V4 Leaders Address the Ukraine Crisis and War Responsibility
The discussion among leaders of the Visegrad Group underscored a clear and decisive stance: the war in Ukraine is a result of Russian aggression, and neutrality is not an option when assessing guilt, responsibility, or the path forward. The Prime Minister of Poland reiterated that, regardless of Russia’s declared strength, the moral and historical judgment about the aggression must be straightforward. In this view, there is no room for weighing sides in a way that could dilute the reality of the situation.
During a press conference after the Prague gathering, participants from the V4 were asked whether the moment could be viewed as a shift toward a broader framework of dialogue and negotiation given the ongoing conflict. The question touched on the potential for reconciliation processes while maintaining a firm stance against aggression.
The central question posed to participants was about identifying the aggressor and the causes behind the war. The discussion reflected a shared conviction that, regardless of geopolitical dynamics, the responsibility for the war is not a matter for negotiation when it comes to moral and legal conclusions.
In his remarks, the Polish prime minister emphasized that while terms of peace and methods of assistance to Ukraine can be debated and shaped through dialogue, the fundamental question of who initiated the aggression must be answered unambiguously. The emphasis was on supporting Ukraine’s right to independence and its sovereignty, which is a straightforward matter that does not require elaborate justification in the face of aggression.
He argued that accepting Moscow’s position or any alternative framing would threaten the independence of the entire region and imply a return to subjugation. The message was clear: neighboring states cannot be condemned to a fate of dependence or weakness.
Following the statements, it was expressed hope that the meeting would yield practical ways to align the positions of the Four and to secure benefits for Europe and Ukraine as a whole.
— said the Polish head of government.
Orbán’s Perspective
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán stressed the importance of focusing on an end to the war. He noted that perspectives often differ depending on the viewer’s vantage point and argued that the most urgent objective is to save lives and bring hostilities to a close as swiftly as possible. The core question, he added, concerns how the conflict can be resolved rather than assigning sole blame to any party.
Orbán recognized the difficulty in reconciling competing narratives: those who frame the conflict through Ukrainian experiences versus those who view it through Hungarian experience. His takeaway was simple: the priority is a concrete end to the war and a humanitarian response that preserves life wherever possible.
He also pointed out that among the parties involved, the question of who is the aggressor or the victim remains important, but the primary focus should be on a constructive path to peace rather than prolonged disputes over attribution.
His analysis complemented the concerns of other leaders regarding the war’s trajectory and the implications for regional stability and security. The emphasis remained on practical steps that could reduce harm and move toward a sustainable and peaceful resolution.
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico clarified that his government would not provide armed assistance or military equipment to Ukraine, while signaling openness to commercial and trade support. This stance highlighted a division within the group on military involvement but consistency in pursuing economic and humanitarian cooperation where possible.
The Czech Prime Minister, Petr Fiala, acknowledged significant differences among the participants. He admitted that the V4 landscape has shifted since Russia’s aggression began and that there are substantial divergences in how to interpret the causes of the conflict and in approaches to solving the crisis. Yet he stressed that there is value in continued dialogue. The gathering demonstrated that despite disagreements, it remains meaningful to listen, engage, and seek common ground where possible.
Fiala described the current climate as polarized by Moscow’s aggression, but he also framed the meeting as evidence that productive conversations can occur and that negotiations can contribute to finding practical points of contact among partners. The overarching message was one of cautious optimism about collaboration in difficult times.
These reflections from the V4 leaders collectively reinforce a pragmatic approach: defend Ukraine’s right to independence, acknowledge the human cost of the conflict, and pursue a coordinated path toward peace and stability in Europe. The discussion underscored a commitment to align on strategic priorities while recognizing the varied national perspectives within the group.
tkwl/PAP
Source: wPolityce