Péter Techet für NZZ über Orbáns Souveränismus

In der Neuen Zürcher Zeitung analysiert Péter Techet, warum Viktor Orbán vor der zweiten Runde der rumänischen Präsidentschaftswahlen den letztlich unterlegenen, rechtsextremen und anti-ungarischen Kandidaten George Simion unterstützte: Orbán gehe es nicht primär um den Schutz der ungarischen Minderheit im Ausland, sondern darum, Verbündete auf EU-Ebene zu finden – unabhängig davon, wie diese neuen Partner, wie etwa auch Robert Fico in der Slowakei, zur ungarischen Minderheit stehen. 

Techet argumentiert, dass gerade dieser Souveränismus gefährlich für Minderheiteninteressen sei. Denn das von Orbán propagierte „Europa der Nationalstaaten“ kenne nur homogene, geschlossene Räume – aber keinen Platz für Minderheiten. 

Der vollständige Artikel ist hier zu lesen. 

IDM at the Charlemagne Prize Ceremony

Photos credit: Karlspreis / Christian van’t Hoen

Sebastian Schäffer and Sophia Beiter had the unique opportunity to represent the IDM at this year’s Charlemagne Prize ceremony and Karlspreis Forum in Aachen, held from 26 to 29 May. The prestigious Charlemagne Prize, awarded annually to individuals or institutions in recognition of their contributions to European unity, was in 2025 given to Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission. She was honoured for “her services to the unity of the member states, in the containment of the pandemic, for the unity of the Union’s determination to defend itself against Russia – and for the impetus towards the Green Deal”. 

The ceremony was attended by several heads of state and previous Charlemagne Prize laureates, including Spain’s King Felipe VI, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama, Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, and former President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker. 

The celebrations began with a moving mass in the historic Aachen Cathedral and culminated in the official award ceremony in the coronation hall of Aachen City Hall. In her keynote speech, von der Leyen outlined four key priorities for the independence of the EU in the future: strengthening Europe’s defence, boosting competitiveness and innovation, advancing EU enlargement, and safeguarding European democracy. She emphasized both Europe’s legacy and the urgency of today’s challenges.  

Beiter and Schäffer also attended the Karlspreis Forum, where high-ranking EU representatives – among them two members of the European Commission (Maria Luís Albuquerque, Commissioner for Financial Services and the Savings and Investments Union, as well as Andrius Kubilius, Commissioner for Defence and Space) – were discussing the question of how the current transatlantic relationship is affecting European security and defence policy, and how competitive the EU remains in the global economy.  

A special highlight was the 40th edition of Zeitenwende on tour, which made a timely stop in Aachen to explore critical questions of security and democracy in Europe. Armin Laschet, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the German Bundestag, Walther Pelzer, Member of the Executive Board, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Bonn, as well as Benedikt Franke, Deputy Chairman & CEO, Munich Security Conference, discussed with each other but also answered the questions of the audience in this townhall debate. 

The program also included a Q&A with Commission President von der Leyen. The short but well-formulated inquiries by moderator Roger de Weck were met with concise and thoughtful replies, offering a unique perspective on how leadership responds to challenging times. 

Besides that, the Charlemagne Youth Prize was awarded. 27 national winners – one from each EU country – gathered and presented their projects promoting European exchange and unity. The first prize was awarded to Forum Europaeumfrom Hungary, a pan-European media outlet, reporting on EU-relevant topics and promoting European values and unity. The second place went to Díky, že můžem volit (Thanks That We Can Vote) from Czechia, which engaged young people in Czechia to vote in the EU elections in 2024 through a targeted campaign. The third prize was awarded to Feminist Law Clinic from Germany, a project providing legal support for victims of gender-based violence. 

We are especially proud of Sophia Beiter, 2025 Charlemagne Prize Fellow, whose work made this experience possible. We look forward to returning to Aachen for her research presentation in November. 

Malwina Talik for EastBlog in Der Standard about presidential elections in Poland

Our colleague Malwina Talik explains in her article entitled „Polens Richtungswahl: Warum die Präsidentenstichwahl so entscheidend ist“ for EastBlog in Der Standard why Poland’s upcoming presidential runoff on 1 June is crucial for the country’s democratic future. The result will determine whether Prime Minister Tusk’s reforms can proceed or remain blocked by a president aligned with the former PiS-led government.

Read the article here.

Péter Techet für Élet és Irodalom über die Herausforderungen der Kanzlerschaft von Friedrich Merz

In der ungarischen Wochenzeitung Élet és Irodalom schrieb Péter Techet darüber, ob und wie die Kanzlerschaft von Friedrich Merz – besonders in der Außenpolitik – einen Neuanfang nach der Ära Merkel darstellen kann. 

Der Artikel kann hier gelesen werden. 

Péter Techet für Partizán über Orbáns Souveränitätsrhetorik

Auf dem unabhängigen ungarischen YouTube-Channel Partizán, das von einem Gesetzesentwurf der ungarischen Regierung, unter anderen unabhängigen Medien, bedroht ist, sprach Péter Techet über die möglichen Bedeutungen der „Souveränität“, die Viktor Orbán mit einem neuen Gesetz verteidigen will, bzw. darüber, warum Orbáns Konzept der Souveränität rechtlich und politisch gefährlich, antidemokratisch sei. 

Das Interview kann hier nachgeschaut werden (ab 2:05:00).

Romania Dodged a Bullet, But the West Is Still in Danger | Opinion

Romanians came dangerously close to voting away their post-communist successes. In choosing Nicușor Dan over George Simion in its presidential election, Romania may have decided not to burn down the house, but only barely. That nearly half of Romanians supported a populist demagogue who questions Romania’s commitments to the European Union and NATO is a major crack in Europe’s democratic wall.

The irony is suffocating: While the Romanian people ultimately made the right choice, the leadership of the United States—the very country that built and led the postwar liberal world order—was quietly rooting for the other side. From Hungary’s Viktor Orbán to Vladimir Putin to the autocratic rulers of petrostates in the Gulf, President Donald Trump’s affections clearly lie with strongmen and ideologues, not democrats or transatlantic institutions. It is hard to overstate what a reversal this is for America—the one-time anchor of the free world.

There have been warning signs for years: Orbán’s consolidation of power in Hungary, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s suffocation of Turkish democracy, and the recurring popularity of Putin in Russia. In Western Europe, the far-right continues to surge—from AfD in Germany to the National Rally in France to Reform UK riding the anger left behind by Brexit. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Democrats—despite facing a convicted felon in Trump—just lost both houses of Congress and the presidential popular vote for the first time in two decades. That alone should alarm anyone who cares about truth, norms, or basic democratic values.

The defenders of liberal democracy seem lost. They know that a dark tide is rising, but they rarely ask why. They condemn voters for drifting rightward, but they rarely question how they might have contributed. It is not enough to defeat the Simions of the world at the ballot box. We must understand why they nearly win—and make sure it doesn’t happen again.

For one, liberalism itself has come to be associated with a cultural orthodoxy that many ordinary people no longer recognize as their own. What used to be a politics of tolerance and inclusion is now seen—often rightly—as obsessed with identity, hypersensitive to offense, and incapable of self-criticism. Wokeness has turned into a kind of substitute religion for the progressive elite. And it is driving people away. The constant focus on gender identity, the erasure of distinctions in the name of inclusion, the rigid enforcement of new social codes—all of it has alienated working people and made the term „liberal“ toxic in many parts of the world.

Many who vote for right-wing populists live in real hardship. Which brings us to the second point: corruption. In too many democracies—Romania very much among them—liberalism has been marred by corruption tolerated or even encouraged by those in power. People feel lied to. They were promised Western standards and the rule of law, but instead found elites enriching themselves while pretending to care about values. When citizens are told that liberal democracy prizes fairness but see a judiciary that bends to power and politicians who steal with impunity, why would they defend it?

The economic model that has underpinned the liberal order since the end of the Cold War has also failed too many people. The past 40 years of globalization produced enormous growth—but the gains were unequally distributed. While cities boomed and a class of global professionals emerged, large segments of the population stagnated. Wages didn’t rise. Job security vanished. Inequality exploded. In Eastern Europe, the disparity is even more stark: the promise of catching up with the West came true for some, but many remain in grinding poverty. When liberal democracy appears to mean unchecked capitalism and chronic unfairness, its appeal fades.

This is why economic nationalism is not going away. It’s not a passing phase or a quirk of Trumpism. It’s a cry of protest against jobs being outsourced, industries being hollowed out, and entire communities being sacrificed on the altar of efficiency. People were never really asked whether they agreed to the global bargain of cheaper goods in exchange for deindustrialization, labor market insecurity, and the erosion of local control. Yes, the system produced iPhones and falling prices. But it also brought misery to millions. The political backlash is not irrational.

Immigration, too, plays a role. For years, mainstream liberal parties insisted that all cultures are equal and that identity is fluid. But most people do not believe that. They value their national cultures and want them preserved. They don’t want to be told that preferring one’s own culture is racist. They reject the idea that borders are immoral or that their societies should absorb limitless newcomers with vastly different traditions and values.

These are not fringe concerns. They are a major reason liberal democracy is under siege. If its defenders do not adjust, they will lose, not because the alternatives are better—they are not—but because too many people have concluded that the system isn’t working for them, and that its leaders refuse to listen.

Romania’s narrow escape should be studied and learned from. The country nearly handed itself over to a man who would have endangered everything it built since communism: its integration into Europe, its place in the democratic world, and its fragile political maturity. And Romania not an isolated case. If even the U.S. government is cheering for those who would unmake the liberal order, then that order is in existential danger.

The way forward is not to abandon liberalism, but to save it—from its worst excesses, its blind spots, and its tone-deaf elites. We must separate liberal democracy from the ideological baggage that now surrounds it. We must champion free speech, not cancel culture. We must embrace fair markets, not rigged ones. We must protect borders while treating migrants humanely. We must celebrate national cultures without falling into chauvinism.

Most of all, we must renew faith in the idea that democracy can deliver freedom, fairness, and dignity for ordinary people. That idea is still worth fighting for. But if we continue to ignore what drove people toward Simion and others like him, we may not be so lucky next time.

Mihai Razvan Ungureanu is the former prime minister and foreign minister of Romania, headed the country’s external intelligence service, and is a professor of history at the University of Bucharest.

Dan Perry was the first post-communist AP correspondent in Romania and later led the agency in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the Caribbean; he is the author of two books and publishes „Ask Questions Later“ at danperry.substack.com.

Péter Techet für ORF Ö1 über Orbáns „christlichen“ Nationalismus

Viktor Orbán bezeichnete den letztlich unterlegenen rumänischen Präsidentschaftskandidaten George Simion als „einen guten Christen und Souveränisten“, mit dem er in vielen Fragen übereinstimme – obwohl Simion als antiungarisch gilt. Péter Techet analysierte für Ö1, wie und warum Orbán das Christentum politisch instrumentalisiert. 

Die Sendung kann hier nachgehört werden.

Unity, Pressure, and Fragile Optimism: IDM Director on the Future of Ukraine for Asharq News

IDM Director Sebastian Schäffer recently spoke with Asharq News following a visit to Kyiv, where he assessed the current state of the war and international responses. While the conflict continues, Schäffer highlighted the resilience and determination of the Ukrainian people. At the same time, he noted the heavy toll that more than three years of full-scale war has taken on the country, including on President Zelensky, who remains committed to pursuing a diplomatic resolution. 

Schäffer pointed to recent high-level visits by European leaders – among them the German Chancellor Freidrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk – as a strong signal of unity and ongoing support for Ukraine.  

Reflecting on previous trips to Ukraine, Schäffer observed a noticeable shift in the atmosphere in Kyiv, from relative calm to heightened tension, with Russia applying increased military and psychological pressure. He described the current phase as possibly Russia’s most intense push since last fall. 

Looking ahead to the proposed meeting between President Zelensky and Valdimir Putin coming Thursday in Turkey, Schäffer warned that he doesn’t expect the Kremlin to agree to a ceasefire soon, messages from Moscow already hint towards this. The Russian war economy is not prepared for peace and neither is the regime. However, if negotiations stall, frustration among international actors – including unpredictable figures like U.S. President Donald Trump – could paradoxically lead to stronger support for Ukraine. The European partners at the very least should keep up the sanctions or even find approaches to increase the pressure as well.  

Despite the challenges, Schäffer remains cautiously optimistic. Continued international engagement, he emphasized, is essential to keeping diplomatic channels open and preventing further escalation. 

You can watch the interview (in Arabic) here 

Kanzlerwahl in Deutschland: IDM-Direktor Sebastian Schäffer ordnet die Ereignisse ein

Im ersten Wahlgang verfehlte CDU-Parteichef Friedrich Merz die notwendige Mehrheit – doch noch am selben Tag eröffnete sich für ihn eine zweite Chance auf das Kanzleramt. Sebastian Schäffer, Direktor des Instituts für den Donauraum und Mitteleuropa (IDM), analysiert die politische Dynamik rund um die Wahl und ihre Bedeutung für Deutschland und Europa.

Sehen Sie hier das vollständige Interview.

IDM Director Sebastian Schäffer for Radiotelevisión Española on the Romanian presidential elections

In the article titled „Rumanía repite las elecciones presidenciales entre la fatiga política y el auge ultranacionalista“ (Romania repeats presidential elections amid political fatigue and the rise of ultranationalism), Sebastian Schäffer, director of the Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe (IDM), provides insight into the potential outcomes of the Romanian presidential elections for the Spanish public radio and television service RTVE. 

Schäffer notes that if George Simion, the ultranationalist candidate, wins the first round, his success in the second round will largely depend on his opponent. He questions the willingness of other parties to collaborate in opposing Simion, highlighting the uncertainty surrounding potential alliances and their impact on the election’s outcome. 

This commentary reflects the broader concerns about the political landscape in Romania, where the rise of ultranationalist sentiments and the fragmentation of traditional political alliances could significantly influence the direction of the country’s leadership. 

For more detailed information, you can read the full article (in Spanish) here.