidesz party, transforming the country into a hybrid democracy with authoritarian features. But 2025 became the year when his unshakeable power began to crack.
According to a Median poll conducted in summer 2025, the opposition Tisza party led by Péter Magyar overtook Fidesz for the first time in history with a crushing margin: 51% to 36%. This isn’t just a decline in support; it’s a collapse. The picture is even worse in personal ratings.
Orbán, who for years was the undisputed popularity leader, now finds himself in third place with only 31% support. Péter Magyar, a former Orbán system insider who went into opposition, tops the ratings with 39%. Elections are scheduled for April 2026, and for the first time in 15 years of power, Orbán has a real chance of losing.
Economic issues exacerbate the electoral challenges. Hungary’s economy in 2025 shows a pitiful 1.8% GDP growth, the lowest figure in the past 15 years. Inflation remains high, and a series of corruption scandals involving Orbán’s inner circle is undermining trust even among his traditional electorate.
Orbán himself has repeatedly claimed that the war in Ukraine costs Hungary billions. According to him, losses reach 9,100 billion forints (approximately 23 billion euros). This statement became part of his narrative: “We need peace, not war.” But in reality, this rhetoric hides banal electoral panic.
The most ironic aspect of Orbán’s situation is that he’s falling precisely when his ideological counterparts across Europe are thriving. Giorgia Meloni in Italy has maintained stable popularity since 2022, leading a right-wing government that successfully balances national interests and EU integration.
Austria’s Freedom Party won elections for the first time since World War II in September 2024 with 29.2% of the vote and is now forming a government. Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in Germany is showing historic highs in support in the eastern states.
Across Europe, the right is experiencing significant growth, while their ideological inspiration, Orbán, is experiencing a decline. Why? The crucial difference: Meloni provides active support to Ukraine while maintaining productive relations with Brussels.
Meanwhile, other rising right-wing forces like AfD and Austria’s Freedom Party remain in opposition, where it’s easier to criticize without facing the constraints of actual governance. They don’t turn their countries into platforms for Russian propaganda. Orbán went too far. His unconditional attachment to Moscow and constant conflicts with Brussels have turned him into a pariah even among the right.
Orbán found himself in a situation where his strategy, balancing between the West and Moscow and using veto as a blackmail tool, stopped working. The European right-wing electorate wants strong national leaders but doesn’t want to be associated with the Kremlin. Orbán crossed that line, and now he’s paying the price.
The Hungarian Disruptor: How Orbán Sabotages Europe and Ukraine
Orbán’s falling ratings aren’t accidental. They’re the result of years of policy that turned Hungary into a headache for the European Union and an enemy to Ukraine.
From the moment Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, Orbán became the main brake on European support for Kyiv. He systematically blocked decisions on Ukraine’s EU integration, using his veto power in the EU Council. The most cynical episode was blocking 50 billion euros in aid to Ukraine. Orbán refused to support the aid package until he received his own financial preferences from Brussels. This situation represented a blatant exploitation of others’ suffering.
Orbán has turned anti-European rhetoric into the foundation of his political identity.He calls the EU a “war project against Russia,” accuses Brussels of imposing “liberal values,” and openly conflicts with the European Commission leadership. A particularly loud public clash occurred with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in the European Parliament.
Orbán accused her of “military hysteria” and “destroying Europe through support for Ukraine.” Von der Leyen responded by reminding them that Hungary receives billions of euros from EU funds but systematically violates the rule of law. As a result, 22 billion euros in European funds for Hungary have been frozen due to violations of democracy principles and the rule of law.
Orbán is the only EU leader who continues to maintain close personal relations with Vladimir Putin. He has repeatedly visited Moscow even after the full-scale war began, calls Putin a “partner,” and blocks any EU attempts to increase pressure on the Kremlin. In July 2024, Orbán undertook a so-called “peace mission,” a trip to Moscow, Beijing, and Washington, where he tried to position himself as a mediator. However, this “mission” turned out to be a catastrophic failure, sparking outrage in Kyiv and Brussels, as Orbán acted without an EU mandate, thereby legitimizing Russia’s aggressive war.
Orbán has turned his anti-Ukrainian position into an electoral narrative. He plays on Hungarians’ fears about the economic consequences of war and on nostalgia for the “neutrality” of Cold War times. The Hungarian prime minister deliberately escalates aggression toward Ukraine and the EU as part of his political and especially pre-election rhetoric.
When Ukraine or the EU responds to his provocations, he presents it to Hungarians as evidence of “external interference in national affairs.” But this strategy is failing because most Hungarians understand: the real threat to their security isn’t Brussels, but Moscow. And even the most persistent propaganda can’t hide the fact that Orbán chose not the side of peace, but the side of the aggressor.
“You’re Fantastic!”: How Trump Makes Orbán a Star of World Politics
Donald Trump and Viktor Orbán aren’t just political allies. They’re friends. And this friendship has long exceeded the bounds of diplomatic protocol.
Orbán became one of Trump’s most frequent guests at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida. Throughout 2024, they met at least three times: in March, July, and December. These are not formal visits, but rather friendly meetings where they discuss not only political issues but also personal matters. Trump has repeatedly called Orbán a “fantastic leader,” “strong,” and “smart.” At his rallies during the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump regularly mentioned Orbán as an example of a leader who “respects strength” and “doesn’t let Brussels dictate.”
The most telling episode was the summit on resolving the Gaza situation, held in October 2025 in Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh. This summit was organized on Trump’s initiative after reaching a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas. And suddenly an unexpected name appeared among participants: Viktor Orbán. The prime minister of Hungary, a country that has no direct relation to the Middle East conflict, isn’t a key regional player and isn’t among the circle of mediator states.
But Trump invited Orbán personally. And he wasn’t just invited, he publicly highlighted his role at the summit itself. At the meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh, Trump stated, “You’re fantastic… I’m the only one that matters.” This phrase says a lot. Trump isn’t just supporting Orbán; he’s actively promoting him on the international stage, giving him the status of a global player that he objectively doesn’t deserve.
Orbán’s participation in the Middle East summit is part of Trump’s larger strategy. The American president is trying to create the image of a “peacemaker” around Orbán, a leader who can mediate in the most complex conflicts. But looking at the facts, it becomes clear: Orbán isn’t an effective mediator in Gaza or Ukraine. He has the trust of neither Israel nor the Palestinians nor Ukraine nor most European partners. His “peacemaking initiatives” are PR, not diplomacy.
The answer to the question “Why does Trump need this?” is basic: Trump is returning a favor. Orbán was one of the first European leaders to support Trump during his first term. When Trump lost the 2020 election, Orbán was one of the few who openly sympathized with him. Now that Trump has regained power, Orbán is reciprocating his support.
But there’s also a pragmatic side. Trump understands that Orbán is his “man” in Europe. Orbán is the only EU leader who is willing to openly support American policy, even when it contradicts European interests. So it’s beneficial for Trump to keep Orbán in power. And for that, he needs to boost his ratings. And this is where Budapest enters the stage.
But Trump isn’t Orbán’s only patron. Putin also backs the Hungarian leader, though for entirely different reasons. Orbán’s relationship with Putin is based on dependency, whereas Trump’s support is based on friendship. Hungary relies on Russian energy—Moscow provides over 80% of its natural gas and most of its oil.
Financial ties between Hungarian businesses and Russian capital, which often run through opaque corporate structures, create additional leverage for the Kremlin. For Putin, Orbán is a valuable tool: a voice inside the EU and NATO that can obstruct Western unity on sanctions and Ukraine support.
The Call That Led to Budapest: How Trump and Putin Agreed on a Venue
On October 16, 2025, Donald Trump held a phone conversation with Vladimir Putin. The conversation lasted over two hours and, according to Trump himself, was “very productive.” Officially, they discussed issues of ceasefire in Ukraine, prisoner exchanges, and the possibility of a personal meeting between the two leaders. Putin congratulated Trump on his success in resolving the Gaza situation and expressed readiness for dialogue.
But the most intriguing thing happened immediately after this conversation. Less than 24 hours later, Trump announced that the venue for a meeting with Putin and Zelenskyy would be Budapest. Not Switzerland, not Turkey, not Austria. Budapest.
Orbán reacted instantly. In his X post on October 17, he wrote, “Hungary is the island of PEACE!” On Facebook he added, “We are the only ones left in Europe on the path of peace.” And: “Cooperation instead of confrontation.” Orbán also posted a video from the Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska in August 2025, hinting that it was thanks to his efforts that this meeting became possible.
Orbán’s rhetoric was triumphant. He positioned Budapest as “the only place in Europe” where such a meeting is possible. It was as if there were no other options available.
Kyiv’s reaction was immediate and decisive. In his comments, President Zelenskyy categorically rejected Budapest as a venue for negotiations. He stated, “We are talking about peace in Ukraine, not about elections in Hungary.” This phrase is key. Zelenskyy directly pointed out that the choice of Budapest isn’t about diplomacy but about Orbán’s domestic politics.
Kyiv proposed alternatives: Switzerland, a traditional neutral mediator; Austria, also a neutral country with a rich history of diplomacy; the Vatican, a spiritual and moral authority; Turkey, a country that has already acted as a mediator (Istanbul negotiations in 2022, grain deal); and Saudi Arabia and Qatar, influential Middle East mediators.
All these options have geographic, logistical, and political advantages over Budapest. Turkey, for example, is geographically closer to Ukraine, has mediation experience, and most importantly, doesn’t block European support for Ukraine. The Budapest summit has been postponed indefinitely. Trump acknowledged the timing “isn’t quite right yet,” though he still mentions Budapest rhetorically. Orbán exploits the delay domestically, reminding voters their capital was “chosen” for peace talks, even as neither the EU nor Ukraine will legitimize such a format.
The timeline of events provides ample evidence. The Trump-Putin call took place on October 16, and the announcement from Budapest came on October 17. This occurrence isn’t a coincidence. It’s the result of agreements. The most likely scenario: during the conversation, Trump and Putin discussed not only the substance of negotiations but also the format.
And Trump proposed Budapest as a compromise, a city in the EU but simultaneously under the control of pro-Russian Orbán. This option is beneficial to Putin: it demonstrates a “split” in Europe and shows that there are leaders willing to cooperate with him. It’s beneficial to Trump: he helps his friend Orbán. And Ukraine remains excluded from decisions about its fate.
Budapest vs. Turkey: When Geography and Logic Don’t Matter
If we set aside emotions and look at the situation rationally, the choice of Budapest as a venue for negotiations on the war in Ukraine makes no sense. This is particularly evident when contrasting Budapest with the clear and obvious alternative, Turkey.
Istanbul is approximately 1,200 kilometers from Kyiv, and Budapest is about 1,000 kilometers. The difference seems small. But there’s a nuance: the route to Istanbul goes through relatively safe territories or airspace over neutral Black Sea waters. Although the route to Budapest passes through western Ukraine, where security conditions are also under control, people perceive Turkey as being psychologically “farther from the war.” Moreover, Ankara has developed diplomatic infrastructure and rich experience organizing international meetings at the highest level, and Turkish security services have experience ensuring the protection of delegations under the most difficult conditions.
Turkey has already acted as a mediator in this war, and not unsuccessfully. The Istanbul negotiations in March-April 2022 became the first serious attempts at a ceasefire. The grain deal (July 2022–July 2023), mediated by Turkey and the UN, allowed unblocking Ukrainian grain exports through the Black Sea, saving millions of people from hunger in Africa and Asia. Turkey has repeatedly facilitated humanitarian prisoner exchanges.
Turkey is a NATO member but simultaneously maintains dialogue with Russia. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has managed to maintain balance: he supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity but doesn’t sever relations with Moscow. This makes Turkey an ideal mediator. And what about Hungary? What are its diplomatic achievements in this war? None. Orbán wasn’t a mediator. He was an obstacle.
Turkey, despite all its contradictions, is perceived as a relatively neutral actor. Yes, Erdoğan has his interests, but he acts as a pragmatist, not an ideologue. Orbán, however, is an open Putin supporter. He blocks sanctions, blocks aid to Ukraine, travels to Moscow, and calls the war “not ours.” How can such a leader be a mediator? It’s like appointing one side’s lawyer as the judge in a case.
The European Union is skeptical about the choice of Budapest. Officially, the European Commission “cautiously welcomes any attempts to achieve peace,” but behind the scenes, they voice harsh assessments. Expert Dániel Hegedűs from the German Marshall Fund stated directly, “This is a deliberate challenge to EU unity. An attempt to undermine Europe’s common position on Russia.” Alberto Alemanno, professor at HEC Paris, added, “Orbán is more loyal to Russia and the U.S. than to the EU.”
Parliamentary groups in the European Parliament, from centrists to the left, have expressed concern. Green and left-wing deputies even demand Putin’s arrest if he appears on EU territory, as he’s subject to an International Criminal Court warrant.
Ukrainian historian and diplomat Roman Bezsmertny commented on the situation: “Trump will drag out negotiations… actions look strange.” Other Ukrainian experts point out that the choice of Budapest is a PR project for Orbán ahead of the 2026 elections. The Hungarian premier needs to show his electorate that he’s a “peacemaker,” a “global player,” and “someone people reckon with.” But for Ukraine, such an arrangement is unacceptable. Zelenskyy stated directly, “Orbán blocks Ukraine everywhere; he can’t do anything positive.”
The comparison of Budapest and Turkey shows that the choice of the Hungarian capital is a political decision, not a diplomatic one. Geography, mediation history, trust among the parties, and the EU’s position all point to Turkey as the optimal option. But Trump chose Budapest. Why? He prioritizes assisting Orbán over making significant progress in negotiations. The Budapest summit isn’t about peace in Ukraine. It’s about elections in Hungary.
The Logic of Absurdity: Why Budapest Isn’t About Diplomacy
Let’s bring all arguments together to see the full picture of the absurdity of choosing Budapest as a negotiating venue.
A mediator, by definition, must be neutral. Orbán, however, is an open Moscow ally. He blocks sanctions against Russia, blocks military aid to Ukraine, blocks financial support for Kyiv, travels to Putin and calls him a “partner,” and uses anti-Ukrainian rhetoric in his own electoral campaign. This isn’t a mediator. This is one side’s advocate.
The European Union doesn’t officially support Budapest. Ukraine is categorically against it. The U.S. is imposing this decision contrary to its allies’ position. The question arises: who will these negotiations be with? Is this a dialogue between Trump and Putin, where Ukraine is just decoration? Turkey is closer, safer, and has experience. But they choose Budapest. This confirms: diplomatic logic has nothing to do with it.
Orbán calls Hungary the “island of peace.” But this isn’t peace; it’s isolation. Hungary has isolated itself from the EU, from NATO (despite formal membership), and from democratic values. Orbán created not an “island of peace,” but an island of authoritarianism, where “peace” means capitulation to the aggressor.
Budapest as a venue for negotiations is a symbol. This symbolizes Trump’s willingness to sacrifice Ukraine’s interests for personal connections. This serves as a demonstration that in Trump’s world of transactional diplomacy, personal loyalty takes precedence over the strategic interests of allies. And it’s a signal to the entire world: if you’re Trump’s friend, he’ll pull you out of any hole, even at the cost of undermining trust in Western institutions.
Friendship as a Weapon: Why Trump’s Personal Ties Threaten Global Security
The Budapest case isn’t an isolated incident. It’s a symptom of a more profound problem: Trump’s transactional diplomacy, based on personal connections rather than strategic interests or values.
Trump builds foreign policy around personal relationships. If he likes a leader, he’s willing to ignore any of their flaws. For Trump, a “good leader” is one who personally appeals to him, who praises him, and who demonstrates “strength.” This definition does not include defending democratic values or adhering to international law.
The Budapest summit is a test. Trump is checking how far he can go supporting his friend contrary to allies’ positions. If this works, if Orbán gets his PR effect and stays in power, it will become a template. Other authoritarian leaders will see: friendship with Trump is a guarantee of support, even if you break the rules. If it doesn’t work, if the EU and Ukraine manage to block or devalue the Budapest format, it will signal that transactional diplomacy has limits.
For Ukraine, the price of Trump’s friendship with Orbán could be high. Should Budapest set a precedent, Moscow may favorably shape future negotiations. Moreover, if Trump feels that Ukraine “doesn’t respect” his friends, he may start cutting aid. This creates toxic dynamics: Kyiv is forced to navigate between a principled position and the pragmatic necessity of maintaining favorable relations with Washington.
Trump misunderstands (or refuses to understand) that foreign policy is not business deals between friends. It’s a system of institutions, treaties, and a balance of power. When personal sympathies become more important than strategic interests, the entire system begins to shake. And that’s precisely what we’re witnessing now.
The Bottom Line: Personal Politics Over National Interests
The story of the Budapest negotiating venue serves as a perfect illustration of how the personal interests of political leaders can subvert the logic of diplomacy in the modern world.
Orbán is falling, and that’s a fact. The Hungarian PM, for the first time in 15 years of power, finds himself in a situation of real electoral threat. His party is losing to the opposition by a crushing score, his personal rating has fallen, and the economy is stalling. The 2026 elections could be the end of the Orbán era.
Donald Trump is doing everything possible to boost Orbán’s ratings: inviting him to the Gaza summit where he has nothing to do and pushing Budapest as the venue for Ukraine negotiations, contrary to logic and allies’ positions.
For Russia, Budapest is equally beneficial. Knowing the low probability of negotiations actually taking place there, but simultaneously insisting on this venue, Putin demonstrates willingness to negotiate while implementing a scenario of indefinitely postponing them.
For Moscow, Budapest is beneficial precisely because it demonstrates that in Europe there’s a leader willing to cooperate with the Kremlin. This undermines EU unity, and that’s Putin’s strategic goal.
Therefore, from Trump, Putin, and especially Orbán’s side, the Budapest negotiations theme will be regularly revived and kept alive.
The Budapest negotiations expose the profound divide between Trump’s vision and his European allies. If the U.S. continues to push decisions contrary to EU positions, trust between partners will continue to erode. Europe needs to establish mechanisms to limit one leader’s ability to sabotage common decisions.
For Ukraine, this means the need to balance between a principled position (not legitimizing Orbán) and pragmatism (not spoiling relations with Trump). The most likely strategy is stalling for time until Hungary’s elections. It must also work to convince ethnic Hungarians in Ukraine who have voting rights that a democratic, not totalitarian, Hungary is the best choice—both for Ukraine as a whole and for them personally.