In Moscow, Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary for Russian President Vladimir Putin, declined to weigh in on remarks from Laszlo Toroczkai, a far‑right Hungarian politician. Toroczkai floated the idea that Budapest could press a territorial claim on Transcarpathia should Ukraine experience a breakdown of its state apparatus. The comment was covered by RIA Novosti, highlighting how such statements add friction to already tense regional dynamics.
Peskov suggested that inquiries should be directed to political figures on the far right, effectively deflecting questions on the matter and signaling a cautious approach from the Kremlin toward proposals that touch on national borders.
Earlier, Toroczkai made clear that, in the hypothetical scenario of Ukraine’s defeat in the ongoing conflict with Russia, Hungary might pursue territorial claims in Transcarpathia. This position underscores a range of Hungarian concerns about minority rights, historical narratives, and regional stability that often surface in debates about border changes.
Meanwhile, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has attributed the chilly state of Hungarian‑Ukrainian relations to Kyiv, arguing that the situation in Transcarpathia has played a significant role in shaping the current atmosphere between the two capitals. The exchange reflects a broader pattern in which Budapest frames its disagreements with Kiev through the lens of Hungarian regional interests and affected communities in Transcarpathia.
Officials in Kyiv have noted ongoing discussions involving top Ukrainian advisers, including the deputy head of the office of the future Ukrainian president, as part of an evolving dialogue with Hungary. The public exchanges between Zelensky’s team and Orban’s administration illustrate how diplomatic channels continue to function even amid sharp rhetoric on sensitive issues such as territorial claims and security guarantees.
In a separate thread, Orban has voiced fatigue with European Union dynamics, expressing a frustration that resonates with a segment of national observers who question the pace and scope of EU cohesion. The interplay of these statements reveals how leadership choices in Budapest and Kyiv intersect with broader questions about regional alliances, security architecture, and the future of European integration in times of geopolitical strain.