Hungarian Dynamics on Crimean Issues: Victor Orband and Fidesz’s

Party

Hadit Fikri Falah and Radityo Dharmaputra

International Relations Department, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Universitas Airlangga

Keywords: Crimea, Annexation, Rusia, Fidesz, Viktor Orban

Abstract: Hungary is known as one of the EU member states that have a fairly close geography with Ukraine. This

becomes one of the determinants of why, in 2014 Hungary responded to what has happened in Ukraine

related to the Crimean referendum. The crisis of Ukraine is a phenomenon that occurred in 2014 in Ukraine

where the Crimean region wants a referendum to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federal. If we

examined carefully, this phenomenon is quite controversial, because it looks explicitly there are interests

from Russia who want the Crimea to become their territory. Then in response by the United States and

European Union countries. Converted to the major EU countries such as Germany, France, and England.

Hungary has its own approach in view of the Crimean crisis situation. President Viktor Orban as President

of Hungary has a view on a unity by the political group around him like Fidesz. Marijek Breuning who saw

there are three types of group dynamics: formalistic, competitive, and collegial. This will be comparable to

the dynamics of interest groups and the inner circle of Viktor Orban in making decisions on the Crimean

issue.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Chronology of Crimea Events

and Hungarian Dynamics

The crisis of Ukraine first stems from the existence

of different socio-political views in Ukraine. In

2013, Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovich

refused to sign a free trade and cooperation

agreement with the European Union and chose to

accept Russian aid in the form of a US$15 billion

loan. In addition Russia also provides assistance in

the form of gas price cuts against Ukraine by 30

percent. The decision made by Yanukovich is then,

reaping protests from the Pro Western Ukrainian

society which is referred to as the Euromaiden event.

The protests took place in Kiev and continued until

the beginning of 2014. The protests that took place

in Kiev, then turned into violent protests and caused

the killing of 77 demonstrators and 600 people

injured (Smith, 2014). The social political split that

occurred in Ukraine then continues in the discussion

phase on the power-sharing deal in the Ukrainian

government that is able to involve several state

mediators in Europe. Although there has been

intervention in the form of mediation from European

countries, this conflict continues to heat up and has

not found the best solution. This can be seen from

the case of the heating of civil conflict in Ukraine in

2014 or often known as the Donbass War. This war

occurred in the territory of Eastern Ukraine which

was a war between the forces of the Pro-Western

Ukrainian government and the Donestk and Luhansk

independence fighters who were notabenenya Pro-

Russian.

On February 23, 2014, the Ukrainian Anti-

Government demonstrators held a demonstration in

Kiev, they are fed up because there is no clarity from

President Victor Yanukovich to solve this problem.

This demonstration then culminated with the decline

of President Victor Yanukovich from the seat of

President of Ukraine (Fraser, 2006). Even though

Russia declared it did not want to annex the Crimea

into its federal territory, yet many odd things are

related to Russia’s political maneuver in relation to

this issue. As the emergence of Pro-Russian society

in Ukraine, the number of armed forces in the

Crimea and so on. On March 6, 2014, there was a

referendum policy in the Ukrainian Parliament,

which substantiated about the Crimean accession of

Ukraine. Basically this referendum was not

approved by the governments of Ukraine, the United

States, and the European Union. But this referendum

Falah, H. and Dharmaputra, R.

Hungarian Dynamics on Crimean Issues: Victor Orband and Fidesz’s Party.

DOI: 10.5220/0010279200002309

In Proceedings of Airlangga Conference on International Relations (ACIR 2018) - Politics, Economy, and Security in Changing Indo-Paciﬁc Region, pages 489-495

ISBN: 978-989-758-493-0

489

is still implemented by the Crimean society, and on

March 16, 2014, 95.5% of Crimean people want

accession from Ukraine, and want to be under the

banner of Federal Russia. So on March 17, 2014,

Crimea officially became a member of the Russian

Federal (De Micco, 2014).

However, Russia is becoming the most

highlighted country in terms of Crimean accession

issues that look like annexation. It is evident from

Russia’s repudiation of an offer from the West in

order to resolve the conflict in Ukraine together. The

claim that Russia has an involvement in the Crimean

secessionism can not be fully doubted because on

March 11, 2014, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey

Lavrov stated that the referendum and declaration of

independence by Crimean society is legal and valid

(Wydra, 2005). In fact, the Russian Government

fully acknowledges the outcome of the referendum

and gives sovereignty over the independence of the

Crimea. This is different from other authorities such

as Ukraine, the United States and the European

Union. So they firmly want to give an economic

sanction against Russia. However, Russia considers

the threat is only symbolic and sees the EU and the

United States have no serious intention in facing

Russia. Major EU countries such as Germany,

France, and the UK (before Brexit) tend to lead to an

economic approach linked to Crimean problems. But

this is different from Hungary, which is more

inclined to military and cultural policy in looking at

the problems in the Crimea.

On March 1, 2014, the Hungarian Foreign

Ministry stated that Hungary is concerned about the

Crimean issue. Then Hungary with the Visegard

Four, which consists of Czech, Hungarian, Polish,

and Slovak, has attempted to mediate between the

Government of Ukraine and the Crimean Political

Leaders, but this effort has not been effective

(Smith, 2014). In the dynamics of the Crimean

problem, Hungary has also experienced considerable

criticism related to the inconsistency of Prime

Minister Viktor Orban in viewing this issue. This is

because there are other interests of political groups

and interests that have an agenda in view of this

problem.

1.2 Groups Level of Analysis: The

Concept of Formalistic,

Competitive, Collegial, and

Groupthink

The state has various approaches to creating a

foreign policy. According to George Modelski

(1962) foreign policy is an activity system that is

carried by the people of the state with the aim to

change and regulate the activities of other countries

in the social environment. Meanwhile, according to

Bernard Cohen and Scott Harris (1975) foreign

policy is a goal, direction, or intention formulated by

someone who has the authority then directed to a

person who is in the international environment. It

aims to create a change to the existing system, in

accordance with the interests of a country. Foreign

policy can take the form of various forms, whether it

is official speech of the President, policy documents,

referendum domestic, and so on. However, it should

be realized that the foreign policies of a country, not

only formulated by a President, but there are actors

who have interests and influence to direct or assist

the President in formulating foreign policy. These

actors are a group consisting largely of expert staff,

inner circles, or people with an interest in the foreign

policy of a country.

Viewing, analyzing, and observing these actors

are a focus of group level of analysis. At this level,

the author is more focused and refers to subjects that

surround the leaders of the state, such as Ministers,

State Secretaries, Military Commanders and so on.

In examining the level of group analysis, we need to

know the concept of an ultimate decision unit, an

authority capable of deciding the final decision in

relation to the explanation of a country (Rosenau,

1987). According to Rosenau (1987) there are three

types of authority entities capable of creating the

ultimate decision unit, the first being a single

predominant leader, an individual who has full

power to determine which foreign policy a country

will adopt, this type generally occurs in a country

that embraces authoritarian leadership systems. Both

are single or small groups, an authority composed of

a set of individuals capable of realizing a foreign

policy. In this type it prioritizes the nature of

collectivity, interactive processes, and authoritative

commitment. But in this type, there needs to be

individuals who can manage the group in order to

have productive and progressive decisions. Finally,

multiple autonomous actors, groups of individuals

who seek to coalesce between each other, to

influence governance in formulating their foreign

policy. In this type, multiple autonomous actors can

not easily influence foreign policy, because they do

not have such strong authority within government

agencies (Rosenau, 1987).

In reviewing the group dynamics that occurred

between Hungarian entities group related to the issue

of cream. The author uses the concept of three forms

of management initiated by Marijek Breuning in his

article entitled Foreign Policy Analysis: A

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

490

Comparative Introduction in 2007. Breuning (2007)

revealed that there are three types of management

styles in group-level analysis. The first is

formalistic, namely how and where the role of the

main leader becomes very important to formulate a

policy. There are four main features of a formalistic

approach: hierarchy, delineated expertise, leader as

an intregator, and tend to have problems with data

validity. Second is the competitive form, in this form

the leader still has full power to determine a foreign

policy, but the conditions between groups are

competitive and have high rivalitas tension, so that

leaders can not do integration, but must choose a

position against which group is considered to have

progressiveness that matches his policy. In

competitive types there are four main features,

namely information bias, conflict between advisors,

unhealthy competition, and creating creative

solutions to an issue. Last is the collegial type,

according to Breuning (2007), the collegial type is

where the leader tries to be a median between two

groups, and seeks to integrate disputes between the

two groups by engaging in dialogue or open

discussion. There are three main characteristics in

this type of group, firstly the open and fair debates

between advisors, empirical teamwork, and problem

of mutual agreement.

Then there is the theory of group thinking, which

is a theory coined by Irving J. Lanis. Janis uses the

term groupthink to denote a cohesive mode of

thinking of a group of people, when the hard efforts

of group members to reach a consensus. To achieve

unanimity this group overrides its motivation for

realistically assessing alternative actions, groupthink

can be defined as a situation in the decision-making

process that indicates the deterioration of mental

efficiency and reality testing. Group members are

often involved in a style of consideration where the

search for consensus takes precedence over reason

judgment. Groups that have similarities between

their members and have good relationships with

each other, tend to fail to realize the opposite

opinion. They suppress conflict just so they can get

along well, or when group members do not fully

consider all the solutions. Here the groupthink seeks

to abandon the individual’s way of thinking and

emphasize the group process. So the review of group

phenomena more specifically lies in the poor

decision-making process, and most likely will result

in bad decisions with consequences that could harm

groups. From this the author will use Marijek

Breuning approach and groupthink domination in

analyzing the process of foreign policy formulation

conducted by Hungary in facing the Crimean issue.

1.3 Hungary: Leaders and Influential

Groups

In 2014, Hungary was under the leadership of a

political activist named Viktor Orban (Ministry of

Foreign Affairs, 2014). Viktor Orban was a leader of

the Fidesz party, at first Viktor Orban was a

communist, but after going through and seeing

Soviet atrocities in Hungary. Viktor realized that

communism was a threat to Hungary itself. When he

attended college at Eotvos Lorand University, he led

a student organization called Fiatal Demokratak

Szovetsege, which is a movement of young people

who want democracy in Hungary. In 1989, the name

of Viktor Orban became famous for his attention and

marked a momentum that the burial of Imre Nagy

became a symbol and turning point of the end of the

era of communism in Hungary. In 1990, along with

the end of the Cold War, a transition of the political

system in Hungary that was originally under the

auspices of Soviet communism turned into a country

that upholds the values of Democracy. In accordance

with elements of democracy, there are parties that

form and create democracy, there are various

political parties in Hungary like the Nationalist

group adopted by the party Fidesz and Jobbik party

(Sadeckim 2014). Conservative groups such as

KDNP who embrace Christian values. Then there

are classes of economism-liberalism like MLP, DK,

and Parbeszed. Finally the environmentalism groups

such as Egyutt and LMP. In Hungarian democracy it

strongly supported all activities of anti-communism,

it was seen from the joining of Hungary with NATO

in 1999 and joined the EU in 2004.

Viktor Orban has an enormous influence on the

political constellation in Hungary. This is because he

has a pretty fantastic record in serving as leader in

Hungary. Viktor Orban has been president of the

Fidesz party since April 18, 1993, under his

leadership Orban able to change the spectrum of the

Fidesz party which tends to lead to radical

liberalism, towards the center of the right-wing

fundamentalist movement based on the principle of

nationalism. Also in 1995 the Fidesz party became

the most dominant party in Hungary by defeating the

popularity of the Hungarian Democratic Forum

which is also in the political right. Then in 1996

Orban was elected to the Hungarian National

Committee of the New Atlantic Intiative, which was

a Hungarian maneuver to improve relations with

western countries. Orban was first elected Prime

Minister in 1998, replacing Peter Boross who is the

Prime Minister promoted by the Hungarian

Democratic Forum.Orban succeeded in coalition

Hungarian Dynamics on Crimean Issues: Victor Orband and Fidesz’s Party

491

with the Hungarian Democratic Forum and became

the youngest prime minister ever to take office in

Hungary. Under the leadership of Viktor Orban,

Fidesz became the dominant and moderate liberal

party (Sadecki, 2014).

In 2010, Viktor Orban was re-elected as prime

minister of Hungary. This indicates that Viktor

Orban is a player on the political stage in Hungary.

But within such a long period of leadership, some

Hungarian societies saw that Viktor Orban’s

leadership began to lead to dictatorial form rather

than autocracy (Balogh, 2016). According to the

BBC (2014) Orban is judged to be very abusive in

addressing issues that are in Hungary and the EU,

Orban is also often employed as a leader with no

integrity, where all promises are never materialized

and tend to contradict his statements. So it can be

formulated that the state of policy formulation

process in Hungary is more directed to the form of

single, predominant leader where Viktor Orban

became the main pillar of all domestic and foreign

political decisions in Hungary. But it needs to be

examined more deeply that there are groups and

individuals within the Viktor Orban who have a role

as Hungarian political adviser.

In the case of Crimean annexation there are some

important figures that must be underlined in this

study. The first is Antal Rogan, the Minister of the

Prime Minister's Cabinet Office, he is from the same

party as Viktor Orban, Fidesz's party. Antal Rogan

was previously a mayor in Belvaros-Lipotvaros

district of Budapest five years from 2006 -2014. The

second figure is Janos Lazar, a Minister of the Prime

Minister's Office, he is also from Fidesz’s party.

Lazar has often been a political advisor to Viktor

Orban in many ways, in the case of the Crimea,

Lazarus advised the Orban to maintain a

comprehensive relationship with Russia and the

Visegrad Group. In addition to Csabe Hende who is

the Minister of Defense Hungary (Ministry of

Foreign Affairs, 2014), he is also a member of the

Fidesz party. He served as defense minister when the

Crimean crisis took place. Holistically the decision-

maker groups of the Hungarian government are

those of the Fidesz Party.

Despite contributions from the KDNP or

Christian Democratic People’s Party, the political

situation of Fidesz’s party remains the dominant

party in Hungary. So the author formulated that

there was a washing where Viktor Orban, who was a

predominant leader, had an advisory groups, and the

advisory groups were the Fidesz Party. Fidesz’s

party looks very collective and interactive in

formulating and making a political counsel against

Viktor Orban, it is seen from Viktor Orban’s policy

towards Russia related to the Crimean crisis which is

exactly the same as the position taken by the Fidesz

Party, the Pro against Russia. In the European Union

session of September 16, 2014 (the BBC, 2014), the

EU made a voting-based policy to provide sanctions

against Russia in connection with the Crimean crisis.

Hungary chooses not to impose sanctions on Russia,

as it will not be effective and will only make it

difficult for the EU country itself. In addition

Hungary also stressed to create a collective

agreement with Ukraine. With this it can be

concluded that parties such as MSZP, Jobbik, LMP,

and have little power in creating a policy in

Hungary. Because the Fidesz party directly

monopolize the room. So it can be seen that there is

no competitive style related to political policy in

Hungary and collegial style can be realized if the

Fidesz party encounter problems that can not be

resolved independently (Votewatch, 2016).

In view of Hungarian political policy related to

the crisis that occurred in Ukraine in 2014, we can

reflect from the position of Hungary in the

Parliament of the European Union. Hungary largely

supports the existence of the EU-Ukraine

Association Agreement, as this could create a

political balance against the Ukrainian government

which suffered severe shocks following the Crimean

referendum. All parties in Hungary agree on this

except the Jobbik party, as they are the main

opposition of the current Fidesz Party (Votewatch,

2016). Orban sees Jobbik’s action as a betrayal of

Hungary itself. But it should be realized that Viktor

Orban is considered very accommodative of

President Putin, so Trade Minister Tibor Szanyi

suggested that there is a dialogue between the EU

and Moscow. However this was rejected by the

European Union, seeing Viktor Orban not yet able to

determine his position clearly in view of the case,

Orban is considered to be a Putin accommodator

against Europe. The position of the Hungarian

Government is very clear that Ukraine needs to be

made a study in the European Union because this

issue is very serious and needs to be resolved

carefully. Viktor Orban (2014) also clearly states

that “as the EU is the struggling with its internal

problems the number of countries supporting

Ukraine’s accession has dimished. However, the V4

countries have remained friends of Ukraine “.

Seeing that it was seen that the decision by Viktor

Orban was the management of the decisions that

Fidesz’s party had brought. The Fidesz Party sees

that the Hungarian Government should be pragmatic

in dialogue with EU countries. But Peter Szijjarto,

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

492

Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, clearly says

Hungary will not remove its position from the

European Union, because the EU is a regionalism

based on learning process so there needs to be

consolidation and coalition.

According to Breuning (2007) in the dynamics of

group-level analysis rankings, there needs to be

clarity about the situation of the dominant group or

referred to as single groups. In reviewing single

mobility groups there are two things that must be

considered, namely the ability of the leader in

managing the group and the level of group loyalty to

the leader. If they look to Viktor Orban and Fidesz,

those two things are very inseparable. It is clear that

Viktor Orban has a deterministic character as a

decision maker, but it should be realized that there is

a Fidesz party that also often gives Viktor Orban

advice to formulate a foreign policy. Then if looking

behaviorally, management style that occurs in the

Hungarian government is more directed to the

formalistic type, where Viktor Orban as a leader has

a dominant determinant in formulating a foreign

policy. In addition to the group of Viktor Orban

party Fidesz tends to regard Viktor Orban as a

synthesizer in the dynamics of Hungarian foreign

policy. In addition, the relationship between Viktor

Orban and the Fidesz party tends toward the

hierarchical where Viktor Orban becomes a major

milestone in Hungary.

Although the Hungarian community says that

Viktor Orban is a new form of dictatorial tyranny, it

does not affect the decision created by Viktor Orban

in formulating a foreign policy. Viktor Orban only

hears from Fidesz’s partys suggestion to formulate

and create foreign policy. It can be seen that the

groupthink phenomenon put forward by Irving J.

Lanis (1982) that one mode of thinking of a group of

people is cohesive, when the hard efforts of group

members to reach consensus. Groupthink strives to

achieve unanimity of the group by overriding its

motivation for realistically assessing action

alternatives, groupthink can be defined as a situation

in the decision-making process that demonstrates the

deterioration of mental efficiency and reality testing.

Group members are often involved in a style of

consideration where the search for consensus takes

precedence over reason judgment. Groups that have

similarities between their members and have good

relationships with each other, tend to fail to realize

the opposite opinion. They suppress conflict just so

they can get along well, or when group members do

not fully consider all the solutions.

From it can be drawn a common thread that

happens in the Hungarian government is a

groupthink action based on the type of single,

predominant leader and form of formalistic

management. It is apparent that Fidesz’s party

became the dominant party in voting in the

Hungarian government, because holistically, only

the party’s voice was heard only by decision-makers

Viktor Orban. The Hungarian position of the

Crimean crisis is pragmatic and very immature.

Because Viktor Orban is the holder of the decision-

maker hierarchy. Viktor Orban is holistically a Pro

against Russia, but he also supports the Ukrainian

government, due to geopolitical, economic, and so

on. But if examined by the policies emerging from

the Fidesz Party, Hungary tends to be pragmatic in

which Hungary prefers the interests of Fidesz’s party

to dominate the Hungarian government's seat, as

well as to create political stability with the EU.

2 CONCLUSION

From the writing above can be concluded that, the

annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, led to

various responses of various countries in the world.

Particularly one of the European Union countries,

Hungary. Hungary as part of the EU member sees

the issue as an urgent issue and should be

immediately consolidated. Indirectly what is

happening in the Crimea is a political action

undertaken by Russia, although Russia does not

explicitly recognize it. Crisis in the Crimea is

basically based on the interests of Russia to obtain

energy resources in the Crimea. While in Hungary’s

point of view, joined as a member of the European

Union and the Visegrad Group declared and

committed to respect and recognize the

independence, sovereignty and integrity of the

territory of Ukraine internationally. Despite such a

substitution, the installation in the field is very

different. This is because the Hungarian government

is controlled by Viktor Orban, who in fact is a

member of the pro-Russian Fidesz party. In this

study the author found interesting fact that the

foreign policy formulated by the Hungarian

government is always based on the interests of the

Fidesz party and managed by Viktor Orban. It can

be seen from the various policies announced by

Hungary related to the crisis that occurred in the

Crimea. Viktor Orban tends to be a reflection of

Fidesz’s party itself. Where the Fidesz party is pro-

Russian in accordance with the nature of Viktor who

is familiar with President Putin.

In this study, the author see that the phenomenon

of foreign policy enactment enacted by the

Hungarian Dynamics on Crimean Issues: Victor Orband and Fidesz’s Party

493

Hungarian government can be aligned with the rank

of group analysis. According to Rosenau (1987) in

assessing the level of group analysis, there are three

types of authority that need to be known, one of

which is a single predominant leader. This is in

accordance with Viktor Orbany’s behavior which

tends to be the ultimate decision maker in Hungarian

foreign policy. Also in view of this phenomenon the

author uses the concept approach of advisory

management styles expressed by Breuning. There

are basically three types of management styles in

group analysis. First is formalistic, where leaders

have a role in managing the dynamics of foreign

policy formulating groups, this approach tends to

emphasize the hierarchy and leader aspects as a

syntheses in policy formulation. The second is a

competitive form, in which the leader retains full

power for a policy, but there is a competitive

condition between the policy formulation group.

Because each group brings its own interests to be

made foreign policy of a country. Last is the

collegial model that is a model in which the leader

seeks to mediate among existing groups, with

dialogue or open discussion. But the formalistic

approach is the most appropriate model in

explaining the Crimean crisis. It appears that there is

not such a tight dispute between the groups in the

realm of foreign policy formulation. This is because

the group is homogeneous, i.e. there is only the

Fidesz party as the dominant party that fills the seats

of government. In addition, Prime Minister Viktor

Orban, who also came from the same party, made

Hungary’s foreign policy always based on the

interests of Fidesz party.

The author wants to argue that what happened in

the Hungarian government is a new form of

dictatorship, because indirectly Viktor Orban

becomes a leader who only hears information from

one direction, so that the policy is no longer based

on the common good aspect but rather the aspect

interests of the group. The author sees the dynamics

of the Crimean crisis making a benchmark against

Hungary that the consistency of policy is a very

important aspect, because after this phenomenon,

Viktor Orban is considered very conservative in

taking a decision. This, if seen well by Fidesz's

opposition party Jobbik, can be a very tough

political battle in Hungary. The author also

understands that in formulating foreign policy we

must look at various aspects that basically can have

a significant impact on the foreign policy itself. One

of them is the group, where the President does not

formulate the policy with the head and hands of a

person, but there are advisory, inner-circle, and

groups that can give consideration and

comprehensive formulation to create a foreign

policy.

REFERENCES

Balogh, Eva S. 2016. How do Hungarians See Viktor

Orbán’s Political System and Its Corruption?.

[online]. Tersedia dalam

http://hungarianspectrum.org/2016/07/28/how-do-

hungarians-see-viktor-Orbáns-political-system-and-

its-corruption/, daiakses 3 Desember 2017.

BBC.com. 2014. Ukraine Crisis: EU Ponders Russia

Sanction Over Crimea Vote [ONLINE]

Availabe at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-

26607466[Accessed at 13 December 2017]

Breuning, Marijke. 2007. Foreign Policy Analysis: A

Comparative Introduction. New York: Palgrave

MacMillan. Ch.4 (Advisors and Bureaucracies).

De Micco, Pasqualle. 2014. A Cold Winter to Come? The

EU Seeks Alternatives to Russian Gas. European

Parliament.

Dewan Kemetrian Republik Otonomi Krimea. 2013.

Regional Profile: The Autonomous Republic of

Crimea.

Fraser, Derek. 2006. Taking Ukraine Seriously: Western

and Russian Responses to the Orange Revolution,

University of Victoria.

Hudson, Valerie M. 2014. Foreign Policy Analysis 2

Edition: Classic and Contemporary of South Florida.

Janis, Irving L. 1982. Groupthink: Psychological Studies

of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Second Edition.

New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2014. Ministry of Foreign

Affairs concerned about Crimean situation. [online].

Government of Hungary, 1 Maret 2014. Available at

http://2010-2014.kormany.hu/en/ministry-of-foreign-

affairs/news/ministry-of-foreign-affairs-concerned-

about-crimean-situation, [Accessed at 13 December

2017].

Modelski, George. 1962. A Theory of Foreign Policy.

Orbán, Viktor. 2014. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s

Speech at the 25th Bálványos Summer Free University

and Student Camp. Tusnádfürdő (Băile Tuşnad),

Romania, 26 Juli 2014. [online]. Available

athttp://www.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/the-

prime-minister-s-speeches/prime-minister-viktor-

Orbán-s-speech-at-the-25th-balvanyos-summer-free-

university-and-student-camp, [Accessed 13 December

2017].

Sadecki, Andrzej. 2014. In a state of necessity How has

Orbán changed Hungary. Ośrodek Studiów

Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia. Centre for Eastern

Studies.

Smith, Ben. 2014. Sanctions Agaisnt Russia over Ukraine.

House of Commons.

Votewatch. 2015. Position of the Hungarian Government

and of the Hungarian parties in the EP on symbolic

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

494

European issues. [ONLINE] Available at:

http://www.votewatch.eu/blog/report-comparing-

positions-of-the-hungarian-government-and-the-

hungarian-parties-in-the-ep-on-symbolic-european-

issues/. [Accessed 14 December 2017]

Wydra, Doris. 2004. “The Crimea Conundrum: The Tug

of War Between Russia and Ukraine on the Questions

of Autonomy and Self-Determination”, dalam

International Journal on Minority and Group Rights,

10: 111–130.

Hungarian Dynamics on Crimean Issues: Victor Orband and Fidesz’s Party

495