Tag Archives: Georgia

Hungarians in praise of Vladimir Putin and his empire

It was only a few days ago that I devoted a post to Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó’s visit to Washington, where he met the new assistant secretary of state in charge of European and Eurasian Affairs, Wess Mitchell. It is hard to pass judgment on the meeting because both parties remained silent on the subject. One thing, however, is fairly certain: there are no definite plans for Viktor Orbán to travel to Washington and meet with President Trump. As Jenő Megyesy, an Orbán adviser on American affairs, put it, “such bilateral meetings are important only when there is some important topic or conflict on the horizon.” This is not the case today. This kind of talk indicates that there is no significant improvement in U.S.-Hungarian relations. One of the obstacles to closer links between the two countries is Russian-Hungarian relations.

Today I would like to call attention to two manifestations of the uncritical pro-Russian attitude propagated in the Hungarian administration and in the media. The first one comes straight from the Ministry of Defense. It is an article written by Lt. Colonel Endre Szénási, security and defense policy expert in the ministry’s Department of Defense Policy (Védelempolitikai Főosztály). The other was written by László Gy. Tóth, who is described in the media as “a political scientist close to the government.” He is an old hand in the trade. In 1997 he published a series of essays about “The heirs of Kádárism,” which I picked up by mistake and found to be utterly worthless.

Let’s start with a Hungarian military man’s assessment of the United States, Russia, NATO, and military matters in general. Before Szijjártó’s meeting with Wess Mitchell, the foreign minister pointed out that both in military and in economic matters relations between the United States and Hungary are excellent. Problems crop up only in political relations between the two countries. But do these two NATO allies see eye to eye on matters related to defense and their relationship to Russia when a chief analyst of the Ministry of Defense identifies with the interests of Vladimir Putin’s Russia? Because this is exactly what Szénási does. The article is actually about Michael Flynn’s “regrettable” departure from the White House, which may put an end to Donald Trump’s attempt at a rapprochement with Russia.

It is not Szénási’s erroneous analysis of American politics that deserves our attention but his statements on Russia and its role in world affairs. In his opinion, Russia is not an expansionist country. “It is only defending its own historical sphere of interest.” Russia is not “even aggressive since it didn’t force a change of regime in Georgia by military means. It didn’t bomb the Georgian ministry of defense, which in a classic war situation is the number one target. Unlike the United States it didn’t enforce regime change; it didn’t overthrow the government; it didn’t occupy Tbilisi.”

Russia wasn’t an aggressor in the Ukrainian case either. “Since 2014 it has occupied only that part of the Donets-Lugansk region which has a clear Russian identity. Moreover, the West mistakenly believes that the occupation of Crimea was an act of aggression. As far as Lt. Colonel Szénási is concerned, it is perfectly acceptable for Russia to militarily occupy territories of another country whose territorial integrity it had guaranteed earlier.

This article appeared originally in Terror & Elhárítás (Terror and interception), a periodical published by TEK (Terrorelhárítási Központ), often described as Viktor Orbán’s private army. It was subsequently discovered by András Domány, a well-known journalist and expert on Polish affairs. In his article in Élet és Irodalom, titled “Kormányzati tudomány” (Government science), he wonders whether the leadership of NATO or the Ukrainian government is aware of the appearance of this article and whether they will be satisfied with the explanation that this is just the private opinion of a government official. Because officially, Hungary is still one of the guarantors of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. 444 also picked up the story of Szénási’s lofty defense of Russia and added a few more quotations from other works by the security and defense expert.

Now, let’s move on to the article of our political scientist, László Gy. Tóth. Perhaps someone should translate the whole article because almost every sentence in it is an outrage. Here is one of the first sentences: “Judged by his activities to date, Vladimir Putin’s rational policies are of serious value.” After a sob story about Putin’s poverty-stricken childhood and his hard-working, deeply religious mother, Tóth goes on to praise him as the president of a country which is described as “a constitutional democracy that differs from the western variety because of the somewhat archaic and traditionalist value system of Russian society.” Putin guarantees human rights but “supports only those cultural trends that are not in conflict with traditional Russian values.”

As far as foreign affairs are concerned, “Russia is open to the world.” It attempts to be a partner with the EU and NATO. As Putin said, “We must try to configure a Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok.” This new Europe would be based on some kind of supranationalism, which means “a higher ranking cooperation of nationalisms.” I guess a united Europe under Vladimir Putin would be preferable to what we have now in Europe, which Viktor Orbán thoroughly detests.

The tension between the European Union and Russia is solely the fault of the United States. For decades American foreign policy strategists have been trying to isolate Russia by “generating conflict between the European Union and Russia. They have created an operetta-revolution in Belgrade, a revolution in Georgia in 2003, and a Ukrainian revolution in 2004. How? Through George Soros, various kinds of NGOs, and the CIA.

Yet “Putin is more and more accepted in Europe because it dawned on European politicians that today Russia has nothing to do with the former Soviet Union.” Russia today is, “in the good sense of the word, a nationalist, presidential, constitutional state that wants to base its future on traditionalist values. One must take cognizance of the fact that Russia is the leading military power of Europe and the only country in the world whose nuclear capabilities are not one bit smaller than those of the increasingly aggressive and unpredictable United States.”

In Tóth’s view, “in the newly created cold war, the Russian position is unequivocal and rational. If the United States acts in violation of previously concluded bilateral arms-control agreements, Russia will react immediately. This is a clear and rational standpoint that the Americans must accept.” Tóth adds: “Hungary was among the first countries to recognize that the Russian Empire has returned to the stage of the great powers.”

What can one say? It is hard to imagine that a member of Hungary’s armed forces and an official in the ministry of defense can spout off freely, expressing policies that are diametrically opposed to the official policies of Hungary. One must ask: What is the official policy of Hungary vis-à-vis Russia? Does anyone know for sure? Can its NATO allies trust the Hungarian military establishment when a long-time employee of the ministry and a member of the country’s military holds views like the ones that are expressed in his available writings? I have no idea, but I assume that the U.S. military attaché and his staff do read periodicals pertaining to military matters and have noted the appearance of articles like Szénási’s. Because I’m sure that anyone who took the trouble could find scores of articles similar in spirit to what is exhibited in Szénási’s pieces.

As for László Gy. Tóth, the so-called political scientist, one can hardly find words to describe the article’s sycophantic tone. Moreover, the article is sprinkled with old turns of phrase from the Rákosi and Kádár regimes. Phrases like “az Egyesült Államok kiszolgálói” (the hired hands of the United States) return in this article. One could perhaps argue that Tóth is just a political scientist, but such an article couldn’t appear in Magyar Idők without approval. This particular article might be stronger than some others that appear in the paper praising Russia and its leader, but Magyar Idők and Magyar Hírlap are both full of pro-Russian editorials. One must assume that the publication of these articles doesn’t bother the Orbán government at all; in fact, it endorses them.

January 23, 2018

Sources of Fidesz propaganda: Foreign and domestic alt-right sites

While I was doing background research for my post on how the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s reference to the “evil multibillionaire Zionist-American” as applied to George Soros made it to the evening news of M1, the Hungarian Television’s news channel, I became fascinated with the question of how and from where Hungarian right-wing sites get their information.

As I discussed in that post, George Soros, based on Khamenei’s accusation, intended to overthrow Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009, and he was instrumental in the ouster of President Eduard Shevardnadze of Georgia, an event normally described as the Rose Revolution. It derives its name from the climactic moment, when demonstrators led by Mikheil Saakashvili stormed the parliamentary session, red roses in hand. As far as Khamenei is concerned, Soros was guilty in the overthrow of Shevardnadze, but the truth is not at all clear-cut. In the three years prior to the Georgian regime change, foreign support for Shevardnadze’s regime had declined. The United States announced a reduction in aid, and the International Monetary Fund suspended aid to the country. Foreign governments and individuals, among them George Soros, gave financial aid to NGOs, but surely if the time had not been ripe for a regime change, Soros’s $1.5 million wouldn’t have mattered.

Hungarian journalists working on the news that night were not satisfied with these two claims and looked for other instances in which Soros’s financing of NGOs made a difference in election outcomes. They pointed to the 2015 election in Canada where Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party achieved an overwhelming victory against the Conservative Stephen Harper, who had been prime minister for the previous 12 years. The win was so large that it impossible to fathom that the couple of millions of dollars Soros may have given to Canadian NGOs would have made any difference. But the real question is: did George Soros’s NGOs tip the Canadian elections? I’m almost certain they didn’t.

M1’s claim is based on an article that appeared in the Calgary Herald. It reported that an organization called Canada Decides filed a complaint in which it claimed that “the outcome of the 2015 election was skewed by money from wealthy foreigners.” According to the complaint, the culprit was the U.S. based Tides Foundation, which gave $1.5 million to Canadian third parties. One of the three directors of Canada Decides is a former Conservative MP from Calgary who lost her seat to a Liberal in the election in question. I should add that George Soros’s name is not mentioned in the Calgary Herald article. Only questionable sources claim that Soros was funneling some of his money through the Tides Foundation. For example, Activist Post, which specializes in conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, claims that Soros is the largest contributor to the Tides Foundation, but I doubt that since the Tides Foundation’s total assets were $284,560,083 in 2015.

But let’s move on to Hungarian “fake news” sites. This morning a friend of mine called my attention to a Zsolt Bayer article which appeared on Bayer’s blog Bádog. Thanks to that article, I became acquainted with a number of far-right Hungarian sites. From the look of it, Hungarian extreme right “journalists” freely take over each other’s articles. Zsolt Bayer, without changing a word, copied an article which appeared on the alt-right site Magyar Közösség on May 25. The fake news this time was that “19 girls have disappeared without a trace from the location of the terror attack in Manchester.” If you try to find the origin of this story in English, you are out of luck. There are many stories about children who got lost and were eventually found, but nothing about 19 missing girls. A Cosmopolitan article even wrote about ostensibly Muslim taxi drivers who helped many children get home free of charge after the attack. The author of the Hungarian story, on the other hand, was convinced that the girls were kidnapped by these Muslim taxi drivers and sold as sex slaves. The British government is fully aware of it all, the article claims, but “it cannot tell it to the public because otherwise there would be a revolt.”

Brits out, Turks in. They would replace Brits with Turks

You would think that Magyar Közösség was the original source of the story. But no, it had already appeared on another far-right site, Világlátó, on May 24. The number of news items that appear every day on this particular site is truly remarkable. It is an Islamophobic site which just today, for example, informed its readers that “ISIS actually represents 1.5 billion Muslims” and therefore “Europe is doomed.” Or, “We must be prepared for a huge new wave of refugees: 500 million people may head toward Europe.” Or, “The Pentagon is said to be in complete panic after a ‘Russian super gun’ paralyzed the protection of Alaska.” Or, “About half of the potential terrorists are in Germany.”

What I’m driving at is that Fidesz’s well-known journalists, like Zsolt Bayer, have a strong affiliation with far-right Hungarian circles. They publish on each other’s news sites and borrow each other’s stories. It is high time to call Fidesz and its propaganda machine what it is: a far-right party that relies on far-right western and domestic sources for at least some of its news. The state propaganda apparatus–television, radio, and the internet–influences and misleads millions of people.

May 28, 2017