Orban is not seeking peace. Orban is seeking a surrender. Russia invaded a sovereign country, twice, and further disregarded two treaties it signed with Ukraine confirming Ukraine's sovereignty and security. Russia wonders why its word is now worthless.
Border adjustments by force have been off the table since 1945 for a reason.
Ukraine won't and quite clearly should not have to give up one inch of its territory, territory Russia agreed was Ukraine's in 1991.
There isn't really a "both of them" argument here. It is all Russia. Russia could stop any day now but it won't.
Peace through ceasefire right now would merely reward a naked aggressor, Russia, with a partial victory which morally is entirely perverse.
I wonder what Orban's longer term play is here, he must already know that his plan isn't going to be accepted by the EU, UK, Ukraine etc.
Presumably the plan involves a Trump Presidency returning to the US, but even there I struggle to see Trump agreeing to allow Russia to completely gut Ukraine. For one thing, if Trump really is interested in America First, that's under threat from a resurgent Russia.
I assume/presume that Orban along with Trump has an oversized ego that makes him believe he can solve complicated problems with a wave of his wand.
@KoF - your final sentence makes sense, at least to me.
However, Hungary does (IIRC) have a small area bordering on Ukraine, so Orban may just be thinking ahead to a time when that border might be with Russia...
Slovakia, just to the north of Hungary, is also heading rightwards, it seems. Make of that what you will in relation to Hungary.
Presumably the plan involves a Trump Presidency returning to the US, but even there I struggle to see Trump agreeing to allow Russia to completely gut Ukraine. For one thing, if Trump really is interested in America First, that's under threat from a resurgent Russia.
A couple of things to bear in mind about this:
Firstly, there is good reason to suspect that Putin has something to hold over Trump. Quite apart from salacious photos and videos (almost certainly in existence), it is quite possible that Trump owes a lot of money to some Russian oligarchs. It is not unreasonable to think that Trump would happily turn a blind eye to the gutting of Ukraine if in return his debts are not made public or called in.
Secondly, there is no real indication that Trump cares about Europe (other than as a source of trade deals). A triumphant Russia would certainly be a continuing threat to Europe. But as far as the Trumpians are concerned, that is the other side of an ocean and so Not Our Concern. I suspect that Trump wouldn't much care if Russia took control of all the old USSR, as long as the US could still do business where it wanted. I suspect that the Us would be concerned about China's expansion in the Pacific area than Russian expansion.
Yes. However we cut it, though, I can't see Russia relinquishing the Crimea nor the eastern provinces of Ukraine. A Trump presidency would concede both, I suspect.
Sooner or later, whoever is in charge, there's going to have be negotiations. I can't see Russia agreeing to an unconditional withdrawal unless there was a big change at the top and indeed in elements of the national psyche to some extent.
Though, a peace can't be imposed by other powers, whether the US, the EU, the UN etc, without the agreement of the people and government of Ukraine. The ability of the Ukrainian military to continue to fight against occupation, and in particular to defend civil infrastructure from airstrikes and push the invaders back, without international aid is going to be severely limited and it may be impossible. But, if the people of Ukraine wish to continue the fight there's nothing that Orban, Trump or anyone else can do about that. If other nations sell out to Russia because they decide they can't do without cheap gas or don't want to keep providing financial support to Ukraine and agree a peace deal acceptable to Russia and the EU/US/UN that's not going to end the fighting and the killing, or the recognition by the people of Ukraine that they're not part of the Russian Empire.
I'm not sure that's really true. The ability of Ukraine to continue fighting is closely related to support from other countries.
I disagree. The ability of Ukraine to continue to fight in the manner it is now fighting is closely related to support from other countries. Ukraine has sufficient capacity (and more importantly, will/morale) to transition to asymmetric warfare or a grinding insurgency in the absence of Western aid. The number of Ukrainian collaborators that the Russians have put into government positions in the occupied territories who have subsequently been assassinated certainly indicates what is possible with easily obtainable small arms and explosives.
The best most flattering take that can be made of Orban is to suppose that he has somehow never heard of Neville Chamberlain.
With Putin cast as Hitler? I thought that was Trump.
Do you think the “Russia as boogeyman” narrative will work much longer?
I'm not sure what point you think you're making here. Russia is engaged in a war of aggression against its neighbor. Multiple massgraves keep getting discovered whenever Ukraine liberates any of its territory. On the opening day of the recent NATO summit Russia deliberately bombed a children's hospital and a maternity center. I'd say deliberately targeting sick children and pregnant women makes Russia "the baddies" in this situation. What I'm curious about is why you consider these things to be unproblematic.
Sooner or later, whoever is in charge, there's going to have be negotiations. I can't see Russia agreeing to an unconditional withdrawal unless there was a big change at the top and indeed in elements of the national psyche to some extent.
Most wars end with negotiations, but the shape of those negotiations is always guided by the strategic situation at the time. For example, it might be impossible to negotiate Russia abandoning Kherson if it has its troops there, but if it's controlled by Ukraine that becomes a very different negotiation.
What I find most interesting is Zelenski calling for a peace conference with Russia included. To be held in November, right after the American election.
The best most flattering take that can be made of Orban is to suppose that he has somehow never heard of Neville Chamberlain.
With Putin cast as Hitler? I thought that was Trump.
Do you think the “Russia as boogeyman” narrative will work much longer?
Russia did start the war by invading Ukraine.
The "Russia as boogeyman" narrative is supposed to be "working" for what purpose? You appear to be trying to imply both that the fact that Russia started the war by invading its neighbour is not a fact, and that people pointing it out are not doing so in good faith. Why you would want to preemptively impugn the good faith of people pointing out that fact I cannot say.
As for whether Trump is like Hitler, well, to the extent that the MAGA cap fits. He's unlike Hitler to the extent that he's unlikely to start sending anyone other than immigrants and political opponents to prison camps.
As for whether Trump is like Hitler, well, to the extent that the MAGA cap fits. He's unlike Hitler to the extent that he's unlikely to start sending anyone other than immigrants and political opponents to prison camps.
I wouldn't bet against Muslims if there is a convenient excuse. Deliberate, systematic genocide is probably off the cards because Trump's hatred is more performative and self-serving than visceral.
though I think Trump is more like Franco than Hitler
Possibly the other way round - Franco I think was a conservative authoritarian by conviction, while from what I've read it seems to me that Hitler was a charlatan and bullshitter with no more ideological convictions (nor grasp of the long-term consequences of his actions) than were useful to him in the moment.
though I think Trump is more like Franco than Hitler
Possibly the other way round - Franco I think was a conservative authoritarian by conviction, while from what I've read it seems to me that Hitler was a charlatan and bullshitter with no more ideological convictions (or grasp of the consequences of his actions) than were useful to him in the moment.
I meant in terms of practical outworkings more than motivation (though I'd say that Hitler had certain key hatreds, of Jews and Communists, that were the lode star of his politics). I could see Trump letting "Christian" organisations confiscate babies and sell them for adoption, but I don't think the petty hatreds that drive him are sufficient to support a deliberate industrialised genocide.
I'm at home with COVID at the moment and have been contemplating the basic philosophy of truth vs lies.
Specifically I've been thinking about whether one can be a liar if one accidentally tells the truth.
Which is relevant because it seems to me that the far-right, of which Orban is a part, is a pack of lies.
I'm assuming that Orban actually cares about the truth and is consciously saying things he knows are untrue, perhaps on occasion by accident saying something that is actually true.
But then I'm also interested in the concept of bullshit per Harry Frankfurt, where a person just says things without any regard to truth/lies but simply for effect. Stands for nothing and will change on a sixpence when convenient, uses no systematic logic for anything. Perfect description of Trump, of course.
I wonder if Orban is actually a bullshitter and there's no real way to understand what he is playing at because there is nothing there to understand and it is all just bullshit.
Yes. However we cut it, though, I can't see Russia relinquishing the Crimea nor the eastern provinces of Ukraine. A Trump presidency would concede both, I suspect.
Sooner or later, whoever is in charge, there's going to have be negotiations. I can't see Russia agreeing to an unconditional withdrawal unless there was a big change at the top and indeed in elements of the national psyche to some extent.
I have heard both Putin (& lately Lavrov at the U.N.) say as much. Thanks for your response. I think it is a fairly realistic take.
Ukraine won't and quite clearly should not have to give up one inch of its territory, territory Russia agreed was Ukraine's in 1991.
If you are going back to 1991, then you have to deal with the facts of the 1991 and 1994 referendums and both sides attempts to variously create facts on the ground since that time.
And the Russian view would want to take into account the 1954 transfer.
This is the evil dictator of Hungary, right? Just making sure there isn't some other Orban in question. Why in God's name would we support anything that monster comes up with?
Some people I know at church are Hungarian (mother and son). Son was born in Canada, soon after mother fled there, following the Russian invasion of Hungary in 1956. Father was a supporter of the revolution, and died in prison.
I don't know enough about Hungarian politics to be certain, but I daresay many people are not exactly fond of Russia, or of Putin, to this day...
For those who are interested Orbán's website has a list of ten points he claims summarize his recent diplomatic efforts. The main points of interest to me were his insistence that the EU start tag-teaming with China to compel some kind of settlement and his assurance that after Donald Trump's "likely . . . victory" in the upcoming election Trump will immediately unveil a brilliant peace plan. Trump allegedly "has detailed and well-founded plans for this".
I will note that one persistent characteristic of Trump's presidency* was his total unwillingness to cross Vladimir Putin in any way.
Comments
Border adjustments by force have been off the table since 1945 for a reason.
Ukraine won't and quite clearly should not have to give up one inch of its territory, territory Russia agreed was Ukraine's in 1991.
There isn't really a "both of them" argument here. It is all Russia. Russia could stop any day now but it won't.
Peace through ceasefire right now would merely reward a naked aggressor, Russia, with a partial victory which morally is entirely perverse.
I’ll take that as a “no”.
But as Orban has long been Putin's closest ally and admirer in the EU I think he's probably just cosying up to his role model.
Do you think the “Russia as boogeyman” narrative will work much longer?
These things aren't one-sided and the West has prodded and provoked The Bear to some extent.
That doesn't let Putin off the hook or justify his illegal invasion of Ukraine, or any other territorial ambitions he may have elsewhere.
In terms of aggressive sense of entitlement towards his neighbours and treatment of internal dissent Putin very much resembles Hitler.
That modern fascism mimics and resembles historical fascism is why the comparison is made (though I think Trump is more like Franco than Hitler).
Presumably the plan involves a Trump Presidency returning to the US, but even there I struggle to see Trump agreeing to allow Russia to completely gut Ukraine. For one thing, if Trump really is interested in America First, that's under threat from a resurgent Russia.
I assume/presume that Orban along with Trump has an oversized ego that makes him believe he can solve complicated problems with a wave of his wand.
However, Hungary does (IIRC) have a small area bordering on Ukraine, so Orban may just be thinking ahead to a time when that border might be with Russia...
Slovakia, just to the north of Hungary, is also heading rightwards, it seems. Make of that what you will in relation to Hungary.
A couple of things to bear in mind about this:
Firstly, there is good reason to suspect that Putin has something to hold over Trump. Quite apart from salacious photos and videos (almost certainly in existence), it is quite possible that Trump owes a lot of money to some Russian oligarchs. It is not unreasonable to think that Trump would happily turn a blind eye to the gutting of Ukraine if in return his debts are not made public or called in.
Secondly, there is no real indication that Trump cares about Europe (other than as a source of trade deals). A triumphant Russia would certainly be a continuing threat to Europe. But as far as the Trumpians are concerned, that is the other side of an ocean and so Not Our Concern. I suspect that Trump wouldn't much care if Russia took control of all the old USSR, as long as the US could still do business where it wanted. I suspect that the Us would be concerned about China's expansion in the Pacific area than Russian expansion.
Sooner or later, whoever is in charge, there's going to have be negotiations. I can't see Russia agreeing to an unconditional withdrawal unless there was a big change at the top and indeed in elements of the national psyche to some extent.
depends how you define 'fighting' (and, tbh 'Ukraine').
Low level, simmering insurgency against occupying power and/or puppet government - nasty, messy, etc notwithstanding - is perfectly possible.
I disagree. The ability of Ukraine to continue to fight in the manner it is now fighting is closely related to support from other countries. Ukraine has sufficient capacity (and more importantly, will/morale) to transition to asymmetric warfare or a grinding insurgency in the absence of Western aid. The number of Ukrainian collaborators that the Russians have put into government positions in the occupied territories who have subsequently been assassinated certainly indicates what is possible with easily obtainable small arms and explosives.
I'm not sure what point you think you're making here. Russia is engaged in a war of aggression against its neighbor. Multiple mass graves keep getting discovered whenever Ukraine liberates any of its territory. On the opening day of the recent NATO summit Russia deliberately bombed a children's hospital and a maternity center. I'd say deliberately targeting sick children and pregnant women makes Russia "the baddies" in this situation. What I'm curious about is why you consider these things to be unproblematic.
Most wars end with negotiations, but the shape of those negotiations is always guided by the strategic situation at the time. For example, it might be impossible to negotiate Russia abandoning Kherson if it has its troops there, but if it's controlled by Ukraine that becomes a very different negotiation.
Perhaps he wants to set an agenda before Trump does.
I'm not sure if you've answered this point, but why are you in favour?
The "Russia as boogeyman" narrative is supposed to be "working" for what purpose? You appear to be trying to imply both that the fact that Russia started the war by invading its neighbour is not a fact, and that people pointing it out are not doing so in good faith. Why you would want to preemptively impugn the good faith of people pointing out that fact I cannot say.
As for whether Trump is like Hitler, well, to the extent that the MAGA cap fits. He's unlike Hitler to the extent that he's unlikely to start sending anyone other than immigrants and political opponents to prison camps.
I wouldn't bet against Muslims if there is a convenient excuse. Deliberate, systematic genocide is probably off the cards because Trump's hatred is more performative and self-serving than visceral.
I meant in terms of practical outworkings more than motivation (though I'd say that Hitler had certain key hatreds, of Jews and Communists, that were the lode star of his politics). I could see Trump letting "Christian" organisations confiscate babies and sell them for adoption, but I don't think the petty hatreds that drive him are sufficient to support a deliberate industrialised genocide.
Specifically I've been thinking about whether one can be a liar if one accidentally tells the truth.
Which is relevant because it seems to me that the far-right, of which Orban is a part, is a pack of lies.
I'm assuming that Orban actually cares about the truth and is consciously saying things he knows are untrue, perhaps on occasion by accident saying something that is actually true.
But then I'm also interested in the concept of bullshit per Harry Frankfurt, where a person just says things without any regard to truth/lies but simply for effect. Stands for nothing and will change on a sixpence when convenient, uses no systematic logic for anything. Perfect description of Trump, of course.
I wonder if Orban is actually a bullshitter and there's no real way to understand what he is playing at because there is nothing there to understand and it is all just bullshit.
If you are going back to 1991, then you have to deal with the facts of the 1991 and 1994 referendums and both sides attempts to variously create facts on the ground since that time.
And the Russian view would want to take into account the 1954 transfer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67832416
Some people I know at church are Hungarian (mother and son). Son was born in Canada, soon after mother fled there, following the Russian invasion of Hungary in 1956. Father was a supporter of the revolution, and died in prison.
I don't know enough about Hungarian politics to be certain, but I daresay many people are not exactly fond of Russia, or of Putin, to this day...
I will note that one persistent characteristic of Trump's presidency* was his total unwillingness to cross Vladimir Putin in any way.