Print
Region: Europe
Type: Articles
Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article
Lyubov Shishelina

Doctor of History, Head of Vishegrad centre at the RAS Institute of Europe, Head of Central and Eastern Europe studies department, RIAC expert

Some Hungarian experts compare the loss of the Russian market in the 1990-ies with the losses suffered by the country after the Trianon Treaty.

Twenty years after the disintegration of the USSR the attempts to reevaluate the role of the Soviet state in the international policy and in the lives of neighboring countries and nations are natural and justified.

Some Hungarian experts compare the loss of the Russian market in the 1990-ies with the losses suffered by the country after the Trianon Treaty.

Twenty years after the disintegration of the USSR the attempts to reevaluate the role of the Soviet state in the international policy and in the lives of neighboring countries and nations are natural and justified. The possibility to compare “before” and “after” gives more adequate and objective results when the “on the spot” evaluations are often fouled with personal emotions and immediate resentment, illusions or erroneous ideas.

The unpredictable past

Hungary is a good example of this phenomenon. Here the condemnation of the socialism’s blunders gradually turned into the criticism of capitalism. Politicians who in the late 1980-ies called to rupture the relations with the USSR announce the openness to the East. The electorate doesn’t vote for the parties proclaiming a univocal pro-Atlantic orientation, but does vote for those who declare the priority of national interests in policy and economy and constructive relations with Russia. But in no case does it mean that Hungary wants to come back to the times of János Kádár’s ruling. Hungarian politicians of today believe that if the returning to the past and starting anew were possible, they would have started differently. But it’s well known that there is no subjunctive mood in history. It puts a full stop after every round and opens a way for the correction and revision of wrong steps, but not for their elimination.

In September 2007 in Lakitelek summer cottage of the Deputy Chairman of Hungarian Parliament Sandor Lezsak on the Tisa River hosted those who in September 1987 were designers of the events that were deemed to bring large democratic changes in Hungary and the whole of Eastern Europe. There were 180 of them – representatives of Hungarian elite “naively believing” as was stated 20 years after, that they can divert the country from danger. Some of them believed that reforms in Hungary were never started; others thought that transformation was attempted but failed and a new reform is needed. Drawing the bottom line under the two decades of “reforming”, architect Imre Macovecz said: “We were naïve as we didn’t know that the suppression even more profound and compelling than the Soviet oppression was in store for us”.

Twenty years ago the major part of Hungarian society hoped that the withdrawal from the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the Warsaw Treaty, the opening of Western borders and fastest possible integration with Europe would bring peace and prosperity to the country. The reformists who two decades later named themselves “naïve” regarded the parting with the USSR as the key goal of reforms. It implied not only the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Hungary but also the rupture of economic links that were deemed unfair not only by socialist countries, but by the Soviet Union as well, as the latter viewed export prices on primary materials and utilities to be too low.

The country had lost not only stability but also the reputation of the most advanced state in the region gained in the socialist time and had become one of the weakest links in the European Union.

Today the Hungarians say that in the XX century their country experienced two strong hardships – the loss of 2/3 of the territory and half of population due to the Trianon Treaty [1] and the loss of the Soviet market in the 1990-ies. Leaving the market is easier that returning onto it. Today it is clear that the range of products that can be offered by Hungary on the global market or on the Russian market has significantly reduced. More than 70% of GDP is represented by the output of transnational corporations that treat Hungary as a pied-a-terre and which curtailed the production as soon as the first signs of approaching economic turmoil appeared. The EU membership hasn’t yet definitely resolved any problem in Hungary except for the borders opening.

The fog of illusions and resentments is lifting

Imre Pozsgay, representative of a senior generation of Hungarian reformist politicians, said in 2007 at the Lakitelek meeting that “after the change of the system Hungary suffered a strategic defeat”. Yes, a strategic defeat, as by that time the country had lost not only stability but also the reputation of the most advanced state in the region gained in the socialist time and had become one of the weakest links in the European Union.

The reformists of the late 1980-ies saw the future Hungary outside any blocs. But instead of one army the country hosts the bases of the other army. If earlier the most important embassy was that of the Soviet Union, today – it’s the embassy of the US. The idea of the socialist brotherhood touted on the region after the WWII has been replaced by a similarly alien idea of a transatlantic cooperation. In the socialist time people didn’t want to learn Russian – now they regret that there are no places to learn it. Giant plants built in the USSR times used to raise concerns about environmental pollution, today within the EU Hungarian land has turned yellow with endless fields of colza. Hungarians already don’t consider the USSR to be the main culprit of 1956 tragedy. The History science puts this mournful burden on the domestic dictatorship of Rákosi. At the same time it’s a pity that in the 2000-ies the relations with Russia became an argument in the interparty fighting that sometimes penetrated into the Russian information space.

Return to a huge Russian market will balance out the national economy and give it a new impetus.

Marking the 10-th anniversary of reforms Hungarian leadership gave a positive assessment of the economic indicators of 1989. Alas – today the level of 1989 is still a delightful prospect in many aspects, particularly from the social welfare viewpoint. While it’s clear that the Hungarians don’t want “to go backwards” but do want “to go forward” this “forward” is no longer associated with the “Western civilization”. But a different “forward” understood by Hungarians as their own national path is supported by no one in the “Western civilization” which they were so eager to join a quarter of the century ago.

Is it this very Russia?

It’s indicative that America is mentioned less and less or not at all during the election campaigns in Hungary. Those who want to win the elections speak more about Russia and the need of a dynamic eastern policy. Today Hungarians see in Russia not only the features of relatively peaceful existence and social welfare but also a dynamic development and economic prospects. They believe that the return to a huge Russian market will balance out the national economy and give it a new impetus.

A new understanding of the Russian world, early covered by the veil of socialist ideology, comes to the country. The aspiration of political, scientific and cultural elite of Hungary for mending the relations with Russia was clearly and obviously demonstrated by the creation in May 2011 of the Association “For Hungarian-Russian cooperation” named after L.Tolstoy. An honorary chairman of this Association is S.Lezsak – the person who hosted in this back year the famous meeting of Hungarian intellectuals in 1987 which is regarded as the precursor of revolutionary changes in Hungary. This is a very important indicator of how Hungarian attitude towards Russia has radically changed over last twenty five years. Today the Russian language is gradually becoming one of the most popular; the Hungarian youth speaking Russian may count on the jobs with good prospects and career growth. In recent years Hungarians discovered the whole diversity of Russian cultural and historical heritage that can successfully compete with the West-European culture.

The majority of Russians are friendly towards Hungarians. It’s difficult to find a Russian tourist who having visited the country does not appreciate Hungarian hospitality. Hungary attracts Russians by its unusualness and “singularity”, by the mixture of different cultures and respect for national traditions. Today this country again sets revolutionary agenda to the world. Let’s take for example a challenging statement on the supremacy of national interest over pan-European that coincidently was made during Hungary’s EU Presidency in the first half of 2011 (the issue of the protection of national interests in a new law on mass-media and the Constitution of Hungary was raised in the debates in EU Parliament and mass-media). Or, another example – a party that got more than two thirds of votes of the electorate who absolutely freely and consciously expressed its will comes to the Parliament. Is it in line with democratic principles? Some EU politicians attempted to contest this situation offering the winning Hungarian party to share power with the losers [2].

Since the end of May 2010 national-conservative government of Viktor Orbán has held the office. It has successfully passed the test of a six-month Presidency in EU Council. Of course this function diverted the main efforts from the proclaimed course of the openness to the East and rapprochement with Russia (though an important for Russia issue of a visa-free regime with EU was in the competence of the EU President). But the main goal was reached – a strong foundation for the establishment of a new type of relations was built. The strength of this foundation is ensured by the elimination of problems already accumulated in the contemporary history of our relations regarding the transparency of transactions and contracts as the cornerstone.

This is how the solutions were found to the conflict between “Sugrutneftegaz” Inc. and Hungarian Oil and Gas Company “MOL”, to the problems of Hungarian flagship air-carrier “MALEV”, to the dispute over the sale of Hungarian trade mission building in Moscow etc. Hungarians got contracts for the construction of large objects in St. Petersburg and Volgograd. They participate in the exploration of oil deposits and build residential houses, health-care and social facilities all over Russia.

There is a solid framework for the trade and cultural cooperation between the two countries. The volume of sales which significantly suffered from the global economic crises is again rising to the figures surpassing that of CMEA times.

Russia today ranks the second among foreign trade partners of Hungary. As of the end of 2010 the volume of Russian investments into the country amounted $3 bln while Hungarian investments in Russia reached $2 bln. It’s already a considerable result for the first 18 months Orbán’s government in the office. In the near future, when pre-election battles in Russia fade away and business-as-usual regains ground we may expect a genuine breakthrough in the development of strong economic, political and cultural relations between the two countries.

1. On June 04, 1920 the countries-winners of WWI and the defeated Austria-Hungary singed in the Grand Trianon Palace in Versaille the peace agreement that defined the territorial division of Austria-Hungary. The Trianon Treaty became effective as of July 26, 1921.

2. Debates in EU Parliament during the presentation of program for Hungary Presidency in EU Council by Viktor Orbán on January 19, 2011. Orbán: Hol élnek önök? Meg vagyok döbbenve // MNO, 19.01.2011.

Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article

Poll conducted

  1. In your opinion, what are the US long-term goals for Russia?
    U.S. wants to establish partnership relations with Russia on condition that it meets the U.S. requirements  
     33 (31%)
    U.S. wants to deter Russia’s military and political activity  
     30 (28%)
    U.S. wants to dissolve Russia  
     24 (22%)
    U.S. wants to establish alliance relations with Russia under the US conditions to rival China  
     21 (19%)
For business
For researchers
For students