With the new Hungarian Prime Minister, Péter Magyar, taking office, Europe’s attention has once again turned to Budapest . Following the change of government, many expected Hungary to move closer to the political direction of the European Union . However, the first statements paint a more nuanced picture.

A key issue is the financing of support for Ukraine . Magyar indicated that Hungary does not wish to participate in an EU loan program that would impose additional financial burdens on the country. He emphasized that in the current economic situation, national interests take priority.

This stance is strongly reminiscent of the policies of former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán , which often led to conflict with Brussels. While the European Commission is pushing for burden-sharing, Budapest remains cautious about financial commitments.

A particularly sensitive issue is Ukraine’s possible EU accession. According to Magyar, a country at war cannot currently meet the accession criteria. This statement runs counter to the drive for the country’s faster integration.

There is no sign of a radical shift in energy policy either. Magyar supports the continued use of Russian energy sources – especially oil – if it is economically justified. He justifies this with price stability and security of supply.

This approach can be considered pragmatic, but it differs from the strategies of several EU member states, which would rapidly reduce their dependence on Russian energy sources. Hungary, on the other hand, prefers a gradual transition.

The position on migration is also firm. Magyar rejects the EU migration pact and would maintain border protection measures, including the southern border fence. This remains one of the main points of contention between Budapest and Brussels.

Another important factor is the issue of so-called frozen EU funds. Hungary is waiting for them to be released, while Brussels is attaching conditions to their disbursement. This creates a classic situation of political pressure.

This poses a serious strategic dilemma for Hungary. Resources would be needed to expand economic room for maneuver, but excessive concessions could provoke domestic political criticism, especially on the issue of sovereignty.

An interesting change can be observed in the style of communication. While Orbán often struck a confrontational tone, Magyar is more restrained and diplomatic. However, the political content remained similar in many respects.

This presents a new challenge for the European Union. It is more difficult to develop a political strategy with a less confrontational leader who represents similar positions than with an openly opposing government.

Overall, the change of government did not bring a clear change of direction. The coming months may be decisive in judging whether Péter Magyar will set Hungary’s relationship with the European Union on a new course, or whether previous tensions will continue in a new form.