2025年10月中旬，匈牙利政府正式啟動一項名為「反介入戰爭簽名運動」的全國性行動，引起歐洲輿論的廣泛關注。這項行動由總理歐爾班（Viktor Orbán）所領導，核心訴求是強調「匈牙利不會派遣軍隊介入俄烏戰爭、不會向烏克蘭提供武器，也不會為戰爭提供任何資金援助」。這項政策立場再次凸顯歐爾班政權在歐盟內部的「親俄、反烏」態度，與大多數歐洲國家形成鮮明對比。

歐爾班在公開講話中指出，歐洲不應再被「戰爭狂熱」所綁架，應該把重心放回「和平與民族安全」上。他強調，匈牙利人民「不想為別人的戰爭付出代價」，拒絕成為美國或布魯塞爾（歐盟）的「代理戰場」。政府也在全國推行民意簽名活動，希望藉此向歐盟傳遞一個訊息——匈牙利人民不支持對烏克蘭的軍事援助，也反對任何可能導致戰爭升級的行動。

匈牙利之所以展現出如此明顯的「親俄傾向」，背後原因複雜而深層。首先是經濟與能源依賴。匈牙利長期高度依賴俄羅斯的天然氣與石油供應，即使在歐盟全面制裁俄羅斯的背景下，歐爾班政府仍與莫斯科維持能源合作。俄羅斯國營企業「俄氣」（Gazprom）仍是匈牙利天然氣的主要供應方，兩國還在布達佩斯核電站擴建計畫上保持合作。這使得匈牙利在歐洲能源體系中不得不在政治上對俄保持一定程度的友好，以確保能源安全。

其次是政治與意識形態因素。歐爾班執政以來，一直奉行「主權保守主義」與「反自由主義」立場，強調民族主權、反對歐盟干預內政。這種政治思維與普丁（Vladimir Putin）強調「國家主權高於全球主義」的理念極為接近，因此兩人之間在政治觀點上有相當共鳴。歐爾班政府也經常批評歐盟對烏克蘭的援助計畫，指責其是「美國的延伸政策」，認為這場戰爭背後的推手是華盛頓，而歐洲只是被迫跟隨。

再者，國內政治現實也是關鍵考量。歐爾班的執政基礎來自匈牙利保守派與農村選民，他們普遍反感歐盟的自由派政策，例如難民接納、性別平權與環境管制，並傾向支持「強人領導」與「民族保護」。在這種政治氛圍中，歐爾班將「反戰」與「親俄」包裝成「維護匈牙利利益」的民族主義議題，有助於鞏固他在國內的支持率。

然而，歐爾班的立場也讓匈牙利在歐盟內部日益孤立。布魯塞爾對其延宕批准烏克蘭入盟、阻擋軍援資金釋出的行為多次表示不滿，甚至考慮削減對匈牙利的歐盟補助。德國、波蘭與波羅的海三國等前線國家則嚴厲批評歐爾班「破壞歐洲團結」，指責他實際上在幫助普丁延長戰爭。

總的來說，匈牙利啟動「反介入戰爭簽名運動」不僅是一次政治宣示，更是歐爾班長期外交策略的一部分——他希望在西方陣營內保持「特立獨行」的中間立場，既不與俄羅斯完全決裂，又能利用反戰民意對抗歐盟壓力。這種政策雖短期內能穩固國內支持，但長遠來看，也讓匈牙利面臨被歐洲主流孤立的風險。

In mid-October 2025, the Hungarian government officially launched a nationwide campaign called the “Anti-War Intervention Petition,” drawing wide attention across Europe. Led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, the campaign emphasizes that Hungary will not send troops to intervene in the Russia–Ukraine war, not provide weapons, and not contribute financial aid to the conflict. This move once again highlights the country’s pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine stance, setting it apart from most other European Union (EU) members.

Orbán, in his public address, declared that Europe should stop being “held hostage by war fever” and instead focus on “peace and national security.” He stressed that “the Hungarian people do not want to pay the price for someone else’s war” and refused to let Hungary become a “proxy battlefield” for either the United States or Brussels. The government has launched a public petition to demonstrate national opposition to military aid for Ukraine and to send a message to the EU that Hungarians reject actions that could further escalate the war.

Hungary’s pro-Russian orientation stems from a combination of economic, political, and ideological factors.
First, energy dependence plays a crucial role. Hungary relies heavily on Russia for natural gas and oil. Despite EU sanctions against Moscow, Orbán’s government continues to maintain close cooperation with Russia’s state-owned energy giant Gazprom and is working with Moscow on expanding the Paks nuclear power plant. This dependence makes it difficult for Hungary to sever ties with Russia without jeopardizing its energy security.

Second, ideological alignment also drives this stance. Since taking power, Orbán has pursued an “illiberal democracy” that prioritizes national sovereignty and opposes liberal globalism—an ideology that mirrors President Vladimir Putin’s own worldview. Both leaders share skepticism toward Western liberalism and see themselves as defenders of traditional values against the perceived overreach of Western institutions. Orbán has repeatedly accused the EU of merely executing Washington’s geopolitical agenda and claims that the war in Ukraine is primarily a U.S.-driven conflict that Europe has been forced to follow.

Third, domestic political strategy explains much of Orbán’s rhetoric. His political base—mostly conservative and rural voters—tends to reject EU liberal policies on immigration, gender, and climate issues, while admiring “strongman leadership.” By framing Hungary’s neutrality as a patriotic act of self-protection, Orbán reinforces nationalist sentiment and consolidates his support at home. The “anti-war” campaign, therefore, serves as both a political shield and a populist tool to maintain his grip on power.

However, Orbán’s stance has increasingly isolated Hungary within the EU. Brussels has criticized Budapest for blocking Ukraine-related aid packages and delaying approval of the country’s accession talks. Germany, Poland, and the Baltic states have openly condemned Orbán’s actions, accusing him of “undermining European unity” and effectively “helping Putin prolong the war.”

In essence, Hungary’s “Anti-War Intervention Petition” represents more than just a domestic campaign—it reflects Orbán’s long-term geopolitical balancing act. He aims to maintain a neutral, pragmatic position between Russia and the West, using anti-war sentiment to resist EU pressure and assert Hungary’s sovereignty. While this approach bolsters his domestic popularity, it also risks pushing Hungary further into political isolation within the European bloc.