‘You are fighting not only for your freedom, your democracy and your future, but for ours too. You are fighting for Europe!’ European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated firmly on 14 November 2023 speaking before the Verkhovna Rada in Ukraine. Her words met with thunderous applause—what else, since it is perfectly aligned with Kyiv’s narrative on the country’s indeed important function in the broader European security and, moreover, political system.
Those following Western mainstream media closely over the past three years know that Ukraine is currently not only fighting a self-defence war against Russia, but is also the last bulwark between Russia and the democratic European states that Moscow is eager to conquer and force under the dictatorial rule of President Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian regime. Without Ukraine’s heroic stance, Moscow could easily march to the borders of NATO and invade the Baltic states, Finland or Poland, or even Hungary. Therefore, it is our existential interest to support Ukraine financially and militarily in its fight for our freedom, prosperity and democracy, as it is Ukraine’s indisputable right to become a full member of the European Union as soon as possible.
One may agree or disagree with the statement above, but it undoubtedly reflects the Western reality of the past three years—at the very least. There are, of course, lone voices of dissent arguing that the EU should not become overly entangled in the conflict, even as the prevailing narrative pushes it in that direction. These dissenters often face backlash from the mainstream—Hungary being a prime example. The country—alone among the 27 member states—is currently blocking Kyiv’s fast-track EU bid for several reasons. One of these, as recently outlined by Balázs Orbán, political director to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, in an interview with CNN, is that accepting Ukraine would mean the EU is integrating a direct confrontation with Russia. ‘They are fighting for themselves. And they have the right to do so. But it’s not about our security. We never asked them to fight in the name of us,’ Orbán explained.
The consequences of going rogue are serious: just a few weeks ago, Denmark, which currently holds the Council of Europe’s rotating presidency, stressed that it would exert ‘maximum pressure’ on Hungary to change its stance on Ukraine’s EU accession. The reasoning? You already know it: EU membership is important for Ukraine in its resistance against Russia, which is essential to strengthen the ‘security and stability’ of the European Union. If Denmark pushes for Article 7 procedure against Hungary to be on the top of the agenda for the next six months—and other member states are willing to play along—the country could lose its voting right in EU decision making.
The Last Defenders of European Civilization
From the perspective of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s administration, it is straightforward to characterize the country as the defender of European democracy. That was also the case with his predecessor Petro Poroshenko, who repeatedly framed Ukraine as a frontline country protecting Europe, urging NATO to support Kyiv after Russia annexed the Crimea in 2014. The idea of Ukraine posing as the last bulwark of Europe has roots that go far deeper than the current conflict, which has been ongoing for over a decade—though never with the same intensity as the narrative promoted today. This concept first emerged in the mid-17th century during the Cossack era and persisted, more or less continuously, thereafter. By the mid-19th century, Ukrainian intellectuals—particularly in Austrian-ruled Galicia—began to frame Ukraine as a Christian bastion protecting Europe from Eastern despotism. The narrative was later reignited by the notorious Bandera regime during and after World War II, positioning themselves as defenders of Ukrainian freedom and European civilization against Soviet communism.
Of course, this kind of characterization is not exclusive to Ukraine; it is part of a broader regional phenomenon known as the ‘Antemurale myth’, or ‘bulwark myth’. Throughout history, nations—particularly those in border regions—have invoked this myth to claim a defensive mission on behalf of civilization, not merely for their own people. It is consistently marked by boundary-drawing, defence against an ideological, cultural, or religious other, and the assertion of belonging to a larger communal identity. The Antemurale myth is arguably a significant part of Eastern European history. Border countries—from Poland to Serbia, from Croatia to Hungary—have repeatedly ‘put on the Antemurale’ when facing external threats, whether from the Ottoman Empire or the Soviet Union.
Antemurale played an outstandingly powerful and important role in Hungary’s history, shaping national identity and diplomacy. As early as 1250, King Béla IV, after the Mongol invasions, likened Hungary to a defensive wall along the Danube in a letter to Pope Gregory IX—as one of the earliest appearances of the bulwark myth in Europe. After repelling the invading Ottomans for centuries, the Hungarian myth became institutionalized and widely recognized across Europe, with Pope Callixtus III dubbing John Hunyadi the ‘Bulwark of Christendom’ after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Under the rule of Sigismund and Matthias, Hungary’s fortified frontier—stretching to the Adriatic—served as both a literal and symbolic rampart of Europe. That central bulwark role remained in place until the early 18th century, when the last Ottoman enclaves were removed from Hungarian territory, as agreed in the Treaty of Passarowitz.
During the 19th and 20th centuries, Hungarian art, literature, and national discourse experienced a powerful revival, deeply infused with the Antemurale myth. Folk-national literature and poets like Mihály Tompa and Sándor Petőfi thrived during this period, and their work—intertwined with legends of heroism and shared cultural identity—reinforced the image of Hungary as a civilizational bastion.
Hungary Took On the Antemurale
Since 2015, Hungary once again took on the Antemurale myth as millions of migrants from the MENA region flooded Europe—placing the country in a familiar position as the ‘Bulwark of Christendom’ against Islam. Facing tremendous pressure from Western mainstream, both within the EU and from the United States, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán turned against ‘Wilkommenskultur’ announced by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and promised that Hungary, as many times in its history, would stand as the defender of Christianity and Western civilization. Hungary built a border fence on its southern border with Serbia to keep out illegal migrants, resulting in heavy clashes between the invaders and Hungarian authorities from time to time. For its strong resistance, Hungary earned the praise of conservatives around the world.
But that is only one front. Hungary has also become the lone isle—last bastion, if you’d like—of conservatism in the liberal ocean of Europe. Orbán perfectly realized that the path pursued by the mainstream European elite—aligned with greens and progressives—is a very dangerous and destructive one—in fact, it is currently the biggest threat Western civilization and culture is facing. The promotion of so-called ‘woke’ ideology, the advocacy of mass migration as a solution to the West’s deepening demographic crisis, and the increasing shift toward overly centralized decision-making within the EU—at the expense of a centuries-long tradition of sovereign nation-states—are signs that the European (and global) elite are slowly digging the grave of Christianity and Western civilization.
By protecting the EU’s external border, standing firm by traditional values, introducing one of the most successful and world-renowned family policies, Hungary went against Western European member states and Brussels, while—as a weird paradox—being the only defender of traditional European values, culture and civilization, which is facing real existential threat in the form of mass migration and Islamization. The consequences of these trends are clearly visible from Berlin to London, Stockholm to Paris: demographic trends favour Muslim population, as most analyses project Christianity to be in the minority by the end of the century. The integration of migrants has also failed, as shown by the parallel societies emerging in Western metropolises, which is a direct cause leading to increasing crime rates—not to mention the constant terror threat that instills fear amongst European citizens. Mass migration also puts immense pressure on social welfare systems, which are already crumbling under declining birth rates. If current trends continue, European civilization, culture, identity and democracy as we know it will cease to exist within a foreseeable period of time.
Europe’s Strategic Mistake
Therefore, two Antemurale myths are currently clashing in Europe: one geopolitical and ideological, in which Ukraine is seen as the last bulwark of European civilization; the other cultural and demographic, with Hungary positioning itself as the defender of traditional Western values and Christianity. The former frames Russia as the primary external threat to Europe’s future, while the latter views mass migration—and, increasingly, the European elite itself—as the greatest danger to the survival of Western civilization.
That being said, the majority of EU member states and Brussels give unconditional support for Ukraine to ‘protect European democracy’, while vilifying and punishing Hungary for protecting the very foundations that democracy was born on. By doing so, however, Brussels is making a huge strategic mistake. Russia in its current state is nowhere near a real threat to European democracies—especially if we take into consideration that they are under NATO’s security umbrella. While struggling to secure a military victory in Ukraine, Moscow is losing influence all over the world, from the Middle East to its own backyard, Central Asia. The Russian economy is starting to lose the impetus it gained from transition to war economy, and officials’ statements—including Putin’s—indicate that Moscow wants to end the war sometime in 2026.
Even in the highly unlikely scenario of Russia attacking any EU or NATO member state, the impact—barring, of course, the deployment of nuclear weapons—would be far less significant on a civilizational scale than the already ongoing destructive processes brought about by mass migration in Europe. History shows that even the most devastating wars can be followed by recovery; in many cases, national identities and civilizational values have emerged even stronger in the aftermath of such trauma. The consequences of war can be reversed—civilizational shifts, however, are often irreversible within historical timeframes.
‘Kyiv could even win the war for Europe—only to find itself in a Europe that collapsed from within’
So, while acting driven by geopolitical reactionism, the European Commission proposed 100 billion euros from its 2028–2034 budget to Ukraine, and additional military support under the guise of the protection of European civilization. Meanwhile, Brussels promised full membership for Kyiv as soon as 2030—further draining funding from other areas, such as agriculture. In contrast, the budget proposal would allocate around 80 billion to migration-related issues, however, based on the same flawed approach as it did in the past ten years—treating mass migration as a logistical issue instead of a civilizational challenge.
In addition, EU leadership withholds funding from Hungary especially for not aligning with common migration policies—that is, for defending Europe and Christianity—while constantly criticizing the Hungarian government for alleged xenophobia and human rights abuses. That shows Brussels completely lacking the civilizational vision required to solve the root of the myriad of challenges tied to mass migration and Islamization—and without that, Western civilization won’t last long. It has no plans for tangible investments in demographic renewal, integration or cultural continuity, nor to reverse internal fragmentation caused by mass migration and multicultural paralysis.
If the current order of the priorities both Brussels and Western Europe uphold won’t change radically and as soon as possible, it won’t matter what happens in Ukraine. Kyiv could even win the war for Europe—only to find itself in a Europe that has collapsed from within. However, it is still not too late to listen to the warning of the last defender of European civilization and take into consideration a 180-degree turn on many key challenges facing the continent—most notably mass migration. One sentence should float before the eyes of the European elite: Civilization can survive war, but not civilizational amnesia—nor cultural extinction.
Related articles:
The post Antemurale Myths Collide: Ukraine, Hungary, and the EU’s Civilizational Mistake appeared first on Hungarian Conservative.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Joakim Scheffer
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.hungarianconservative.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
