By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to potential disruptions of its energy system, which Prime Minister Viktor Orban attributes to Ukraine, Hungary is deploying soldiers and equipment to protect key energy infrastructure. This decision follows weeks of strained relations stemming from halted oil transit through the Druzhba pipeline due to Russian strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. While Hungary and Slovakia accuse Ukraine of withholding transit for political reasons, Ukraine points to Russian attacks and has proposed solutions to resolve the dispute. The situation highlights ongoing tensions between Hungary, Slovakia, and Ukraine, with Hungary having previously halted diesel exports and opposed new EU sanctions against Russia.
Read the original article here
Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary has announced a deployment of troops to protect critical energy infrastructure, citing a perceived threat from Ukraine. This move, framed as a defensive measure, has been met with considerable skepticism and seen by many as a thinly veiled attempt to manipulate upcoming elections and consolidate power. The underlying sentiment is that this deployment is not about a genuine Ukrainian threat, but rather a calculated political maneuver by a leader increasingly perceived as aligned with Russia.
The justification for sending troops, a potential Ukrainian threat to energy infrastructure, is widely viewed as far-fetched. Ukraine, currently engaged in a full-scale defensive war against Russia, is seen as having its hands more than full. The idea that Kyiv would actively seek to disrupt energy supplies to Hungary, a NATO and EU member, is considered illogical by many observers. This perceived absurdity leads to the strong suspicion that the entire premise is fabricated to serve a different purpose.
Many commenters believe this is a classic tactic employed by autocrats facing electoral challenges. By manufacturing an external threat, Orban is seen as attempting to create a state of emergency or crisis. This manufactured crisis, in turn, can be used to justify extraordinary measures, potentially including the postponement or cancellation of elections. The goal, in this interpretation, is to avoid an electoral defeat and cling to power, rather than to genuinely protect national interests.
This strategic deployment is also viewed as a continuation of Orban’s perceived alignment with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The assertion of a Ukrainian threat is seen as a convenient narrative that serves Moscow’s interests, diverting attention from Russia’s aggression and potentially weakening Western unity. The phrase “Putin’s hand-puppet” appears frequently, highlighting the widespread belief that Orban’s actions are dictated by the Kremlin.
The timing of this announcement, occurring in close proximity to an election, further fuels the suspicion of electoral manipulation. There are concerns that Orban is preparing to declare a state of emergency, ostensibly due to the manufactured Ukrainian threat, as a pretext to suspend the election process. This would allow him to bypass a potentially unfavorable outcome and remain in power through an undemocratic means.
The deployment to protect energy infrastructure is particularly ironic, given Hungary’s significant reliance on Russian oil. Critics suggest that instead of preparing for a Ukrainian attack, Orban might be positioning Hungary to play a more active role in supporting Russia’s military objectives, potentially at the expense of EU solidarity and Ukrainian sovereignty. The idea that this could lead to Hungary calling upon NATO for assistance against a fabricated Ukrainian attack is also a point of concern, suggesting a potential attempt to drag the alliance into a manufactured conflict.
Some commentators express disbelief that Orban’s actions are allowed to occur within the European Union framework, questioning the EU’s mechanisms for dealing with member states that appear to undermine its principles. There’s a sentiment that Hungary, through its repeated obstructionism and perceived alignment with Russia, is acting against the collective interests of the EU, and that stronger measures might be warranted.
The notion of a “false flag operation” is prevalent in the discussions. This refers to the idea that Hungary might orchestrate an incident, perhaps an attack on its own infrastructure, and then blame Ukraine. This would provide a more concrete, albeit fabricated, justification for further drastic actions, potentially including direct involvement in the conflict or the imposition of martial law.
The comparison of Orban to “Sloth from The Goonies” and “Jabba the Hutt” reflects a dismissive and critical view of his leadership, portraying him as out of touch, opportunistic, and morally compromised. These descriptions underscore the negative perception of his character and motives among those who scrutinize his actions.
There’s a longing for Orban to be voted out, a desire for a democratic resolution to what many see as an increasingly autocratic regime. However, the concern remains that Orban will go to extreme lengths to avoid losing power, potentially dragging Hungary into a wider conflict or undermining democratic processes entirely. The potential for this situation to escalate, even to the point of interfering with the delivery of weapons to Ukraine or worse, sending troops against Ukraine, is a doomsday scenario contemplated by some.
The hope is that the Hungarian people will see through this transparent attempt at manipulation and reject Orban at the polls. However, the underlying fear is that Orban’s tactics are designed precisely to prevent such an outcome, leaving the future of Hungarian democracy and its role in Europe uncertain. The situation is viewed as a test of Hungary’s democratic resilience and the EU’s ability to uphold its core values in the face of internal challenges.