Trump gives Hungary the green light for Russian gas. Political scientist: “A defiance to the EU. He sacrificed his strategy for an ally in the Union”

Donald Trump's decision to exempt Hungary from sanctions for Russian oil and gas purchases shows that the US president has sacrificed his international stability strategy and defied Europe to keep an ally in the EU, says Professor Sergiu Miscoiu

Donald Trump will help Orban win the election. PHOTO: Profimedia

US President Donald Trump has exempted Hungary from sanctions over purchases of Russian oil and gas for a year, a White House official confirmed to BBC News.

On Friday, during Viktor Orban's visit to the White House, Trump said an exemption was being considered because “it's very difficult for him (Orban) to get oil and gas from other areas.”

After the meeting, Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó wrote on X that the US had granted Budapest “complete and unlimited relief from oil and gas sanctions”.

An official later told the BBC that this exemption was limited to one year.

The American president's decision represents an important victory for Orban, who had stated that the sanctions would ruin his country's economy, notes the cited source.

Trump appeared sympathetic to Hungary's position as a landlocked country dependent on Russian oil and gas, but did not give a specific guarantee.

Political scientist Sergiu Mișcoiu, a professor at the Babeș-Bolyai University in Cluj and at the Paris-Est Créteil University, explained to “Adevărul” what is the message that the US president is sending with this derogation, in the context where, last month, the US blacklisted two of the largest oil companies in Russia, threatening sanctions on those who buy from them. The professor also commented on Trump's statements regarding Romania.

“He was not very interested that Russia would use this decision for its own purposes”

The truth: President Trump granted Prime Minister Orban a waiver from sanctions for purchasing Russian oil and gas. What message does this decision send?

Sergiu Miscoiu: We must start from the fact that Donald Trump, unlike his predecessors, treats governance as an act of personal decision. The decisions he makes are the fruit of his own thinking and actions. There is really no consistency of principle or even of the interests of the United States of America. This is a matter of consistency only in terms of the personal interests of Trump and the people around him.

Obviously, when these sanctions were introduced, they were introduced with a dual purpose. It is a rather strategic goal, to show which is the greatest power in the world and to make a bit of order in the international hierarchy, giving a strong signal that the United States cannot be “pulled on the string” by the other states. But such a strategy, to be consistent to the end, should obviously be accompanied by a very tough enforcement regime and in no case allow for exceptions.

We notice that we have this decision that is strictly related to the group interest of the people around Trump, in the sense that Trump's calculation is that it is necessary for Viktor Orban to win the Hungarian elections benefiting from this exemption, thus keeping gas prices low.

Further, this election of Orban will lead to the very long-term gain of an ally for the United States within the European Union. The European Union will become weaker and closer to the interests of the United States. It can be divided more easily if it opposes American interests, and especially Trump's. And this will also allow the election of a successor to Trump who will come from the Republican side, probably JD Vance, who seems to be Trump's anointed to succeed him.

To achieve this goal, Trump has been able to sacrifice himself, including this longer-term strategy of stability that the US cannot be trampled on internationally. Not very interested that Russia will use these benefits for its own purposes and will continue to speculate effectively that the US is too weak a state to have consistent strategies to apply internationally.

Do you think that in the end this strategy of Trump, to hit Russia with these economic sanctions, was a frivolous one from the beginning?

It is a strategy that could have been serious, but it would have been consistent, but Trump sacrifices the interests, including the national interests of the United States of America, the vision, let's say, of the American founding fathers of the world with the principles of liberal democracy, with the defense of human rights, with the emergence of state responsibility towards citizens and so on, government by the people, by the people, for the people. All this has already been put at the mercy of a sovereign, as he sees himself in the mirror. Any strategy will obviously undergo inflections according to the act of pleasure or displeasure of the sovereign. The sovereign could decide by his own wish who has or does not have access to him, what gestures can be made and what gestures cannot be made, who is repudiated, who is awarded.

That is why we have the opposition movement that is not called by chance in the USA – No king – because it is obvious that this transformation of the American regime into a regime of personal authority similar to that of absolutist sovereigns up to the 19th century is extremely worrying. It also spills over into foreign policy.

How important is this victory for Orban? Is it a decisive factor in winning elections?

It's hard to estimate, I'd say rather not. If Hungarians vote with Orban, they will perhaps take this argument a little into account, but they will consider it part of Orban's broader strategy to obtain this sovereignty and re-establish Hungarian independence. And if they're going to go with Orban, they're going to go regardless of what happened in the US. Instead, it is clear that he will contribute to the support of the discourse that will come from Fidesz and from Orban. So Orban will use this moment in the elections. It is difficult to estimate whether there will be a direct effect on voters. In fact, if Hungarians are going to ditch Viktor Orban and vote with the opposition, they probably will, massively, by virtue of all the cumulative arguments of his governments since 2010. It won't matter just a gesture from now.

“It is yet another challenge to the European Union”

For the European Union, what message does this derogation send?

It is yet another challenge to the European Union. It is yet another proof that the European Union does not have the necessary mechanisms to impose its own policies, even in these integrated areas, such as trade, because the European Union started as a customs tariff community within which the policies of the states were integrated at the level of the whole, and it was assumed that in the future there would be a deeper integration. In other words, we could not have had a case like that of Hungary, because the common European policies would have caused there to be only one variant of foreign trade of the European Union, and if a state wants to do something, it will do so only with the explicit permission of Brussels and will look for solutions together with the Europeans in that direction.

And two, that the European Union should properly protect its citizens from different countries, so that they are not affected to such a great extent by the changes taking place at the global geopolitical level. Neither of these two objectives has been achieved, nor have Europeans in Hungary been convinced that they live better because they are protected by the European Union, nor has this objective of legitimate constraints on states that “go crazy” been achieved.

And it is quite a delicate moment for the European Union, that it still has to find mechanisms to respond, because otherwise other states will be invited to do exactly what they want in relation to the outside world, with serious consequences for the cohesion of this continent, especially for states that are allies, close and that are in a relationship of mutual dependence on each other.

“Not canceling the elections would have led to the withdrawal of American troops from Romania”

Trump's statements regarding Romania, in which he says that American troops will remain in the country, make us able to “sleep more peacefully”? What is the importance of this message?

I did not think that we should sleep restlessly neither when the withdrawal of some contingents was announced, nor now when the American president declares his love for us and when we are assured that troops will continue to remain in Romania. This declarative back-and-forth that the Romanian lobbies overseas continue to store as a spectator rather than as an actor who would have a real influence, is part of Trump's strategy to “zig-zag”, especially with weak and dependent states, and unfortunately in the view of the US president, Romania is such a state, with policies that encourage Romania to continue to be in a relationship of admiration and, if possible, dependence on the United States. In other words, “don't go too far towards the EU which is kind of a dead horse” as Trump sees it, alternating with moments where we are scolded and cornered, actually being shown who we are in Washington's view.

Once again, it is a radical transformation of American politics, which is not even controlled by the 2-3 echelons of the State Department, who until now had a serious say and could change, bend the president's decisions, precisely because he considered himself too little informed and rather let the professionals speak. This is not the case with Trump and that is why we have these transitions from agony and ecstasy in the statements towards Romania and towards other states, that it is not only about Romania.

I think we should take these statements for exactly what they are, which is a kind of strategy to keep the states warm in the shadow of American influence.

Again, nothing that was in the classic diplomatic handbook can be applied today and Donald Trump has completely revolutionized this field, pushing it back centuries.

At least we can say that these statements disprove the thesis from this sovereignist area that said that the United States no longer has a very good relationship with Romania because of the cancellation of the elections?

It refutes the thesis that Trump's policy is based on what is happening in a real and objective way in the world, including in Romania.

So for Trump, this annulment of the election, whispered by someone and presented as such, was ammunition against the European Union, that in fact it was. He accused the European Union of being behind such decisions. But going over this episode relatively quickly, Trump can still consider that objectively what is happening in Romania today with neoliberal reform policies, with attempts at macroeconomic stabilization, with the maintenance of Romania's Atlantic line, these are good things for the US and must be emphasized and admired.

After all, it's hard to objectively identify anything that would make things change in a certain direction in Trump's view. Not canceling the elections would have led to the eventual withdrawal of American troops from this area. It is clear and certain that Trump's new declarations of love for Romania, which we are watching as the policemen led by the late Ion Iliescu ran after Michael Jackson on the football field, over three decades ago, are only proof of a naivety that still characterizes us and of a kind of political impressionist amateurism.