European leaders holding emergency talks in Brussels have agreed on a massive increase to defence spending, amid a drive to shore up support for Ukraine after Donald Trump halted US military aid and intelligence sharing.
But the show of unity was marred by Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, failing to endorse an EU statement on Ukraine pushing back against Trump’s Russia-friendly negotiating stance.
The 26 other EU leaders, including Orbán’s ally Robert Fico, the Slovakian prime minister, “firmly supported” the statement. “There can be no negotiations on Ukraine without Ukraine,” said the draft statement, a response to Trump’s attempt to sideline Europe and Kyiv.
UvdL is same as Orban, just much smarter and more evil. In general, requirement for unilateral decisions makes it the obvious suspicion that when Hungary vetoes something, in a different decision-making process it would be half of the member states, not just Hungary.
Anyway, this is not even about decisions, just “shows of unity”.
I think European defense companies are going to make a lot of money, though. Rearmament is a word that even aesthetically invokes images from German 30s, or Soviet 30s, with those production lines making tanks and field artillery pieces faster than they make cars today. Of course, IRL the game mechanics have changed and they are going to produce different things mostly.
UvdL is not the same as Orban. She is at the very least pro EU when Orban is very much against everything. Orban might end up making the EU multi-tiered system where some countries will federalise more than others.
How the hell would you know pro what she is. She’s not that transparent.
Suppose she, Orban and a few other types have a strategy of making decisions. Decisions are mostly formed by power, so when the balance of power is in favor of some decision, those who’d veto it just better not. Somehow every notable time everything is vetoed is by Hungary. Is it Hungary being so strong to not be pressured when needed, are all other EU members so moral (no such thing in politics and power)?
Compare it to how smaller countries torn between spheres of influence have different parties and factions, some pro-Russian, some pro-EU, some pro-American. Their social “stability” and general connectivity of their elites mean that people belonging to these different factions all have similar interests. Like mafia. But it’s a normal thing in diplomacy to never put all your eggs in one basket, and to present difference faces.
So the same way in a medieval town (not talking cities with guilds and all that) there couldn’t be two smiths. Competition really wasn’t a thing on such small scale, not enough work to feed two people of the same job.
Hungary fulfills the role of the “interface” of the EU with Russia and Turkey and such. For its population and the general population it’s a mistake, some Troyan horse, some disagreement, but it’s really not, otherwise the problem would have already been solved the old-fashioned way. It’s a diplomacy tool.
Also the EU and Russia are not really hostile. The war is about Ukraine and Russia deciding whether they’ll have equal weight in Russia’s energy dealings with the EU, or whether Ukraine will be treated as some intermediate colony in that. The EU kinda supports Ukraine because that’ll give it better deals too, both by having a check on Russia and weakening it. If it were really about defending Ukraine, Russia’s military could be negated overnight. But that would be more expensive (for the EU, not for Ukraine) and also they need Russia to keep its regime, which is very convenient, being immoral and spineless.
I mean, it’s obvious and has been this way for all of history, if history books are boring, read Sabatini. It’s not any more complex than workplace intrigue, but somehow people think diplomacy should be simpler than that.