Orbán government: Von der Leyen gave ‘real pro-war speech’
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen delivered “a real pro-war speech” in the European Parliament on Wednesday, the minister in charge of European Union affairs said.
Hungarian government: Von der Leyen gave ‘real pro-war speech’
János Bóka told a regular press briefing on Thursday that the state of the EU was going from bad to worse, so the speech was important an indicator of whether a change of direction could be expected in ill-fated EU policies or not. But the EC president ended up giving “a real pro-war speech”, he added.
Instead of introducing changes to boost competitiveness, von der Leyen argued for the EU to switch to military production economy, he said. The main priorities would be financing Ukraine, further centralising EU institutions, drawing away powers from member states, upping pressure against political opponents, and increasing the censorship of opinions, Bóka said.
He added that, based on the speech, there would be no real change in EU migration policy, no substantive review of “misguided” green transition, no correction in the Ukrainian accession process, but rather a series of bad trade agreements.
- PM Orbán demands reimbursement from the EU for Hungary’s border protection costs
Bóka said that all elements of the EC’s policies were misguided
“As long as the Russian-Ukrainian conflict continues, the EU will be a lame duck in political terms; as long as our security vulnerability persists, we will be in a subordinate position in transatlantic trade relations; as long as the EU wants to break away from Russian energy sources, the European economy will not be competitive, and as long as the EU is involved in this war, it will not be able to build balanced economic relations with China and India based on mutual benefits”, he said.
He added that as a result, the EU would become even more embroiled in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict than it was now, and after a while it would probably become its sole financier.
“We will still be unable to defend our external borders, we won’t be able to reduce the exceptionally high energy prices in the EU, low growth will persist in the EU, and there will be no real turnaround in competitiveness. This will result in further indebtedness not only for the member states but also for the European Union,” he said.
- Hungarian government slams Brussels: ‘The Commission has become Ukraine’s commission’
Some member states, including Hungary, had introduced several measures to dampen the effects of misguided policies, Boka said. However, he added that he expected the EU would step up action against such measures.
The EC has already stated that they want progressive taxation in Hungary, the narrowing and discontinuation of tax allowances, the end of government-backed low utility costs, and the withdrawal of home creation schemes, the interest rate cap and markups caps, he said.
Commenting on the annullment on Thursday by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of an earlier decision by the European Commission, he said it did not establish any violation by Hungary and did not pose any obstacle to the continuation of the Paks 2 project to upgrade the country’s sole commercial nuclear power plant.
Boka explained that the CJEU had not ruled that public procurement rules were violated, but only that the EC had not probed the matter — or at least had not justified its position.
He noted that the EC had established in another probe, in 2015, that the Paks 2 public procurement procedures complied with extant rules. He added that the court had objected to the lack of connection between the two cases.
As the CJEU found no fault with the system of state aid or the public procurement procedure used, Boka said there was no legal obstacle in the way of the Paks 2 investment continuing according to schedule.
Meanwhile, Boka said no response had yet been received to Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s letter to the EC president regarding the daily EU penalty of one million euros imposed on Hungary.
“We will raise this issue in every forum, especially in light of the fact that the EC president recently visited the EU’s eastern border states, where she stated that the construction of physical border protection structures was a shared European responsibility. Our request was simply that all member states should receive equal support from these funds,” he said.
Meanwhile, commenting on the EU’s defence industry investment plan, for which Hungary can submit plans worth 16.2 billion euros based on a preliminary decision, he said these plans were currently being prepared. When asked about the EU funds that are currently blocked, he said that he expected Hungary to be able to access them.
Commenting on von der Leyen’s criticism of Israel, he said that there were a number of preconditions for taking credible action against growing anti-Semitism in the EU, and one of these was that the EU should maintain its strategic partnership and meaningful and constructive dialogue with the state of Israel.
He said the EU was officially committed to a two-state solution, but Hungary saw the two-state solution as the end of a process, not the beginning. “Our most important interest in the region is peace and stability,” he added.
Boka also referred to von der Leyen’s statement that EU decisions must “break free from the shackles of [unanimous decision-making].” He added that this was a “gross misrepresentation of her role”, as the EC president should act as the guardian of the EU treaties, yet she considered them to be shackles.
Commenting on von der Leyen’s plan to broaden he various conditionality procedures within the EU budgetary framework, he said Hungary’s position was clearly not to support any instrument that would allow EU funds to be used to exert political and ideological pressure. “As long as Hungary has a national, sovereign government, the European Union will not have such a seven-year budget,” he added.
Click for more European Commission news.
This is pure slander from the traitor Fidesz government which is Putin’s puppet. Russia invaded Ukraine and Russia has developed a war economy. They have more than a three to one strategic advantage in artillery shell production. They have extensive drone and anti drone technologies and production that have left NATO behind. Russia is a massive threat to Europe and Putin has made clear in speeches and writings that he wishes to resurrect Russian imperialism dominating Eastern Europe. The task of all of Europe now is to put into place robust military forces to act as a deterrent to any ideas by Putin to invade the Baltics, Poland, Finland, etc. Unfortunately Hungary has become a traitor country and must be excluded from Europe’s defence.
“Hungary has become a security risk for NATO! Only the information that is absolutely necessary for membership is shared with Hungarians, as everyone fears that information from Budapest will be transmitted directly to the Kremlin.” June 21, 2024 NATO officials speaking anonymously and reported through Hungarian media.
Geopolitical issues, especially those involving NATO and Russia, cannot be reduced to one-liners or oversimplified narratives. So yes, here I go again.
While it may be tempting to distill complex matters into catchy soundbites, doing so only undermines our ability to grasp the full scope of the situation. The issue surrounding Hungary’s role in NATO, its approach to Russia, and the broader alliance’s future is anything but simple. The accusation that Hungary has become a “traitor country” within NATO is a prime example of this dangerous oversimplification. While Hungary, under Viktor Orbán, has adopted a more pragmatic approach toward Russia, it remains an integral member of the alliance. Excluding Hungary now would fracture NATO, weakening the very unity the alliance depends on.
Hungary’s policies, particularly regarding energy and its cautious stance toward Russia, reflect a difficult balancing act. While controversial, especially in relation to military aid to Ukraine, Hungary’s NATO membership remains a vital part of the alliance. Dividing NATO would significantly weaken its collective defense at a time when unity is crucial, despite differing views among member states. After all, there are many countries, many problems, and many perspectives, right? But the narrative of fear, “the Russians are coming, we must increase defense spending, and learn to speak Russian” (as Rutte suggested), doesn’t really solve the problem. Maybe we should first consider learning Arabic? There’s a real threat in Europe, after all. Take a trip to Berlin, Paris, or any major city you like, and let your daughters walk around at night. I have been there lived and worked all over Europe, and Switzerland.
The claim that Russia holds a “three-to-one strategic advantage” in artillery production is an oversimplification. Yes, Russia has ramped up its military production, but NATO has responded by equipping Ukraine with advanced weapons: artillery, drones, and air defense systems. It’s important to note that NATO has crossed multiple red lines set by Putin, time and again. Why? Is there a necessity for the economically, culturally, and societally struggling EU, now in an economic depression, dealing with sovereign debt issues, mass migration, and overtaxation, to call for war? Look to history a bit, educate yourself. There is a strong correlation here. Russia may have an edge in certain areas, but NATO’s ability to innovate and adapt remains a critical advantage. This balance of power is not so clear-cut, especially when nuclear weapons are in play.
Putin’s desire to restore Russian influence over former Soviet territories is undeniable, but NATO’s deterrence, both military and nuclear, remains a formidable obstacle. Any Russian attempt to invade the Baltics, Poland, or Finland would trigger NATO’s collective defense guarantee. Russia’s military might be powerful, but it faces immense logistical and tactical challenges when confronting NATO’s combined strength.
However, perhaps the most crucial and overlooked factor in the current crisis is the failure of diplomacy. The West’s broken promises, such as the Minsk Accords (remember Mutti Merkel?) and assurances made to Gorbachev about NATO expansion, have deeply influenced Russia’s stance. These diplomatic failures have fueled mistrust and contributed to Russia’s aggressive policies. Maybe even more significant is the Istanbul Agreement, a potential peace deal negotiated in the early months of the war that could have ended the conflict quickly. The agreement suggested a path to de-escalation, but it was ultimately abandoned. The West, particularly the UK under Boris Johnson, pressured Ukraine to reject the agreement and continue fighting. The collapse of this deal further fueled distrust between Russia and the West, deepening the war.
Moreover, NATO’s eastward expansion, despite earlier assurances not to do so, has only exacerbated Russia’s sense of betrayal. The broken promises and failed diplomatic efforts, culminating in the dismissal of the Istanbul Agreement, have made it clear that, in Russia’s view, the West has undermined its security and sovereignty. These failures cannot be overlooked when considering the root causes of the conflict.
While military might seems crucial, diplomacy remains the key to preventing further escalation (only Orbán talked to Putin, the rest of the European leaders refuse: never talk to your enemy, you might just get peace). The possibility of false-flag operations, where an event is staged to provoke a broader conflict cannot be dismissed. For example, recent reports of Russian drones attacking Poland must be approached with caution. The burden of proof lies with those making such claims. Given that Putin has repeatedly stated his opposition to NATO’s expansion and made it clear he didn’t want Ukraine to join the alliance, it’s highly questionable whether Russia would risk provoking a direct confrontation with NATO by sending drones to Poland. If these events are being used as a pretext for escalation, it is vital to verify the facts before jumping to conclusions. In light of the actions of EU countries and Zelensky himself, who seems to be pushing relentlessly for NATO’s direct involvement in the war, one might ask: Whose interests are truly being served here?
The risk of a full-scale NATO-Russia conflict would be likely catastrophic. A war of that scale would devastate the infrastructure that underpins modern life, electricity, water, transportation, leaving survival as the only priority. If you survived in the first couple of days, that is. As Einstein once warned, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
The true horror of war goes far beyond the loss of life. It is the destruction of communities, the breakdown of societies, the displacement of millions, and the irreversible environmental damage. In a full-scale war, cities would become unrecognizable ruins, entire generations would be scarred, and the human cost would be incalculable. The social and psychological toll of such a conflict would echo for decades, long after the dust settled. Lives would be shattered, families torn apart, and futures stolen. War is not just about soldiers on the battlefield; it is about the lives of ordinary people caught in the crossfire, the long-term impacts that echo through history, and the cycle of suffering that extends far beyond the immediate destruction.
The true goal should not be to defeat Russia on the battlefield, but to avoid such a conflict entirely.
NATO has increasingly come to resemble an institution seeking conflict rather than fostering peace. After the Cold War ended, NATO’s original purpose, to counter Soviet expansion, became obsolete (J. Sachs has written interesting pieces on this, as have many others). In fact, many argue it should have been dissolved after 1990. Instead, it expanded eastward, breaking promises made to Russia, and sowing the seeds for today’s tensions.
In this light, the call for NATO unity seems paradoxical. Rather than remaining a bloated alliance looking for a new adversary, Europe might be better served by focusing on its own security framework: one rooted in diplomacy, cooperation, and non-aggression. Do not give me any nonsense here: Russia started the war, and so on. Continuing to prop up NATO for the sake of unity risks further escalating tensions and leading us into unnecessary conflict.
Europe’s task is not to prepare for war at any cost, but to preserve unity while seeking diplomatic solutions and ensuring a robust defense. Strengthening NATO’s collective defense and diplomatic efforts is far more important than excluding any member, no matter how controversial their stance may be. Disunity within NATO only plays into Russia’s hands, and at this critical moment, NATO’s cohesion is more important than ever.
The world stands at a tipping point. False narratives, manipulated incidents, and reckless escalation could push us toward a global conflict. The goal must be clear: avoid war, maintain unity, and prioritize diplomacy. If we lose sight of these principles, we risk pushing the world toward catastrophic consequences.
Let’s focus on what binds us: our common desire for peace, stability, and a better future for all. Only together, with understanding and cooperation, can we hope to overcome the forces that threaten to tear us apart.
What dark Fidesz or Russian government basement do you type from? The shameful goal of Fidesz has been to weaken NATO and leave Europe defenceless. Only way you prevent war is by making your military big enough that the other side knows it is not a good idea to attack you. The Russians have invaded Georgia and Ukraine twice. They are conducting hybrid warfare against Europe including use of sabateurs which burned down Warsaw’s largest shopping mall and put incendiary devices in shipping cargo. They made an assassination attempt on the CEO of the largest German arms manufacturer. They lied that they weren’t planning any invasion of Ukraine and then they went and did it. They preceded their invasion with military exercises to practice offensive operations which they are now repeating in Belarus near the Polish border. You cannot for a second trust the Russians and neither you can trust their Fidesz puppets.
This woman should be in jail, and the rest of the EUrotrash and their puppets with her.
(From Grok AI – Hungary can’t be trusted) There is evidence that some NATO allies have conducted security discussions in informal subgroups outside NATO’s core formal decision-making structures to sidestep Hungary’s potential obstructionism, particularly regarding support for Ukraine. This stems from Hungary’s repeated reluctance or veto threats on NATO initiatives related to Ukraine, Russia, and ALLIANCE STRENTHENING, leading allies to explore workarounds in smaller, regional formats.
Key Evidence from the Bucharest Nine (B9) Group
The Bucharest Nine (B9) is an informal consultation platform established in 2015 among nine Eastern European NATO and EU members (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia). It operates parallel to NATO’s formal bodies, focusing on regional security threats like Russian aggression, and is not part of NATO’s official consensus-based decision-making process. Discussions within the B9 have explicitly addressed excluding Hungary to enable more unified positions.
In June 2024, ahead of a B9 summit in Riga, Latvia, diplomats from the group discussed barring Hungary from future meetings due to its pro-Russian leanings and opposition to arming Ukraine. Hungarian President Tamás Sulyok ultimately skipped the summit, allowing the remaining eight members (plus Slovakia’s last-minute absence) to coordinate on NATO’s upcoming Washington summit agenda, including enhanced support for Ukraine and alliance capabilities. Latvian President Edgars Rinkēvičs emphasized the value of this “more coordinated approach” without Hungary’s input, stating it was crucial for aligning on “support for Ukraine” and “strengthening the alliance’s capabilities.” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg attended but avoided commenting on the absences.
This was not an isolated incident; sources within the B9 confirmed ongoing talks about Hungary’s potential permanent exclusion, viewing it as a “constraint” on the group’s effectiveness. While no formal expulsion occurred, the 2024 Riga summit proceeded effectively without Hungary, demonstrating a practical bypass.
Within Formal NATO but with Hungarian Opt-Outs
While not strictly “outside” the formal framework, NATO’s consensus rule has been navigated by having Hungary voluntarily abstain from participating in specific discussions or pledges, allowing the other 31 allies to proceed unimpeded. This effectively isolates Hungary without derailing alliance unity:
In June 2024, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán agreed that Hungary would “neither block nor participate” in NATO’s deepened support for Ukraine, including a multi-year pledge for financial and military aid. This enabled the alliance to advance Ukraine-related security measures at the NATO summit in Washington, D.C., without Hungarian vetoes.
Developments in 2025
By mid-2025, Hungary appears to have rejoined B9 activities, participating in a June summit where it claimed an “active role” in strengthening NATO’s eastern flank. However, broader tensions persist, with EU-level security pledges (overlapping with NATO interests) continuing to bypass Hungary—e.g., 26 EU leaders in March 2025 adopted a Ukraine support declaration without Hungarian involvement. No new public evidence of B9 exclusions emerged in 2025 searches up to September, but the 2024 precedents illustrate a pattern of using informal channels to avoid Hungarian roadblocks when needed.
This approach reflects allies’ frustration with Hungary’s alignment with Russia and its history of delaying NATO expansions (e.g., Sweden’s accession) and Ukraine aid, but it stops short of formal NATO sanctions, which require consensus.
Duda Recently Acknowledged That Zelensky Attempted to Coerce Poland Into Engaging in War with Russia
https://dorzeczy.pl/opinie/773991/andrzej-duda-o-rakiecie-w-przewodowie-zelenski-chcial-nas-wciagnac-w-wojne.html
Your writing is full of exaggerations and unsupported claims, making it hard to take seriously. The bias is clear, and your arguments crumbles because it’s built on weak, unfounded points. At times, it’s nothing more than a conspiracy theory, like the idea of secret oil deals with Orbán, which was just laughable. These are nothing more than childish, baseless assumptions with no real foundation.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to rely on credible sources and adopt a more balanced, objective approach: something that’s missing here. Your one liners lack historical insight and doesn’t fully grasp the complexity of interconnected global politics and economics. You selectively highlight facts that support your argument while disregarding anything that challenges it. This narrow, biased approach weakens your arguments even further.
My advice: If you want to make a strong case, stop relying on one-sided narratives. Take the time to consider the bigger picture and support your claims with reliable evidence. Global issues are complicated, and simplifying them to fit your narrative do you no favors. Start embracing complexity, consider multiple perspectives, and stop making assumptions. Without this, your arguments won’t hold up.
Also, it might be best to start small. Focus on your own homeland, Poland, which is facing numerous challenges and controversies. There’s plenty to address and understand there first before you get lost in the bigger, global issues. It might be wiser to ground yourself in the realities of home before venturing too far abroad. That is why I gave you the link. Eat it, do not choke.
I am slowly starting to believe our Politicians would happily roll out the red carpet for Mr. Putin, if they could get the right “deal” – govern, forever!
In such a scenario, wonder where the investments and money would come from, though. Mr. Lukashenko does not appear to care too much, so that is potentially surmountable.
Quem acredita na Russia – Putin – deve ser AVESTRUZ… aquele que coloca a cabeça no buraco da terra procurando MINHOCAS para ficar satisfeito. Mais cedo ou mais tarde será devorado… POR QUEM? Pode escolher vários amigos…