The announcement that the Trump-Putin peace talks would be held in Budapest created a short lived debate over the significance of the event in the Hungarian political discourse, with pro-government supporters calling it historical and members of the opposition belittling it. Our analysis aims to approach this question from a different perspective, that of how small states can leverage their diplomatic impact. It is unusual that a small nation is able to punch above its weight in the realm of geopolitics to this extent. There is a reason, however, that Budapest had come to mind as a possible location. Hungary has been following a different approach to diplomacy than most of the rest of Europe has. In order to understand why this approach has been so controversial, we first need to see what the usual modes of increasing impact are for small states.

What we define as a small state can vary upon the criteria with which we measure. The World Bank considers nations with populations below 1.5 million to be small states, based on this, about two-thirds of the United Nations member states are small states. Hungary does not fall into this category, yet it is certainly a part of its identity, that it is a small state. Why can this be? The categorizations of small states can be based on quantitative and qualitative factors. The quantitative factors can measure properties such as the size of the population, the physical size of the country, or economic conditions. Qualitative approaches look more at the perceptions that arise from the inequalities between countries. This approach leads to more countries being classified as small. To a certain aspect smallness is subjective, and it can stem from power relations that may change over time.

The fact that smallness is relative and that it is at least in part a perception means that economic openness, dependence, and sometimes isolation are all factors that influence how vulnerable states feel. Sometimes the feeling of smallness is not a matter of physical space, but of the ability to have control over a nation’s fate. Switzerland is a good example of a state that is small but mighty. Its history of neutrality, the fact that it is home to several international organizations and a global financial hub gives it greater geopolitical influence than it would otherwise have. Post-colonial France on the other hand is an example of when a country loses a part of its previous geopolitical significance, altering its perception of power. At the beginning of the 19th century, Hungary was the sixth largest country in Europe, it is only natural that the country feels small in comparison. The fact that it is an open economy that is dependent on Germany does not help.

So what are the possibilities for small countries to increase their impact? The one that comes to mind first is cooperation. Multilateral diplomacy, working together with similar nations to achieve a common goal can amplify the voices of small states. This creates collective power. But power originates from other sources as well. Derivative power can come from having good relations with stronger nations, while particular-intrinsic power comes from the assets of small powers trying to influence their surroundings. Hungary uses all three of these approaches to a different extent. For a long time, the Visegrád Four was an important source of collective power when lobbying in the European Union, and the EU itself was an institution that could help advance the country’s foreign policy interests. But exactly because Hungary is an open economy, the long-term effects of the 2008 financial crisis caused a significant shift in the country’s approach to diplomacy. With the West not as successful as it used to be, Viktor Orbán initiated the so-called Eastern Opening policy in 2011. In a little over a decade this has turned into the strategy of connectivity, where the aim is to be able to negotiate with all countries regardless of their ideology or political system. This is seen as a break from the post-Cold War diplomacy of Hungary, which was unequivocally Western oriented.

The Hungarian shift is less about ideology and more about how the country perceives itself. Viktor Orbán wants to make Hungary great again. Not in terms of territory, but in terms of impact. While all three sources of power remain important, the role of particular-intrinsic power has increased. Derivative power and collective power also remain important, but they are used as tools to further the national interest of changing the country’s geopolitical impact. The support of great powers is beneficial, but not vital. This is why the relationship with the United States was/is better under Donald Trump than during the term of Joe Biden. This is why relations are strained with the European Union. This is also why Fidesz is so active in strengthening the Patriots within the EU. It is still looking for the benefits of derivative and collective power but through connecting with likeminded politicians.

Because Hungary is an open economy, the war in Ukraine has created an economic situation that has rattled Fidesz’s position for the first time in fifteen years. This does not breed ideological solidarity. The constant call of Fidesz for peace is not about Russia, it is not about Ukraine, it is about creating a situation that is better for the Hungarian economy, and consequently, Fidesz’s electoral prospects. Acting as a mediator, relaying messages, hosting the peace talks are manifestations of derivative power put to use to increase the country’s particular-intrinsic power. The European approach is an ideological approach and one that is not based on smallness. While it is not unusual for small states to try and increase their diplomatic impact, it is unusual that they do so in such an independent way, only focused on their national interest. Orbán is not ideologically against his Western allies, but will only cooperate with them if he feels that it is beneficial for his plan to make Hungary great again, or if he is absolutely obligated to. Bringing Trump and Putin together to the same table would definitely be a feather in his cap, but we must look at all such events through the lens of what it can do to support his project.