Hungary on 27 October again refused to approve the screening results for clusters 4 and 5, the last two blocks of Ukraine’s EU accession talks that remain unopened, at a meeting of the EU Council’s enlargement working party in Brussels, European Pravda reported, citing several EU diplomats. It was Budapest’s second refusal in a week.

Ukraine is pursuing EU membership while fighting Russia’s full-scale invasion, and for years its path ran into vetoes from Viktor Orbán’s Hungary. Orbán lost power in April to Péter Magyar, who promised to bring Hungary back to Europe. His government is now the one blocking the last two clusters.

Brussels knew Budapest would say no

One of the diplomats said that “Hungary’s position has not changed.” Ireland, which holds the rotating presidency of the EU Council, knew in advance that Budapest would not move but put the item on the agenda anyway. Another diplomat described the repeat vote as a political move to raise pressure on Hungary rather than a real attempt to get a yes.

Hungary’s arguments were not disclosed on 20 October, when it first blocked the step. Cluster 4 covers transport, energy, trans-European networks, the environment, and climate. Cluster 5 covers agriculture, fisheries, regional policy, and budget rules.

Kyiv paid for two clusters, and the last two stay shut

Earlier this month, Ukraine’s parliament passed the minority-language schooling law Budapest had demanded, and the EU opened clusters 2 and 3 on 13 October. Magyar’s government has tied its support to Kyiv meeting 11 demands on the rights of the Hungarian minority.

On 16 October, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy held his first one-on-one meeting with Magyar in Brussels and thanked him for opening the two clusters, adding that work was underway to open the remaining two by the end of the year, his office said. Ten days later, Zelenskyy set out why the timing matters.

“It is very important that the remaining two negotiating clusters for Ukraine are opened by the end of this year, and that during the Lithuanian presidency we could already close negotiating chapters,” he wrote.

Lithuania takes over the EU Council presidency in January.

Budapest’s next moves may also decide whether Ukraine and Moldova still advance together.

Moldova’s President Maia Sandu discussed the opening of her country’s last two clusters with Magyar during a visit to Budapest last week, and in July Hungary already offered to move Moldova ahead on its own.

Hungary’s Western anchor is set. The rest depends on pipelines, not speeches.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The days of October

“Magyarország nem kompország”: Hungary is not a “ferry country”; it cannot drift between East and West. With this statement, delivered on October 23 before the Parliament in Budapest, Prime Minister Péter Magyar set the political tone for the 70th anniversary of the 1956 revolution. Immediately afterward, he added that in ’56 the Hungarians had already made their choice: “We belong to a free and democratic Europe.”

The phrase is no accident. The kompország is an image coined by Endre Ady, who in 1905 described Hungary as a ferry doomed to shuttle back and forth between East and West without ever docking permanently on either shore. For sixteen years, Viktor Orbán had overturned that assessment, transforming the oscillation into a strategy: Hungary as a bridge, Moscow’s interlocutor within the European Union, a hub of “opening to the East.” The new government chose the day most steeped in memory on the national calendar to declare that era over. This is the political significance of the day, and it is the appropriate place to begin.

On October 23, 1956, students from the Budapest University of Technology took to the streets in solidarity with Polish workers. The procession gathered in front of the statue of General Bem, then headed toward the Parliament; among their demands were free elections and the withdrawal of Soviet troops. In the evening, part of the crowd moved to Városliget, where the monument to Stalin stood. The Budapest police chief, Sándor Kopácsi, provided a detailed account in his book *Au nom de la classe ouvrière*: the demonstrators wrapped a steel cable around the neck of the statue—which, including its pedestal, stood about twenty-five meters tall—while others, who had arrived in trucks loaded with oxygen tanks and cutting torches, began cutting through the bronze at the level of the boots. It took about an hour for the statue to collapse. Only the boots remained on the pedestal, into which a Hungarian flag was planted. At the same time, in front of the Radio headquarters, the political police (ÁVH) opened fire on the crowd, and the protest turned into an armed uprising.

On October 25, in Kossuth Square, shots fired at demonstrators gathered in front of the Parliament caused a massacre whose death toll, even today, ranges from a few dozen to several hundred. This year’s state ceremony took place in that same square.

The revolution was not a bloodless affair on just one side. In the alleys of the 8th and 9th districts, around Corvin Passage, groups of insurgents—many of whom were boys barely out of their teens—attacked Soviet tanks with Molotov cocktails, and many crew members were burned to death inside their vehicles. Total Soviet casualties exceeded seven hundred. The fiercest violence, however, was directed at the men of the political police. On October 30, in Republic Square (Köztársaság tér), the insurgents stormed the party headquarters in Budapest: more than twenty ÁVH officers and conscripts were killed, some lynched and hanged from trees, along with City Secretary Imre Mező. The revolution’s own leaders condemned these acts and called for an end to summary justice.

The October 28 ceasefire marked the beginning of the withdrawal phase. Moscow agreed to withdraw its units from Budapest on the condition that they be replaced by Hungarian units and that the insurgents surrender their weapons. The columns in direct contact with the fighters left their positions on October 30; the last ones departed from the Parliament area in the early afternoon of the 31st. It was a retreat carried out in an openly hostile atmosphere. The groups at the Corvin Passage, convinced that this was a ruse, refused to assist in securing the convoys, and their suspicion was not unfounded: several armored vehicles remained hidden in Népliget and other parts of the city. However, the available sources—both Hungarian and Soviet—do not document any systematic attacks against the departing troops during those two days. The most harrowing accounts—those of Soviet soldiers killed while fleeing from burning vehicles—pertain to the clashes that occurred after November 4. Meanwhile, on October 31, the Presidium of the CPSU had already overturned the decision.

On November 1, Imre Nagy’s government proclaimed the country’s neutrality and its withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. At dawn on November 4, Operation “Turbine” brought seventeen Soviet divisions back to Budapest. The final toll included approximately 2,500 Hungarian deaths, about 200,000 exiles, tens of thousands of convictions, and more than two hundred executions; Nagy, Pál Maléter, and Miklós Gimes were hanged after a secret trial in June 1958.

Three squares, three memories

Magyar said that for years Hungarians had been led to believe that the national holiday belonged to a single political party. The day showed that the memory of ’56 remains divided, even if the roles have been reversed. The state held its celebrations in Kossuth Square, with the morning flag-raising ceremony and a solemn session of Parliament. Fidesz, KDNP, and Mi Hazánk did not participate because they do not recognize the legitimacy of the new President of the Republic, András Baka.

Fidesz organized its own “March of the National Flag” from the Technical University to Bem Square, following the route taken by the students in 1956. Speakers included former President János Áder, historian Mária Schmidt, and parliamentary group leader János Bóka. For the first time in many years, Orbán did not deliver the October 23 speech: he was in Paris and limited himself to sharing Bóka’s video on social media. The slogan chosen for the demonstration—“No war, no gender, no migration—God, homeland, family”—makes it quite clear which interpretation of 1956 the opposition intends to uphold: that of a revolt for the nation, faith, and family against ideology—an interpretation to be revived today against Brussels.

Mi Hazánk has taken this interpretation to its logical conclusion. Its leader, László Toroczkai, has argued that in 1956 the Hungarians did not rebel against Russia but against an internationalist empire—and that today that empire is called the European Union—which reveals that, at least for a segment of the Hungarian right, 1956 has become an anti-Western symbol.

Magyar’s speech in Kossuth Square addressed this contentious issue. He recalled Erika Szeles, Péter Mansfeld, István Angyal, Nagy, and Maléter; he said that military superiority was able to crush the revolution and execute “the martyred prime minister,” but could not extinguish the desire for freedom. Then he turned to the present. Those who seek support against their own people “in Moscow or elsewhere,” he said, should remember that power sustained by foreign backing lasts only a short while. Anyone who, after 1956, parades an aggressor through the streets or subordinates the nation to foreign empires “has understood nothing of the message of ’56,” and Magyar added: “whether in Budapest or on a Parisian terrace” . The target was Orbán.

The section on foreign policy was brief and clear: Hungary wants to be a reliable ally and an equal partner, not a country that follows an isolated course. The speech never explicitly mentioned Russia, nor did it speak of neutrality. This choice is significant. In 1956, neutrality was Nagy’s ultimate demand; seventy years later, the Hungarian government interprets that same legacy as an anchor to the West, not as equidistance.

Brussels in Budapest

The presence of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa gave the day an explicitly European framework. Von der Leyen, on her first visit to Hungary since 2024, spoke in Parliament of a return “to a reborn country.” She said that in 1956 even the Soviets were afraid, because a victory by the Hungarian people would have spread the desire for democracy. She then directly linked the anniversary to the April 12 election: in April, Hungary would once again send a message of hope, demonstrating that democratic regression is reversible. She had already made the same comparison between Orbán’s defeat and the 1956 revolution in the aftermath of the elections, sparking protests among the Hungarian right.

The rest of the guest list was more modest than the government had led people to believe. Delegations were sent by some forty countries, almost all at the level of ministers or parliamentary speakers; Moldovan President Maia Sandu and Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze were in attendance. Emmanuel Macron, whose attendance Magyar had announced in an interview, did not attend: the French embassy clarified that the visit had never been confirmed, following days of tension over certain comments by the Hungarian prime minister regarding the unrest in France. Also absent were Giorgia Meloni, who was visiting Kuwait, and Donald Tusk, who was in India. Volodymyr Zelenskyy was not present; Ukraine was represented by the Speaker of Parliament. Vladimir Putin was the only head of state from Europe to not receive an invitation.

On October 23, he symbolically confirmed a shift that had already begun in practice. The Magyar government has classified Russia as a security threat, given the green light to open four negotiation chapters for Ukraine’s accession to the European Union, and set the 2027 defense budget at 2% of GDP. The role of bridge between Europe and Russia—which Orbán had made the hallmark of Hungarian foreign policy—is no longer government doctrine.

It remains to be seen to what extent this can be achieved in practice. Last April, Magyar pointed out that Hungary is “close to Russia” and that paying more for raw materials harms European competitiveness; he said he was ready for pragmatic cooperation with Moscow and wanted to renegotiate the terms of Paks II with the Kremlin. Oil still comes via the Druzhba pipeline, and the country’s only nuclear power plant burns Russian fuel. Energy Minister István Kapitány maintains that, starting in October 2027, gas could come entirely from non-Russian sources, and a decision on Paks II is expected by the end of the year.

The 70th anniversary thus leaves one question unanswered. Ady feared that Hungary would remain a ferry forever. Orbán had tried to turn the ferry into a bridge. Magyar now promises a permanent landing on the western shore. Whether that landing will be stable will be determined more by geography and infrastructure than by speeches.

The two squares on October 23—Kossuth and Bem—did not celebrate the same revolution.

Written by Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher

What began in September with student protests and social unrest in France over education reforms and rising tensions, alongside months of anti-government actions in Albania targeting Edi Rama’s long rule, has spread to Belgium, Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, and beyond, turning the streets of many European cities into battlegrounds of tear gas, water cannons, and burning barricades.

Early signs suggest Croatia and Austria could join the protests, which some are calling a “European Autumn.” Beyond Albania’s more political confrontation, the protests reflect the anger of ordinary citizens over high living costs, unaffordable housing, squeezed public services, and the belief that governments prioritize other issues, such as the Ukraine War, over household budgets.

In France, hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets in recent days. Authorities report nearly 1,000 detentions nationwide, a heavy deployment of police and gendarmes, and clashes involving water cannons and tear gas. In Rome, authorities detained more than 200 young people during similar confrontations. In Barcelona, demonstrations escalated into riots, resulting in roughly 100 arrests, dozens of fires, and looted shops. In Tirana, thousands have protested with Molotov cocktails and have faced police tear gas. These are not isolated incidents but reflect youth frustration and public exhaustion as prices rise while wages and services lag.

European officials have repeatedly blamed outside actors, particularly Russia, for the unrest. Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto described the violence in Milan and other cities as the result of a “hybrid war” waged through platforms such as TikTok, social media, and YouTube, while Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni ordered intelligence briefings to assess whether foreign actors, including Moscow, had helped amplify the unrest. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said that hostile narratives from Russia, China, Iran, and the MAGA community had exploited high-school student protests in France.

Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed these claims as obvious exaggerations that European citizens can see through.

“To suggest that we are provoking mass protests in major European cities, well, that is clearly going too far, it’s something that, in my view, is obvious to the ordinary citizens of European countries,” Putin said, adding that the accusations reflect “the weakness and inability of certain leaders in European countries to take responsibility for what is happening.”

Leaders and officials blaming Moscow reflect Europe’s long habit of shifting blame outward rather than addressing the rise in energy prices following the cut of cheaper Russian supplies and the redirection of more public funds toward expanding the defense industry since 2022. The protest’s origins in budget cuts to education, housing, and everyday services are evident in the slogans and demands heard on the streets.

In Albania, protests against plans to build a hotel near Vlorë escalated into a broader movement to oust the government. In Spain, anger erupted over the eviction of an elderly resident, whose home was later occupied by migrants. In France, student opposition to enrollment reforms drew in other groups, including people from North African communities. Although each protest had a different trigger, their spread across the continent shows how resistance has inspired youth amid shared economic pressure.

In response to the protests, French authorities are expected to scale back some planned education cuts, which could ease immediate tensions. Yet France has the eurozone’s third-highest debt, behind only Italy and Greece. Without broader social agreement on priorities—including affordable energy, housing supply, and avoiding wasteful defense spending—the protests are likely to continue. Immigration pressures and social divisions further reinforce the sense that resources are being misdirected.

Politically, the unrest accelerates polarization already underway in France. Centrist parties continue to lose ground as voters move toward left- and right-wing alternatives. Some establishment figures try to use the disorder to limit options, including those of the far-right Marine Le Pen’s movement and the far-left Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s, but this only further erodes the current administration’s legitimacy.

Le Pen has used images of looting, burned vehicles, and street clashes to reinforce a law-and-order message, arguing that the country needs stronger command and that chaos cannot be a governing project. Mélenchon, by contrast, has aligned himself with the underlying student and cost-of-living grievances, criticizing police tactics and framing the protests as a response to years of underfunding in education and public services. Both draw support from different segments of the French public angered by the center’s failure to deliver affordable energy, housing, and stable public services while maintaining high debt and defense commitments.

Unless governments directly address energy prices, debt constraints, and migration, the so-called Autumn Wave will persist and spread across Europe, deepening polarization, as already evident in French politics. Blaming external actors, from Moscow to social media platforms, will not restore public trust or lower household costs, but will deepen the animosity already building.

---

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• Geography of Losses: Citizens of Eleven Countries Among the Mercenaries Killed in Ukraine
• Putin-Witkoff Talks Expose Broken Western Unity On Ukraine
• Sisi Calls Emergency Session to Authorize Egyptian Defense of Saudi Arabia

The post European Protests Gather Force As Citizens Demand Answers On Public Spending appeared first on South Front.