Posted on 04/12/2026 7:31:17 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Richard Schenk heads the Democracy Interference Observatory (DIO) at MCC Brussels, a project dedicated to tracking the ways in which European institutions, Brussels-funded networks and certain political actors intervene in national campaigns across the European Union.
In recent months, the observatory has focused much of its work on Hungary. Two days before this weekend’s parliamentary elections, Schenk argues that Budapest has become the main laboratory for a new form of European political pressure: less visible than in previous years, more sophisticated and, above all, built on regulatory, financial, and media instruments.
For him, Hungary is no longer simply a conflict between Viktor Orbán and Brussels. It is the arena where the EU is now testing the limits of how far it is willing to go against a national government it views as a political obstacle.
Schenk believes if Brussels succeeds in politically isolating a government elected at the ballot box or in questioning its legitimacy from within the Union itself, he argues, the problem will no longer be only Hungarian. It will affect the relationship between national sovereignty and European power across the continent.
What exactly is the Democracy Interference Observatory, and why do you believe it is necessary?
The observatory was created to analyse how the European Union is intervening in national elections within member states and, in some cases, beyond them as well. What we have seen over the last decade is that the European Commission has developed a set of tools that are increasingly effective at shaping campaigns and influencing outcomes.
There are three main layers. The first is regulatory and digital: the Digital Services Act, the rapid response mechanism, the so-called trusted flaggers, the NGO network and the future ‘Democracy Shield’. All of this makes it possible to influence which content circulates, which is downgraded and which narratives are considered acceptable.
The second layer is financial. Hungary, and before it Poland, are the clearest examples. Brussels can withhold European funds and in doing so send an implicit message to voters: if the government changes, the money will return.
The third layer is reputational. Rule of law reports, European Parliament resolutions, and campaigns driven by certain organisations are used to present some governments as illegitimate from the outset. When that happens in a coordinated way, the campaign is no longer conducted on equal terms.
How are those three layers being applied specifically in Hungary?
The financial and reputational dimensions have been present for years. Hungary has, in fact, been the model on which this strategy was built. Frozen funds, constant accusations of authoritarianism, and European resolutions are already part of Hungary’s political landscape.
What is new in 2026 is the digital dimension. In the 2022 election, the Digital Services Act did not yet exist. Now it does. And, for the first time, we are seeing how that mechanism is activated in the middle of a campaign.
What is worrying is that this is an extremely opaque system. The rapid response mechanism falls outside many of the EU’s own transparency rules. We do not know what content is being flagged or according to what criteria. The only thing we do know is who belongs to those verification and flagging networks: organisations funded by the EU, strongly aligned with a vision of deeper European integration and deeply hostile to sovereigntist arguments.
You also speak of an intelligence campaign and leaks targeting the Hungarian government. What do you mean?
In recent weeks we have seen a huge amount of information based on “anonymous Western intelligence sources.” It appears in certain media outlets, is repeated within a very specific network of journalists, activists, and politicians, and is then amplified from Warsaw, Berlin, or Brussels.
If those leaks are false, then we are looking at a large-scale smear campaign against the Hungarian government. If they are true, then they point to something perhaps even more serious: that there is an intelligence operation underway against a member state of the Union.
I cannot prove who is behind it. But we do see a pattern. Many of those messages are connected to people around the Polish government, to figures such as Donald Tusk or Radosław Sikorski, and to media outlets very close to those networks.
And what role does Ukraine play?
Kyiv clearly enjoys Brussels’ political support. That is not a theory; it is the official position of the European Union regarding the war.
What we see in Hungary is not so much formal coordination between the European Commission and Ukraine, because Brussels has no intelligence service of its own, but rather a convergence of interests between certain European political families, especially within the EPP, national governments, and Ukrainian actors.
When we look at who drives certain narratives against Budapest, who spreads them, and who amplifies them, the same names and the same political circles always appear. In that sense, the pressure on Hungary does not look like a spontaneous phenomenon.
Brussels usually cites the rule of law to justify these measures. Does that concept still have any real legal meaning?
Less and less. The ‘rule of law’ has become a political weapon.
We saw it in Poland. For years, European funds were blocked while PiS was in government. Weeks after Donald Tusk came to power, those funds were unfrozen almost immediately, even though many of the legal issues remained exactly the same.
We saw it again in Romania. There were highly questionable decisions concerning the electoral process, and yet the European Commission barely reacted. The criterion always seems to be the same: if the right candidate wins, the problems disappear; if the wrong candidate wins, then it suddenly becomes a threat to democracy.
Do you believe what happened in Romania could happen in other countries?
Yes. In fact, people are already suggesting it. After what happened in Romania, some European political figures openly said that something similar could happen in Germany if certain parties were to win.
That reveals a profound shift. Part of Europe’s elites have come to the conclusion that the problem is not their policies but the voters. And when you think that way, you stop trying to persuade the electorate and start trying to correct it.
That is why we see the use of censorship mechanisms, narrative control, and political tutelage. It is presented as protecting democracy, but in reality it limits pluralism.
What could happen in Hungary after the election, regardless of who wins?
That is the real problem: there is no simple scenario.
If Orbán wins, there are already sectors of the opposition and of the political ecosystem linked to Brussels that have made clear they will not easily accept the result. Some figures have even spoken about a kind of Hungarian ‘Euromaidan’—permanent mobilisation or institutional boycott.
At the same time, there are already voices in Germany and elsewhere arguing that Hungary should lose influence or even voting rights within the European Council. There are MEPs and ministers openly speaking about ending unanimity or preventing Budapest from blocking certain decisions.
That means an Orbán victory could be followed by a campaign to delegitimise the government from outside and portray Hungary as a problematic member of the Union.
And what if Péter Magyar wins?
That would not necessarily produce a stable scenario either. Magyar has managed to break apart the Hungarian political system and concentrate almost the entire opposition around himself, but the country is far more polarised today than it was a few years ago.
Even if he wins, he will face enormous difficulties governing. Half of the country will see his victory as the result of constant external pressure, an international campaign, and political intervention from Brussels.
What worries me most is that, whoever wins, a very large part of Hungarian society no longer trusts the process. That had never happened before.
So the wound goes beyond Hungary?
Without question. What is happening in Hungary is a warning for the whole of Europe.
If the European Union starts to consider democratically elected governments illegitimate simply because they do not share the dominant political line in Brussels, then the problem is no longer Viktor Orbán. The problem is the way the Union itself functions.
Because once it becomes acceptable to question election results, freeze funds, reduce digital pluralism, or isolate a government from within the European institutions, that precedent can tomorrow be used against any other member state.
And then the question will no longer be who wins an election, but who decides whether that result can be accepted.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
The EU leftists are as bad as our leftists.
The hired some democrat operatives?.
They invested in some electronic voting equipment.
Democrat are experts at um adjusting them.
Of course. Our Democracy is too important to be left in the hands of the voters.
Actually, the Democrats will or have been recruiting her EU elections experts.
Who needs elections , Not the EU
The more the Europeans determine to escape the horrors of the past, the more inexorably they doom themselves to repeat them.
A set of golden screwdrivers will have thing FIXED in no time.
Over here it is called Dominiom (sp?). Immediately after the 2020 “election” WWW/network experts testified that the Mi Dom machines were connected to the WWW — in violation of the owner’s manual cautioning against that ‘cause it means anyone connecting from outside Mi could change data. Not theoretical, actual piccies were submitted as testimony.
This was all buried when the paid judges said it was too late to sue since the results had already been counted/created.
The EU didn’t develope these independently. They developed them in coordination with the CIA and NSA. There are (or at least were) videos on YouTube of conferences where they all got together under the guise of preventing the spread of misinformation and talked about how to shape elections. Thankfully we stopped it in the US (at least until the Dems get back into power). In the EU, its still going full steam.
Rule by brain-dead greedy 'born to the estate elites' - a nightmare for the 'rule of law' and for democracies... EU insanity is making more sense now - psyops on money speed.
“It is the arena where the EU is now testing the limits of how far it is willing to go against a national government it views as a political obstacle.”
I know the answer without even reading the full article. The answer is “however far it takes.” There are no limits. Think Trump’s rhetoric against Iraq and his determination for full surrender multiplied 100 times and you will get a glimpse of what Brussels thinks of independent political thought.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.