01/08/2026
PLease read below the English version of my article published recently in Népszava online:
Peace Requires Courage Too
It is increasingly troubling that almost every political debate is focused on military responses, their financing, their effectiveness and their strategic implications as well as preparations for the continuation of war, the attrition of the enemy.
More troubling is that, whilst living under the shadow of a dangerous military escalation, one hardly hears political leaders who advocate dialogue, diplomacy, and confidence-building alongside military preparedness.
History teaches us that lasting peace has never rested solely upon deterrence or the balance of power. It has also depended upon sustaining political dialogue, keeping diplomatic channels open, and continuously cultivating mutual confidence. Deterrence without dialogue risks perpetual confrontation. Lasting security requires both. Such a dual-track approach ultimately contributed to Ostpolitik, détente, and the Helsinki Process.
Critics of dialogue argue that any initiative aimed at dialogue would be condemned by Ukraine as a betrayal, while interpreted by Russia as a sign of weakness, thereby encouraging further aggression. Accordingly, they come to the conclusion, the safest attitude is to avoid launching such initiatives.
I also hear the counter-arguments regarding the prematurity, high domestic political costs, weakening of international unity, unresolved justice and accountability etc.
These concerns deserve to be taken seriously but should not become an argument against dialogue and diplomacy. The principle of peaceful coexistence should remain a legitimate strategic objective rather than a wishful thinking which could and must be neglected. Waiting for the “perfect” time of engaging in dialogue ignores the risks of escalation, growing likelihood of deploying nuclear weapons, the daily loss of human lives and the increasing costs of destruction.
At the same time, a serious call for dialogue ensures moral and political advantage for the initiator. A sincere proposal for dialogue, confidence-building, and joint exploration of peaceful alternatives is not easily rejected indefinitely, either politically or morally. It forces the opposing side to explicitly justify its continuation of the war and bloodshed to the international community and its own domestic environment. That places the responsibility for the suffering on the refusing side and by that it changes the psychological dynamic of the conflict. Even if such an initiative were initially refused, the effort per se would still possess strategic value and would not justify abandoning it.
It is important to note that the launch of dialogue does not mean surrender or the immediate freezing of the frontlines. Initiating talks does not require to stop defending itself or allies to stop providing support. And most importantly, dialogue can run parallel to military deterrence.
History appreciates politicians not only by whether they possessed strength and courage to fight, but also by whether they possessed the wisdom and the vision to seek a path to peace before the opportunity was lost.
The essential first step for dialogue does not need to be a comprehensive peace agreement. It could be a clear declaration of political will for dialogue in a tone that it would rather anticipate reciprocity than presume its impossibility. That would create the political basis for the ensuing difficult work on the joint design of practical arrangements.
In that spirit, I would encourage every responsible political leader and every institution committed to Europe's future to speak not only the language of arms, but also the language of dialogue and diplomacy.
Preparing for war alone is not sufficient to secure peace and stability. We must prepare, with equal determination, for the making of peace.
And we must begin it today.
