Josep Borrell, the European Union’s top foreign policy official, has taken a step to effectively boycott Hungary’s rotating presidency of the EU in response to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s recent efforts to pursue peace in Ukraine.
Hungary was scheduled to host a meeting of EU foreign ministers in August but Borrell said the meeting will now be held in Brussels. “We have to send a signal, even if it is a symbolic signal,” he said.
EU officials have been fuming over Orban’s recent trips to Moscow and Beijing to discuss the prospect of peace in Ukraine, which came after he met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Borrell and other officials took particular offense at Orban labeling the EU’s policies toward Ukraine “pro-war.” Most European and NATO countries have discouraged the idea of peace talks and favor sending more weapons into the conflict zone. “If you want to talk about the war party, talk about Putin,” Borrell said.
Amid Orban’s push for peace, there are signs that Zelensky is reconsidering his policy of not negotiating with Russia. He recently suggested that Russian officials should attend the next international summit on the war that he is organizing.
Dissent in favor of peace will not be tolerated in our democratic union.
Dissent is tolerated, misrepresenting the Union and appearing to talk on behalf of the Union without having even asked the others however is not.
You know abiding by the democratic rules is OK violating them like Orban also does in Hungary is not.
Ah, the "president" can't speak representing himself as president of the union, yes? What kind of nonsense it that? Does that apply to any other president or only Hungary?
Orban is a democrat … he has tremendous public support in Hungary; far more than any western leader like Scholtzi and Macaroon etc.
What Orban is NOT is a liberal … but that does not seem to be what the people of Hungary want, right?
No the President of the Union has never been able to speak for the Union – not without getting the approval of the others – the rotating presidency just is not that kind of job and does not have that authority – so it has applied to all pf the ‘presidents’ of the union.
Orban has controlled the media and violated the normal divisions of power in a democracy – he is likely very popular as is Putin, that does not make him very democratic – democracy has to be played by the rules of the game – when you start limiting the freedom of the press and the divisions of power you are on a slippery slope away from democracy.
As far as I can judge we agree that the people of Hungary does not appear to want a liberal.
"Democracy" merely means rule by the demos … by the people. As long as a ruler has the support of the majority of the people, it is a democratic system.
Again, what you are arguing for is a liberal democracy … one with rules to protect free press, free association, minorities, foreigners, etc.. While these are very very nice things, they are not necessarily features of a democracy.
Btw, I agree with Jefferson that if there's a choice between a free press and free speech and democracy, I'd choose the former every time.
Well that is how we define the democratic requirements in EU (i.e. what you call a liberal democracy).
Yeah, but y'all got the Metric system – you don't know WTF a quarter-pounder…erm…American liberal democracy is.
No True Patriot Would Permit Such Disloyalty Towards The Union of European Socialist Republics!
"The USSR must NOT rise from the grave to threaten the UESR in its cradle ! Same goes for that 'CCCP', whoever the f**k they were."
It seems Hungary is the only one in the EU that doesn’t want to be a casualty of a nuclear exchange. How unreasonable.
Well if that was truly the case why does Orban not take Hungary out of NATO?
Who knows, Micheal, if Trump wins, Orban may not be so alone and it may be the other nations that will need to tack to the new western winds …
If Trump wins the rest of the west will have to agree on a NATO light treaty i.e. the same as NATO but without the US and Hungary + which other countries might not want to play straight (like Slovakia). For the simple reason that Trump will make Article 5 just about worthless.
The rest of the west will have the ability to make attacks a bad proposition, while certainly not representing a threat of invasion to the Russians.
Nato w/o the US is a meaningless thing. But, yes, a European common defense force to be the armed wing of the EU would be a great positive. Too bad the US and its implanted "leadership" in europe (people like Baerbock and Macron) would never allow it.
No NATO is very far from meaningless without the US – it actually becomes a much more important organization for the remaining members – as without it none of them are powerful enough to resist an invasion.
And Macron as-well as the Germans have indicated that they are more than prepared to turbo charge the European common defense initiative (last time Trump created doubt about the US’ position).
I think the formation of the European Union has done more for peace in Europe than has NATO. Traditionally, the greatest threat to European countries was…other European countries.
With the internal bonds of common currency, free movement, interdependent economies, and a common parliament, no more will Europe see a Prussia, a Vatican, a France, a Germany (twice), an Austria-Hungary, an Italy, a Greece, a Turkey (depending on where you draw "Europe" 's border), a Macedonia eager and machinating for territorial conquest.
The Soviets, like the Mongols, were just one of those "300-year floods" that defy conventional historical norms.
We very much agree on EU being more important for peace in Europe as NATO could not keep European NATO members from fighting with each other, however Russia is also a European nation and is very much part of that history. And without NATO no one would want to invest in Eastern Europe so the economic development that has been seen in the east would not have been achieved.
So a defensive alliance against the most powerful nation in Europe (post WWII) was always in the cards – otherwise the rest would never be free to develop as they wanted.
I do feel for Russia. I daresay no nation in human history has been cursed with THE worst geographical-lottery luck as have they. It's Europe but not really; Asian but not precisely; and vast with historical "Big Bad" empires all around it now and again for thousands of years.
So I'm not surprised its most viable offense has been the socio-political need to generate a strong, proactive defense when the situation calls for it.
I AM surprised that a NATO, allegedly committed to peace & freedom in Europe, didn't bring Russia in as a member when the USSR collapsed.
I'd think Trump's consideration would be how he could benefit, money-wise, from continuing the USA's dominance of NATO.
That may indeed be his agenda, but the way he carries on he has already (2016 -2020) caused Europe to start moving towards a future with less backing from the US. Trump seems oblivious to the very real fear that European allies feel and equally oblivious to the threat that these allies feel that his rhetoric causes vis-a-vis the credibility of article 5.
I suspect many Western or Western-aligned (Japan, Australia, ROK, India) nations are making plans for decoupling as many vital national interests from the USA as practical.
I fully expect a Trump second term will have the USA in domestic shambles and the world economy realigned with BRICS de-dollarisation. I see America collapsing from within, and I think others don't want to be dragged down with it, so may start now to insulate and diversify their trade and alliances.
I could not agree more with the first part, while I very seriously doubt the second.
There simply is no case for Europe, and the ‘west’ (I.e. South Korea, Japan, Australia etc.) aligning with the BRICS – their interests (even the BRICS internally) are too poorly aligned.
So while sure the ‘west’ would try to cut ties with the US under Trump, they would not align with nations which would end the current world order (i.e. allow major border ‘corrections’ through war) – the resulting collapse in world trade would be enough to keep the ‘west’ resisting this alternative.
Even should they not the economic collapse will arrive all by itself – the demography alone will sink the European economies (faster without the US). Trade (world) has been and is dependent on US/western protection to flow without that protection piracy will flourish and neither the Chinese nor any of the other BRICS (and not Europe either for that matter) can effectively replace the US fleet.
When the prohibition on war for territorial conquest is de-facto ended far higher military expenditures will become a more permanent feature and economic growth will be further diminished – as it was already moving towards stagnation with an outlook to decline, the BRICS line does not offer a sustainable alternative.
If someone sees a financial crisis coming -in one's household, or investing, or corporate or business accounting- they are wise to act accordingly.
I saw the disaster of Bush II unfolding in real-time and pulled all my investments out of US companies and holdings; so when the 2009 Crash came and most took a hideous Ba'ath on their portfolio, mine was nearly entirely unaffected.
The USA is not sustainable. A trillion a year on its military and deep domestic instability, plus sh*tball leaders in the bullpen, should be a "Good Christ, Don't Buy" outlook for investing in America. Norway & Iceland have both looked to insulate their economies after some issues; I daresay Brexit may have been that, in part.
If it's BRICS or a Wild West free for all between individual countries – strength in numbers, no ?
The OTHER possibility is that Trump wants the USA out of NATO not to bring the troops home – but instead for them to to Pivot To Asia ™.
At which point Trump assembles an anti-DPRC coalition: the Pacific Ocean Treaty Alliance To Oppose Evil, or 'P.O.T.A.T.O.E'
Fans of Dan Quayle already like this idea & see nothing wrong with it.
Lol
That is a distinct possibility – a fairly poorly thought through one, so one that fits well with Trump.
The result for the Europeans may differ quite a bit if this is the reason – in previous cases the Europeans have been known to act against the interests of the US when the US were ignoring the interests of Europe – so the present more or less common economic policy vis-a-vis China might break down.
Certainly it would dramatically change where the Europeans would buy the majority of their weapons from in the future so erode the massive advantages of scale for the US, and reinvigorate European (and e.g. South Korean) production.
In any case it would at most achieve to create a NATO II (one without the US, Hungary and potentially Slovakia).
That is an excellent question. I suppose it has to do with the political structure of Hungary's government, that enough of it benefits personally / financially from being in NATO and do wouldn't vote it away.
That is a very likely explanation – also AFAIK the population is not for leaving.
Because psychopaths will retaliate and turn his country into another battleground Ukraine.
Year sure and pigs will fly.
You asked and I responded. And yes, pigs can fly if you place them in one of those Israeli catapults.
Ok so by: psychopaths will retaliate -are you by chance referring to Putin, because otherwise it is insane to suggest that any European country would willingly dip into the aggressive war trough to lose the moral high ground – that simply is not going to happen.
It’s not like Hungary has significant minorities from other cultures that Orban have been killing – there is no domestic conflicts in Hungary or even significant opposition to Orban that could be used to justify any military action.
What you are suggesting is out of the Kremlin playbook of Poland was going to annex parts of western Ukraine – when Russia prevailed in the east – an other not going to happen – which could only be suggested by people who do not understand the way politics are shaped in Europe.
No. Putin is a cold calculating and very rational. Psychopath is reserved only for the west and NATO, as every scourge of war, revolution and warring alliances have spawned in the west. Hungary has a lot more in common culturally and historically with the East than with the West. Orban thus far has played a fine balancing act, but removing the country out of NATO means the NATO mafia will be plotting against destabilizing his country.
There is no NATO mafia interested in destabilizing Hungary and no European desire to even keep Hungary in neither NATO nor EU. Orban could safely leave both, none of his neighbors would even contemplate allowing the US to build u troops to invade.
None of the European NATO or EU members have invaded any other democratic state since the fiasco of the break up of Yugoslavia and there is no appetite for losing the moral high ground by pursuing Putin like policies in what would then be an ex EU/NATO area – that would make us look like the Warsaw pact – that is not how we see ourselves.
So this simply is not the reason for Orban not leaving neither NATO nor EU.
Tell that to Serbs and the artificial state of Kosovo that U.S. and NATO created.
That is exactly the fiasco I was mentioning above – so already covered.
Without any major protests or persecuted minorities within Hungary – and there are none Orban is as I put it completely safe.
Or are you maintaining that there are armed suppression of minorities in Hungary?
I’m suggesting that NATO will find any excuse to start trouble for Orban until he is out of power and replaced with a stooge.
I kind of picked up on that being your attitude – but there simply is no basis for that – NATO has never and will never start trouble in an ex EU/NATO country for the simple reason that this would scare all present members as it would make NATO no better than the Warsaw pact.
You see NATO as evil, so you do not understand this argument, the sizable majority in most NATO member countries do not see NATO as evil, but they would change their view should NATO ever act against one of their own for the only reason that they wanted to leave.
NATO has outlived its usefulness since 1990 and has metastasized. They have moved the goalpost from its original purpose since then you see, and all doubt has been removed for what its new purpose is now.
That is your opinion, not the opinion of the majority of the people in most NATO countries – there was a period roughly 1994 to 2008 where there were many thinking that NATO didn’t really serve the original purpose any more and there were more reluctance to the membership in several countries, but Putin’s actions have changed that very much – so much so that the left wind in e.g. Denmark no longer sees an alternative to NATO membership (at least not for the present) and they were against membership in the 1970’ties.
NATO was formed against the threat of expansion of the Soviet Union. Full Stop. Rewrite history all you want, doesn’t impact me.
Nothing I wrote called this into question – are you sure you are answering to me?
Or is it that you think that the Soviet Union falling apart simply removes the threat from the east?
Just asking because the ones of us who exist on the border with them do not really care if they call themselves Russian or Soviets.
And for the record NATO formed against the threat of Russia and a resurgent Germany:
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/nato
So as can be seen it was not just if the Soviets changed names the need for NATO would cease to exist.
G.I, your government lied to G.I. Poor solider.
You need to parse that for a non native speaker. My government has as far as I know not lied to us regarding defense or NATO matters since the second Iraq war, except for some prisoner transfers in Afghanistan.
Hungary should leave the EU, which is responsible for the destruction of European Countries. The EU doesn't want Peace with anyone, unless they can control the country themselves. The EU is all about abortion, LGBXYZ Agenda and climate BS. The EU is not about extending a helping hand, it is about their hand controlling everything. Any European Country that wants to maintain their own identity, history, culture, religions, MORALITY, laws, is not accepted by the EU? The EU acts like the Third Reich, wanting to control the world and not for the better.