European leaders welcomed news of a ceasefire deal with Iran, even as the same live coverage showed European Commission spokespeople fielding questions about JD Vance’s claims of unprecedented EU interference in the Hungarian elections. The scene laid out a familiar hierarchy: officials speaking through “appropriate channels,” politicians trading praise and accusations, and ordinary people left to absorb the consequences of decisions made far above them. **Who Gets to Speak** The European Commission’s tech spokesperson Thomas Regnier said that “what the European bureaucrats have been doing is [moving] to set out a strong framework to make sure that the elections remain in the hands of our citizens.” That line, polished in the language of institutional guardianship, came alongside a live report that the commission reacted reluctantly to Vance’s comments. The apparatus insists it is protecting elections, while the machinery of power keeps the terms of participation firmly in its own hands. EU foreign spokesperson Anitta Hipper said, “We have also our diplomatic channels and we will be using these also to convey our concerns to our US counterparts.” She added that the EU was “not in the business of disclosing what we talk about with our partners.” The commission’s deputy chief spokesperson Arianna Podestà said, “We have appropriate channels, appropriate frameworks, diplomatic contacts, [and] the joint statement. That is a framework in which we discuss matters of relevance with our partners. And that is where we will be bringing the discussions with the United States if they consider it something worthwhile pursuing with us.” That is the language of managed politics: channels, frameworks, contacts, statements. The people at the bottom are told this is how power behaves when it is being responsible. **What the Strongmen Call Peace** JD Vance was in Budapest, where he praised Viktor Orbán and criticized EU and UK energy policies. Vance said Orbán “does a good job, because he does,” and called him “a very, very important partner for peace.” He said “most of the European political capitals have not been nearly as helpful to the cause of peace between Russia and Ukraine as Viktor Orbán has.” Vance also said, “It’s the reason why I’m here. This is unprecedented. It’s unprecedented for an American vice-president to come the week before an election.” He added, “The reason why we’re doing it is because we thought there were so much garbage happening against Viktor in this election, that we had to show that there are actually a lot of people and a lot of friends across the world who recognise that Viktor and his government are doing a good job, and they’re important partners for peace.” He said the US had been “disappointed by a lot of the political leadership in Europe,” and named Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and “some of the western European capitals, … at least behind the scenes” as helpful. Vance also said, “What I would say to both the Russians and the Ukrainians is, you know, we’re talking about haggling at this point over a few square kilometres of territory in one direction or another. Is that worth losing hundreds of thousands of additional Russian and Ukrainian young men? Is that worth an additional months or even years of higher energy prices and economic devastation? We think the answer is clearly no. But it takes, you know, two to tango. So while Viktor and president Trump are going to continue to work towards a peaceful settlement, fundamentally we can only open the door. The Russians and the Ukrainians have to walk through it.” The same live coverage said Vance called it “darkly ironic that people are accusing me of engaging in some kind of foreign influence.” He criticized European and UK energy policies, saying middle-class Britons could not afford to heat their homes or transport themselves to work because their leadership had made energy so expensive, and said, “It is not magical that the United States has lower energy costs in the United Kingdom. It’s because we’ve made smart decisions and their leadership is not. They could change course, and we hope that they will.” He then criticized EU scrutiny of US social media platforms and Brussels bureaucracy. **The Truce, the Threat, the Polls** On Iran, Vance said the military aim in Iran, or “decimating the Iranian military,” had been “achieved,” and said the focus had shifted to reopening the straits after Trump told Iran to “stop trying to hold the world’s economy hostage.” He called the truce “fragile” and said some people in Iran had replied “very favourable” to the proposed truce while others were “basically lying about what we have accomplished militarily” and “about the nature of the agreement.” Vance said, “This is why I say this is a fragile truce. You have people who clearly want to come to the negotiating table and work with us to find a good deal, and then you have people who are lying about even the fragile truce that we’ve already struck.” He added, “The president … has told me and he’s told the entire negotiating team, the secretary of state, the special envoy, Steve Witkoff, he said: go and work in good faith to come to an agreement. … If the Iranians are willing, in good faith, to work with us, I think we can make an agreement; if they’re going to lie, if they’re going to cheat, if they’re going to try to prevent even the fragile truce that we’ve set up from taking place, then they’re not going to be happy.” He also said, “He’s told us to come to the negotiating table. But if the Iranians don’t do the exact same thing, they’re going to find out that the president, the United States, is not one to mess around. He’s impatient. He’s impatient to make progress. He has told us to negotiate in good faith. And I think if they negotiate in good faith, we will be able to find a deal. That’s a big if. And ultimately it’s up to the Iranians how they negotiate. I hope they make the right decision.” Germany rejected Vance’s accusations that the European Union was interfering in the upcoming election in Hungary. A government spokesperson said Vance’s presence in Hungary “already shows, or speaks for itself, who is interfering in what.” Russia also backed Vance’s claims. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said, “Many forces in Europe, many forces in Brussels, would not like Orbán to win the elections again.” He added, “This is well known, it’s obvious to the naked eye, and, of course, they’re playing into the hands of those forces that politically oppose Orbán and believe that publishing such materials could harm him.” Reuters reported that Peskov, who did not deny the remarks were genuine, said they showed Orbán in a pragmatic light. Peskov said, “He is indeed a very effective politician … one who is specifically defending the interests of his own country.” The live coverage also said a new Median poll for hvg.hu suggested the opposition Tisza Party, led by Péter Magyar, could be on course to win big on Sunday. The poll’s latest analysis, looking at five surveys, suggested the opposition could command as many as 138 to 143 seats in the next parliament, which would give it a two-thirds majority out of 199 seats. It said Hungarian statutes known as “cardinal laws” require super majorities to reform laws in some critical areas, such as the judiciary. It said a failure to get a supermajority would limit the new government’s ability to reform Orbán-era laws and resolve tensions with Brussels by making changes needed to unlock EU funds. According to the calculations, Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz would get between 49 and 55 seats, with a further 5-6 seats going to the far-right Mi Hazánk party. The poll implied 48% support for Tisza, 30% for Fidesz, 4% for Mi Hazánk, and 15% of voters did not want to answer or were not planning to vote. The live coverage said Orbán had turned Hungary into what he calls an “illiberal democracy” over the past 16 years, using a parliamentary supermajority to effect constitutional control over institutions and targeting minorities, political opponents and the independent media in the process. It said he was projected to potentially lose the popular vote at the upcoming election, described as the most critical in Europe this year. The whole spectacle ran through the same narrow corridors of power: diplomatic channels, parliamentary supermajorities, electioneering, and leaders congratulating themselves while the rest of society is expected to live with the results.
