正在学习

Orbán, Kaczyński, Capital, and the Visegrád Double Game

On a more general level, we should never forget that ongoing conflicts, wars included, are never just a matter of culture and geopolitics; they are moments of inner tensions in the global circulation of capital. Some signs indicate that even the glorious Maidan event, an authentic student and popular uprising, was (partially, at least) overdetermined by the struggle between two groups of Ukrainian oligarchs and their foreign masters, the pro-Russian clique and the pro-Western clique. The “clash of civilizations” is a truth, but by far not the whole truth.

However, the crux of the matter resides elsewhere. Whichever way you turn it, united Europe does stand for some kind of Social Democracy, which is why in a recent interview Orbán went so far as to proclaim that the Western liberal hegemony “is gradually becoming Marxist.”

Sooner or later we’ll have to face up to the fact that, opposing the Christian democratic camp, we’re no longer dealing with a group espousing liberal ideology, but with a group that’s essentially Marxist with liberal remnants. This is what we have in America today. For the time being the conservative side is at a disadvantage in relation to the Marxist, liberal camp.43

So why did Orbán not participate in the trip to Ukraine? Because of Hungary’s economic links with Putin’s Russia, which compelled him to proclaim neutrality in the ongoing Ukrainian war. In a recent public address, Zelensky directly criticized Hungary for this neutrality: “You [Hungarians] must decide whom to side with.”44

So Poland and Hungary decided to play a double game. Two Polish anti-Russian hard-liners went to Kyiv pretending to be there as special envoys of the EU. No wonder their “mission” caused embarrassment in Brussels; no EU body authorized them to do it. But the actual aim of their mission was not to act in Kyiv on behalf of Europe, but to signal a clear division in Europe. It was a mission directed against united Europe.

Their message to Ukraine was: We are your only true allies, only we truly and fully support your struggle against the Russian invasion, not the “sluggish and decayed” liberal Western Europe. All the militant measures advocated by some members of the mission in Kyiv (imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine, etc.) barely concealed their true aim: to woo Ukraine into their nationalist-illiberal Europe, to strengthen it against the (still hegemonic) Social Democratic Europe. Their mind is on the big question: Where will Ukraine be when the war comes to a close (and the progress of negotiations indicates that some kind of peace is on the horizon)? In this sense, although Orbán was not in Kyiv, his key message was delivered there. And this is why Janša, partisan of radical militancy against Russia, defended Orbán against Ukrainian critique. The visitors knew that their militant proposals would have no consequences: Their battle was not against Putin’s Russia but against the Social Democratic (“Marxist,” for Orbán) Europe. Recall Zelensky’s call to Hungarians: “You must decide whom to side with.”45 He got a cynical answer from Orbán. In his victory speech, Orbán said: “We never had so many opponents … Brussels bureaucrats … the international mainstream media, and the Ukrainian president.” His mention of Zelensky was accompanied by merry laughter.46 Now, it is Zelensky and Ukraine who must decide who to side with, which Europe they want to be part of.

练习题

According to the passage, what is the main limitation of interpreting wars only as a “clash of civilizations”?

A. It ignores that conflicts can also express tensions in the global circulation of capital.

B. It falsely assumes that culture and geopolitics have any role in conflicts.

C. It proves that student uprisings never have popular legitimacy.

D. It shows that oligarchs are irrelevant to modern wars.

How does the passage characterize Orbán’s description of Western liberal hegemony?

A. Orbán says it has become purely nationalist and anti-European.

B. Orbán says it is gradually becoming Marxist, with only liberal remnants.

C. Orbán says it has abandoned Social Democracy in favor of Christian democracy.

D. Orbán says it is politically neutral in the Ukrainian war.

Why did the Polish envoys’ trip to Kyiv cause embarrassment in Brussels, according to the passage?

A. They openly supported Hungary’s neutrality toward Russia.

B. They were authorized by NATO but not by Ukraine.

C. They claimed to act as EU envoys, but no EU body had authorized them.

D. They opposed all military support for Ukraine.

Which statements accurately describe Hungary and Orbán in the passage?

A. Hungary’s neutrality is linked to its economic ties with Putin’s Russia.

B. Zelensky criticized Hungary by saying Hungarians must decide whom to side with.

C. Orbán listed the Ukrainian president among his opponents in a victory speech.

D. Orbán personally traveled to Kyiv as one of the anti-Russian hard-liners.

E. Hungary’s position is presented as part of a broader Poland-Hungary double game.

Which claims match the passage’s account of competing interpretations of Europe and the Ukrainian war?

A. United Europe is associated with some kind of Social Democracy.

B. Orbán frames the liberal camp as essentially Marxist with liberal remnants.

C. The passage treats the “clash of civilizations” as the complete explanation of the war.

D. The Kyiv mission is said to have aimed to pull Ukraine toward nationalist-illiberal Europe.

E. The visitors’ real battle is described as being against Social Democratic Europe.

The passage presents Maidan as both an authentic student and popular uprising and as partially overdetermined by rival oligarchic blocs and their foreign patrons.

The passage argues that the Kyiv mission’s militant proposals were expected to have concrete military consequences and were fully authorized by the EU.

The passage says the Kyiv mission was directed not against Russia primarily, but against ___ Europe.

Explain why the passage rejects a purely cultural or geopolitical reading of the Ukrainian conflict.

What choice does the passage say Zelensky and Ukraine ultimately face, and how is this connected to Orbán’s attitude toward Zelensky?

Which interpretation best connects the earlier description of the Visegrád group with the current account of the Polish Kyiv mission?

A. The mission primarily aimed to demonstrate full obedience to official EU foreign policy.

B. The mission used support for Ukraine to signal a division inside Europe and challenge united Europe.

C. The mission showed that Poland and Hungary had abandoned illiberal nationalism in favor of Social Democracy.

D. The mission proved that the war was only a cultural clash with no economic or political dimensions.

Which statements correctly integrate the earlier discussion of Orbán, Kaczyński, and the Visegrád stance with the current explanation of the “double game” played by Poland and Hungary?

A. Orbán’s absence from the Kyiv train is later explained through Hungary’s economic links with Putin’s Russia and its proclaimed neutrality.

B. Kaczyński’s presence in Orbán’s place fits the broader claim that both leaders embody a Visegrád stance opposed to stronger EU unity.

C. The Polish envoys’ lack of EU authorization supports the claim that their mission embarrassed Brussels and signaled division in Europe.

D. The current section argues that Poland and Hungary fully accepted Brussels’s cultural and political pressure during the war.

E. The mission’s rhetoric of militant support for Ukraine is presented as also serving the aim of strengthening nationalist-illiberal Europe against Social Democratic Europe.

The text’s claim that Russia’s war strengthened European and NATO unity is fully consistent with the later claim that the Polish Kyiv mission revealed no division within Europe.

According to the current section, the militant proposals made during the Kyiv mission were less a real battle against Putin’s Russia than a battle against ___ Europe, which Orbán associated with “Marxist” liberal hegemony.

登录后解锁笔记、知识点解析、AI 问答

立即登录