Orban points to main hurdle in ending Ukraine conflict
Hungary has opposed Ukraine's bid to join NATO, arguing that such a move risks dragging Europe into a full-scale war with Russia. Since the conflict escalated in February 2022, Hungarian authorities have refused to send weapons to Kiev and continue to advocate a negotiated solution.
'Peace will come when Europeans and Ukrainians alike accept the fact that Russia will never allow NATO to establish a presence on its western border in Ukraine,' Orban said Saturday at a youth festival in Esztergom.
The Kremlin has repeatedly stated that Ukraine's pursuit of NATO membership poses a direct threat to Russian national security and was a primary cause of the conflict's escalation. According to Moscow, NATO's expansion toward Russian borders is a red line, making Ukraine's bid unacceptable.
Earlier this year, NATO members agreed on a plan to raise their defense budgets to 5% of GDP, citing the need to deter adversaries, primarily Russia, as the key reason for the move.
A broader push among European NATO states to increase military spending has drawn sharp criticism from Russian officials.
In June, the EU redirected approximately €335 billion ($390 billion) in Covid relief funds toward military uses. The previous month, Brussels introduced a €150 billion debt and loan instrument to support member states' armed forces and defense industries. Russia has condemned the steps, accusing both NATO and the EU of 'rabid militarization.'
Orban also stated that a 'Russian threat' to Europe is unrealistic and does not exist, and should not shape EU policies. He warned that such an approach would result in faulty and incomplete decision making.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Moscow comments on collapse of arms control treaty with US
Russia has the right to deploy ground-based intermediate-range missiles 'when deemed necessary,' following the collapse of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with the US, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. Moscow had previously opted not to station such weapons in certain regions unless the US and its allies did so first. On Monday, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced that the 'actions of Western countries' had made Moscow's adherence to the moratorium no longer viable as they were creating a 'direct threat' to Russia's security. When asked by journalists to comment on Tuesday, Peskov said Russia 'no longer has any limitations in this regard' and 'no longer considers itself bound by anything.' Moscow reserves the right to deploy such missiles 'when deemed necessary,' he added. The Kremlin spokesman did not elaborate on whether decisions on potential missile deployments had already been taken. 'One can hardly expect any announcements here,' Peskov said, describing it as a question of national defense and 'a sensitive and secretive field.' The INF Treaty between the US and the USSR banned ground-launched missiles with ranges of 500-5,500km. It collapsed in 2019 when Washington unilaterally withdrew from the agreement during Donald Trump's first presidential term. The US justified the move by citing alleged Russian violations. Moscow has vehemently denied the claims, accusing the US itself of developing banned missiles. Russia subsequently called on NATO and the US to exercise restraint and refrain from deploying such systems as it announced its own moratorium on their deployment. Last year, Moscow warned it could lift the moratorium after the US announced plans to deploy long-range weapons in Germany in 2026. On Monday, the Foreign Ministry also cited the deployment of a Typhon missile launcher in the Philippines by the US last year as one of the reasons behind the policy change.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Kremlin assesses US ‘threats' to Russia's trade partners
US threats to impose secondary sanctions on Russia's trading partners are illegal and a breach of other nations' sovereign rights, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. Washington recently warned India, China, and Brazil of potential restrictions over their imports of Russian energy. Matthew Whitaker, the US ambassador to NATO, called such measures an 'obvious next step' to end the Ukraine conflict. Responding at a press briefing on Tuesday, Peskov said: 'We hear many statements that are essentially threats and attempts to pressure countries into cutting trade relations with Russia.' 'We believe that sovereign states should have, and do have, the right to choose their own trade partners, partners for economic cooperation, and to independently determine the forms of cooperation that serve their national interests,' he added. In an interview with Bloomberg on Monday, Whitaker claimed that purchasing Russian oil amounts to sponsoring hostilities in the Ukraine conflict. He asserted that introducing sanctions on importers would cut off Moscow's main source of revenue. India, one of the largest importers of Russian crude alongside China, responded that it would 'safeguard its national interests and economic security,' calling the idea of targeting the country over energy purchases 'unjustified and unreasonable.' New Delhi has also pointed to ongoing Western trade with Russia, despite repeated pledges to sever economic ties. Beijing likewise defended its economic cooperation with Russia, stating that China will 'always ensure its energy supply in ways that serve our national interests.' 'China will firmly defend its sovereignty, security, and development interests,' the Foreign Ministry said on Monday, adding that 'coercion and pressure will not achieve anything.' In July, Brazil condemned similar remarks by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte about potential secondary sanctions on BRICS nations trading with Russia, calling them 'totally absurd.' All three countries also highlighted what they described as Western hypocrisy toward importers of Russian energy, noting that both the US and the EU have maintained trade relations with Moscow.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
South Africa downplays envoy absence in US tariff talks
South African International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola has said Pretoria's current lack of an ambassador to the US has not affected the country's ability to negotiate an agreement, following Washington's decision to impose steep 30% tariffs on imports. Speaking at a joint media briefing on Monday at the Germiston Civic Centre in Ekurhuleni, alongside Trade, Industry and Competition Minister Parks Tau, Lamola addressed the diplomatic fallout after former South African ambassador to the US Ebrahim Rasool was expelled in March. 'We had an ambassador in the US and that ambassador was expelled,' said Lamola. 'President (Cyril) Ramaphosa has always prioritised the US in terms of ambassadorial responsibility.' Lamola said the expulsion has complicated the process of appointing a new ambassador. 'The fact that our ambassador was expelled means that the new process to appoint the ambassador will not be as easy as it would have been when an ambassador had not been expelled,' he said. 'We have to take all careful consideration, all due diligence, and I can confirm that that process is at an advanced stage. The President, at the right time, will announce who will become the ambassador of South Africa to the US.' Lamola said that the appointment would be made solely by the president, in accordance with the Constitution. The 30% tariffs, introduced by the administration of US President Donald Trump, are set to take effect at 12:01 a.m. on August 8. While other African countries, such as Lesotho and Zimbabwe, will face a 15% tariff, South Africa has been singled out for a significantly steeper duty. Lamola, however, dismissed suggestions that the absence of an ambassador had weakened South Africa's negotiating position. 'Ambassadors do not negotiate any trade deals,' he said. 'The trade deal is being negotiated under the leadership of the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC), with coordination and support from the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO).' Lamola confirmed that South Africa currently has a chargé d'affaires (a diplomat) in Washington who engages with key stakeholders but does not lead negotiations. 'There are countries that do have ambassadors in Washington. They don't have a trade deal. So, the trade deal is negotiated by the relevant line function department. In this instance, it is the DTIC, which we are supporting, including our chargé d'affaires in the US, who does from time to time point to the relevant people,' he said. He further rejected claims that the absence of an ambassador directly caused South Africa's failure to secure a tariff exemption. 'If that were the case, all countries with ambassadors in Washington wouldn't be having the same challenges we're facing,' said Lamola. 'This is a global phenomenon, not a South African problem.' Rasool, who previously served as ambassador to the US from 2010 to 2015 during the Barack Obama administration, was reappointed in January 2025 under the Joe Biden and later Trump administrations. Rasool was dismissed in March after the remarks he made during a webinar hosted by the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection (Mistra), under the theme 'Implications of Changes in US Administrations for SA and Africa'. During the event, Rasool urged South Africans to familiarise themselves with the country's national interest framework, calling it a critical guide amid shifting global dynamics. Rasool was critical of the 'Make America Great Again' movement, linking it to demographic changes in the US and warning of ideological resistance to emerging multipolarity. He also raised concerns about South Africa's handover of the G20 presidency to the US. Meanwhile, Lamola added that Rasool's replacement was imminent. 'Obviously, the president may consult whoever he deems necessary and prudent to appoint this ambassador. But the process is at an advanced stage,' he published by IOL
