By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Upon arriving at the NATO summit in The Hague, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán declared that NATO has no place in Ukraine, as it is not a member of the Alliance, and his primary objective is to maintain this status quo. Orbán doesn’t perceive Russia as a significant threat to NATO, citing the Alliance’s greater strength. He identifies the loss of economic competition, rather than security concerns, as the primary threat facing Europe. Furthermore, Orbán expressed admiration for former U.S. President Donald Trump’s approach, suggesting it contributes to shorter conflicts.
Read the original article here
Orbán: “Ukraine is not NATO member and I intend to keep it that way,” and this statement seems to have sparked quite a reaction, a whirlwind of opinions and strong emotions, if you ask me. It’s a sentiment that seems to draw a sharp line, and it’s clear there are many who disagree with this stance, feeling a deep sense of frustration and even anger.
Ukraine is keeping Russia out of the rest of Europe. They are holding the line. They are upholding democracy. The intensity of the debate, reflected in the comments, underscores the gravity of the situation. There’s a profound recognition of Ukraine’s current struggle and the belief that their fight is safeguarding European stability, which brings into sharp relief the question of NATO membership. People clearly see Ukraine’s value in deterring further Russian aggression.
I think Ukraine deserves to have a spot in NATO. They are preventing Russia from expanding further. That was the whole point of NATO. To prevent expansion of any country into another. The core of the disagreement seems to center on the strategic implications. Many believe that including Ukraine in NATO would be a decisive move in containing Russia and bolstering the alliance’s collective defense. They argue that Ukraine’s military experience and willingness to stand against a larger aggressor would make them an invaluable asset.
Who cares what Russia threatens if we let Ukraine into the alliance. Weird attitude. Ukraine has (With support) kept an overwhelming invasion at almost a stalemate for years. I don’t think many NATO countries could do that on their own (Or with support, but not direct involvement of others). An ally like that would be invaluable to a military alliance, or so it would appear to me. Sure, Putin will get angry but who cares. The comments express a willingness to confront any Russian opposition to Ukraine’s potential NATO membership, and the idea is that bolstering the alliance’s resolve and credibility is more important than appeasing Russia.
Every time I see Orbán I wonder if the etymological origin of that phrase lies in Hungary? It’s pretty obvious that a significant number of people are very critical of Orbán’s leadership and view his position as detrimental to the broader goals of the alliance. There is even a comparison being made between Orbán and Trump in the discussion. They see him as an obstacle to progress and are eager for a change in leadership. The tone reflects a feeling of betrayal, as though Orbán’s actions undermine the collective security interests of NATO.
NATO is held back by the requirement for unanimity. Every member has to agree for a decision to be made. A supermajority would be the way to go. The requirement for unanimous consent within NATO is another major point that’s raised. Some suggest that this rule effectively gives a single member, like Hungary, the power to veto decisions, making it difficult to adapt to rapidly changing geopolitical realities. The call for a supermajority highlights the frustration with this system and the desire for a more efficient decision-making process.
One man cannot stop the destiny of a country I would rather Ukraine in NATO and the EU than fascist corrupt Hungary. The arguments go beyond mere strategic considerations and delve into the realm of values. The preference for Ukraine, with its current struggle for democracy, over Hungary, whose government faces accusations of corruption and authoritarianism, signals a clear desire for NATO to align with democratic principles.
Orbán (like Trump) gets his orders from putin. Clearly, he’s opposed to the EU as well. There’s a sentiment, echoing a feeling of conspiracy and a belief that Orbán is acting in accordance with the interests of Russia rather than those of the alliance. It’s a serious accusation, suggesting that his stance isn’t based on legitimate concerns but on external influence.
I’m losing faith in the NATO Alliance and praying for a European & Commonwealth Alliance that welcomes anyone who plays ball. This feeling of disillusionment extends to NATO itself. Some suggest that the current system, due to its internal limitations, no longer serves its purpose. This has led to proposals for alternative alliances that might better serve the interests of the countries involved.
Can someone remind me why Hungary is even in NATO? Ukraine would be more valuable. Hungary has basically no strategic or military benefits for NATO that I’m aware of. Someone please correct me on this if I’m wrong. The strategic value of Hungary’s membership is questioned. Critics emphasize Ukraine’s military prowess and its geographical importance in the context of the ongoing conflict. The implication is that Hungary offers far less in terms of strategic advantage.
Detestable as he is , i doubt any/many of the others would actually allow Ukraine in while there is a war going on there. He is a bad guy but I cant he’ll feeling he gives cover for the others. And please note im *not* saying they shouldn’t be members but that other NATO members would happily talk about negotiations and future membership without ever letting it happen. There’s also a certain pragmatism at play, which suggests that while Orbán’s stance is widely disliked, it may also serve as a convenient shield for other members who are hesitant to commit to Ukraine’s immediate membership.