Hungary has begun withdrawing soldiers deployed to protect critical infrastructure and energy installations, according to HVG. The move began two days after the parliamentary election and marks a partial drawdown of a security operation that had featured prominently in the government’s pre-election messaging about an alleged threat from Ukraine.
Hungary’s Ministry of Defence said the Hungarian Defence Forces had begun what it described as a “rationalisation” of the personnel assigned to reinforce the protection of infrastructure and energy facilities. The Hungarian ministry said guarding duties had already ended at some sites, while troops remained at only a limited number of locations. It added that companies operating critical installations had, in the meantime, reviewed their procedures and strengthened their own security arrangements.
The scale of the operation was not insignificant. HVG reported that the armed forces had assigned about 600 personnel to guard 75 strategic points. The enhanced security presence was first introduced around critical energy infrastructure, but was later extended to defence industry facilities as well. That expansion followed a fire in the Czech Republic which Hungarian reporting linked to a terrorist attack, prompting broader official concern about vulnerable sites in the region.
The deployment began after Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, citing reports from Hungary’s national security services, warned in late February that Ukraine could be preparing further action to disrupt Hungary’s energy system. In remarks reported by HVG on 25 February, Orbán said that after the oil pipeline dispute, “the Ukrainians are preparing further actions” that could interfere with the functioning of the Hungarian energy network. The report noted at the time that no concrete evidence was made public, and that neither the sources nor the reliability of the information were disclosed.
That warning quickly became part of the wider election-period security narrative. In a follow-up report published on 11 April, HVG argued that the protection of critical infrastructure had become closely tied to campaign messaging. The same report questioned whether the form of the state response matched the nature of the threat being described. It noted, in particular, that Hungary did not invoke Article 4 of the NATO treaty, which allows consultations when a member state believes its security is under threat. It also pointed out that drone defence is not principally a task for the armed forces, but rather for the National Security Service for Special Means.
The mission later expanded again to include protection linked to the TurkStream gas pipeline after what the government described as a possible sabotage incident near the Serbian-Hungarian border. Yet HVG said that its journalists who visited the site did not find evidence matching the official rhetoric about terror and panic. That discrepancy added to political controversy over whether the government’s public presentation of the threat reflected the facts on the ground.
Public opinion polling also suggested considerable scepticism. According to a Medián survey published by HVG, more than three-fifths of Hungarians believed that explosives found near the TurkStream pipeline had been placed there as part of a deceptive operation. The same survey found that even among Fidesz voters, only 59 per cent accepted the government’s account of an alleged Ukrainian-backed action. HVG cited those figures as evidence that the official narrative had not fully convinced the public, including parts of the governing party’s own electorate.
The timing of the military drawdown is therefore politically notable. A deployment introduced before the election, justified by warnings of a possible Ukrainian threat to Hungarian infrastructure, is now being reduced almost immediately after the vote.
