Is the Visegrad Group still relevant? Is it expereiencing its renaissance after Péter Magyar’s win in Hungary? What is the […]
Is the Visegrad Group still relevant? Is it expereiencing its renaissance after Péter Magyar’s win in Hungary? What is the relationship between the Visegrad countries and Ukraine? What types of projects does the International Visegrad Fund foster and what is their relevance in terms of cultural cooperation? And can civil society funding be considered as part of democratic infrastructure?
Leszek Jazdzewski (Fundacja Liberte!) talks with Linda Kapustová Helbichová, the Executive Director of the International Visegrad Fund. She has extensive experience in diplomacy and public administration, having served at the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs and the Ministry of Culture of the Slovak Republic. Tune in the for their talk!
This podcast, as well as previous episodes, is available on SoundCloud, Apple Podcast, Stitcher and Spotify.
Watch the conversation on YouTube: https://youtu.be/IPyP0qrnT-M
This podcast is produced by the European Liberal Forum in collaboration with the Movimento Liberal Social and the Fundacja Liberté!, with the financial support of the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum are responsible for the content or for any use that be made of.
Leszek: Hello and welcome to Liberal Europe. Today we are going to talk about the Visegrad Fund and the four countries: Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland. And who better to talk about those issues than the Executive Director of the Visegrad Fund, Ambassador Linda Kapustová Helbichová. Welcome.
Linda: Thank you very much for having me.
Leszek: I wanted to ask you about the group, about the V4 countries. The creation of the Visegrad Group in 1991 was very much about cooperation ahead of European integration. A lot of time has passed, and there have been many political differences among the countries. It seems that in recent years there has been less close cooperation among the V4. Do you think this body is still relevant? And if so, how has its role changed in the last 20-something years?
Linda: Thank you for the question — it’s not the first time I have heard it during my tenure, so it’s okay with me. First of all, I would like to highlight that we need to distinguish between the Visegrad Group and the Visegrad Fund. In the region, we have several formats of regional cooperation — the Slavkov Format, the [SRICIS] initiative, the Visegrad Group, and so on. But not all of them have an organisational structure or an instrument like the International Visegrad Fund. This year, on 9 June, we are celebrating our 26th anniversary. Over these years, our priorities have stayed largely the same, but some have evolved, because we are flexible enough — for example, after the war in Ukraine started, we were able to react and mobilise one million euros to help Ukraine with ad-hoc initiatives for Ukrainian migrants. So that’s the practical side. Our relevance is that we try to facilitate people-to-people contact and keep cooperation in the region vivid and active. That’s our aim. We are open to every idea of cooperation, and we are not limited only to the Visegrad region — our scope extends to neighbouring areas as well, including the Western Balkans and the Eastern Partnership.
Leszek: I understand that the Visegrad Fund is not the same as the Visegrad Group, but still, the politics — since the foreign ministers serve as a kind of governing body over the Fund — matter for the institution’s effectiveness. Do you think this political dimension has any influence on what you do? Or does the Fund really work outside the political differences and alliances? And does the fact that perhaps there is now less in common among the V4 than there used to be influence the mission of your organisation?
Linda: Definitely. The intensity of collaboration between the V4 foreign ministries — the political level — is very important. As you know, the Visegrad Group presidencies rotate. At this moment, the Hungarian presidency is finishing, and it will be taken over by the Slovak Republic from 1 July. Every presidency country has its programme and calendar of activities, which are presented and fulfilled. And you are perfectly right — it’s not a secret that the political level of cooperation has been weak in the past. The direct impact on our cooperation is not as such, because the Fund has its own grants, schemes, and mobilities, which are linked to strategic priorities set by each presidency. But of course, if we are talking about future cooperation with countries outside our region — if we want to bring more attention to the Visegrad region from partners in Asia, for example — it would be very beneficial to have a more cohesive, positive spirit of cooperation within the region itself. That is always helpful, so it is relevant in that sense.
Leszek: Speaking of cooperation, the thing I have always liked about the Visegrad Fund is that the main priorities seem to be civil society, culture — issues that are relevant for citizens no matter what their political views. And it seemed in the past that there was perhaps relatively little interest among V4 citizens in their neighbours, and much more interest in integration with Western Europe. That was understandable. Looking back — I know there have been many directors before you, but you have been head of the Visegrad Fund for a while now — do you see particular areas where this cultural and civic cooperation is more successful? Is there more interest, or less, in recent years?
Linda: When we talk about our permanent areas of cooperation, we have seven priorities. Two of them involve supporting universities, NGOs, and research and development institutions, where we convert ideas into real projects. Culture is one of our strong priority areas. But in 2024, for the first time, we supported more education and R&D-oriented projects than ever before. So collaboration with universities and NGOs has scaled up, and the portfolio of cultural projects — as a percentage — is not as dominant as it used to be. The Fund was originally seen as a cultural organisation, mainly supporting literature. As you know, since 2012 we have run the Literary Residency Program, and we support mobilities not only for scholars and fellows in several cities and universities across the V4, but we also cooperate with the Open Society Archives and Radio Free Europe in Budapest. Many good projects are emerging — we are not only supporting culture, but we still do support it. One of our PR tools is the Project of the Year award. This year we had four beautiful projects, and one of them, Sounds of Diversity, is the one I can publicly say is going to be awarded — it’s a showcase festival of new compositions by composers from the Visegrad Group countries. So culture has its important role within our grants and projects, but it’s one of seven priorities, not the only one.
Leszek: And since you mentioned the Open Society Archives, it’s hard to connect that with the fact that, very recently, the Hungarian Prime Minister was accusing George Soros of interfering in the electoral process in Hungary — and Hungary currently holds the V4 presidency. Has this political dimension influenced the way you operate? It seems almost contradictory to the policies of some governments. Some of the ideas in the projects you realise — European strategic autonomy, for example — seem very far removed from the priorities of some V4 governments in recent years. Is it a political problem, or do you have complete autonomy?
Linda: Thanks for this question. It’s not only the Open Society Archives that doesn’t necessarily match the political metrics of our countries — Hungary in particular. It’s also our support for Ukraine. As the Fund, we are free to support students not only from the Visegrad Group, the Western Balkans, or the Eastern Partnership, but we also receive applications from relevant institutions and universities worldwide. Over the years, OSA has become a well-established institution, and we have cooperated with them for 16 years or more. So we are quite independent in our support decisions. The same applies to our support for Ukraine through the CSMP — the Civil Servant Mobility Program. Ukraine has been a priority country there for more than six years, and all the V4 countries have accepted this. So there is no contradiction. It’s an expert mobility exchange for civil servants, and it’s working pretty well. Not only Ukraine and other neighbouring countries benefit — the ministries themselves also benefit from this exchange of views and the networking among countries seeking experience from our region. It’s a win-win on both sides.
Leszek: Since you mentioned Ukraine, I think it’s important to highlight that support for this Eastern dimension is almost as high as for any particular country within the V4 group. It’s a big part of your funding. Considering that we are seeing more and more antagonism or scepticism towards supporting Ukraine, towards Ukrainians living abroad — how do you see the role of the Visegrad Fund now? Maybe not in immediate support for a country that has been fighting for more than four years, but in other areas. How do you see the changing position of the Fund in supporting Ukraine, through cultural exchange, civic support, or supporting Ukrainians living in the V4 countries right now?
Linda: The support is continuous, and there is no reduction. In fact, our support by now exceeds one million euros. I can share the numbers from last year, 2025: we supported nine projects and 25 scholarships for Ukrainian students. On top of that, we supported 32 research fellowships and received 25 Ukrainian civil servants who visited our countries — the ministries and institutions I mentioned. The purpose was capacity-building and networking through our Civil Servant Mobility Program. It’s a tailor-made programme, and the main topics were: EU integration and institutional reforms in Czechia, public administration reform and environmental protection in Hungary, adaptation of legislation and administrative standards in Poland, and energy efficiency in Slovakia. Ukrainian beneficiaries received funding totalling over 600,000 euros in 2025. So there is continuous support for Ukraine and Ukrainian applicants. We are willing — and we thank our Ministries of Foreign Affairs for allowing us to do this work with Ukrainian applicants and mobilities.
Leszek: And do you see, among the V4 countries, a kind of Ukraine fatigue? Do you think society has had enough of supporting Ukraine, or is that not the case?
Linda: It’s a tricky question, because we operate within our budgets. The Fund’s budget was increased recently — twice, in 2022 and 2025. It’s no secret that we don’t operate with hundreds of millions of euros. We have 11 million euros from our Ministries of Foreign Affairs, which is not a lot compared to, say, the United States. So with a small amount of money, we try to make miracles. Low-scale, soft projects — that’s our agenda. So questions about whether the budget is enough can certainly be raised, but we know our role and what we can support with the money we have.
Leszek: I was wondering whether your mission has been influenced by the way society sees Ukraine. Before, we saw Ukrainian flags everywhere, people on the streets really supporting Ukrainians. Now — at least from the Polish perspective, but I am also observing how governments behave in other V4 countries — there is more and more tension vis-à-vis Ukraine, regarding energy in Slovakia, or memory and history in Poland. I won’t even mention Hungary. Even Poland’s newer government, which might be more pro-Ukrainian, is still quite sceptical in many areas of support for Ukraine. Do you think this mission of supporting Ukraine has become harder than it was four or five years ago, because of how society perceives the struggle of Ukrainians these days?
Linda: The advantage of the Visegrad Fund is that we have a solid way of doing things, and we do it that way. There is approval and agreement from the ministries and from the governments on what our mission is. Ukraine is part of our neighbourhood, part of our region. So for us, it’s very clear: beyond strengthening ties between our neighbouring countries, we have to work with Ukraine. It’s up to the Ukrainian applicants to bring the topics that are relevant for them to the table — we are more than happy to assist. That’s basically what I can say. We do receive many strong applications, so we have plenty to work with. It’s a good cooperation.
Leszek: And going beyond Ukraine — if I remember correctly, in your 2025 report, one of the projects supported by the Visegrad Fund was on the perspectives of EU enlargement by 2030. How do you see the future of enlargement, and what could the role of the Visegrad Fund be in any potential enlargement?
Linda: Enlargement is not exactly what we do — but if there is a need from Ukrainian applicants, and they see enlargement as a priority, then I’m sure they will send us more ideas on how to deepen ties between the Visegrad region and the EU. We are very happy when we can support more practical topics. The best example here is the Civil Servant Mobility Program, because it shows the practical effects of collaboration. But there are also many other projects — not only dealing with culture, but with practical impacts of the war, or addressing the specific areas where Ukraine needs to be stronger in terms of future enlargement.
Leszek: Is corruption a problem in cooperation with Ukraine?
Linda: Not with us, because we have our financial rules. If Ukrainian applicants do not comply with the rules, we won’t support them in the future. It’s very simple. And again, we are talking about tens of thousands of euros, not millions. Our budget is really small, but that has its advantage, because we can look more closely and collaborate more closely with every single applicant. So it’s very difficult to corrupt us — we see things. It’s not helicopter money. They really need to send us a relevant application with a very detailed budget, which we examine from the beginning. There can of course be some cases, but it’s not a huge problem.
Leszek: Since the Fund is also active in the Western Balkans — countries that have been applying for some time to be part of the EU — do you think the experience of the V4 countries’ cooperation within the region might be relevant for them? Would you advise them, to be more successful in European integration?
Linda: If we had those answers you are asking me, we would already be done with the homework. But of course, enlargement is about the region, and the region is one of the agendas of the International Visegrad Fund — so it’s in our interest to have solid relationships. But the homework, and the chapters imposed by the European Union for the candidate countries to fulfil, is really the role of the countries themselves. The only thing we can do — beyond crossing our fingers for them — is help them with the exchange of our network and expertise. When they feel the need to come to us, they know whom to contact and who can help them figure out how to proceed. Not all Western Balkans countries are in a position that allows them to fulfil the criteria, so it’s a very complex question. But for those who are politically willing, we are ready to help with specific projects. Civil servants can again be exchanged thanks to our cooperation, and that’s a really practical, tailor-made programme. We are happy to share it.
Leszek: As we get close to the end of our conversation, I’m going to shoot three quick questions at you and hope for quick answers. First: do you think we are going to witness a renaissance of the V4 group after the major victory in Hungary?
Linda: Ask me after the summit of the prime ministers on 23 June. We are having the first summit after many months of no collaboration at the level of prime ministers. So we can only wonder what the output will be, and what the political collaboration will look like. The expert cooperation is very clear through the Fund — we know what to do. But what the political expectations will be, and in which areas — Brussels-related topics, or infrastructure — we can only guess.
Leszek: How do you see the V4 from the perspective of the youngest generation? What could and should the cooperation look like for them, and how is it supported by the Visegrad Fund?
Linda: It’s not widely known, but besides the grants, fellowships, and mobility schemes, we also have a small grants programme called V4 Generation. It supports young people between 12 and 30 years old. It’s not direct support of individuals, but rather support for cooperation between primary schools, high schools, and universities. That’s an amazing thing, because there are waves of young people — they really change the dynamic of cooperation. When they meet thanks to V4 Generation projects, they find out that they share similar problems. A Hungarian girl has the same problems as a Polish one. Through normal life situations, they realise: she’s fine. That will likely, in the future, create a positive environment for cooperation — they will be more inclined to collaborate. This is really important. We have to consider this human aspect of our region. We have so many opportunities through Erasmus and Erasmus+ that we sometimes need to come back to our own background and get to know who lives next to our borders. That’s a challenge for us — coming back to our region.
Leszek: As a very last question — if you could double your budget next year, where would you put the money?
Linda: That’s a good, hypothetical question — and probably hard to make real. But I would suggest to the ministries that we invest more in the grants, specifically in the dimensions of Eastern Partnership and Western Balkans. That would make sense. Right now we have many more applications than we are able to support, so doubling the budget could easily be absorbed across the region. I’m sure of that.
Leszek: All right — Prime Ministers, if you are listening to us, that’s a real challenge for you: to show that V4 cooperation works by doubling the Visegrad Fund’s money. It will be well spent. Thank you so much for being with us at Liberal Europe today.
Linda: Thank you very much. I wish you all the best.
Leszek: That’s all for today from me. Please tune in for Ricardo’s selection next week. Goodbye.