Gladden Pappin, a political scientist, was present at last week’s meeting with Viktor Orban (Hungarian PM). This richly analytical account shows how sophisticated Orban is. Excerpts:
Prime Minister Orban said that “the real problem” was that “nobody would argue against the main stream,” namely the view that war should be treated as a matter if being on the right side. The West is caught between the belief that materially supporting Ukraine was necessary to keep the country on the right side, and the fact that such support comes with risks. This was the context in which the prime minister concluded that therefore we, i.e. the principal Western actors, whose view he was highlighting, and not Hungary, were getting more involved in the conflict.
The prime minister clearly felt that there was no heuristic to help him decide between the world-historical or risk-adjusted options for material support for Ukraine. Do you consider direct support for Ukraine an imperative in the world’s history? If so, why not continue to go all the way? Or is there a risk of an uncontrollable escalation? Orban’s specific conclusion was that,no Western actors were seeking to assess the entire situation or pick one answer. In no way was this a declaration of war by the West per se. Rather, it was a lament that the West is “getting more and more involved” because of its stepwise approach over the last year, where grand rhetoric about the clash between democratic and authoritarian regimes actually yields only marginal–but increasingly dangerous–commitments of Western resources.
My interpretation is slightly different. My notes show that Orban said that the West was at war with Russia in fact. However, he clearly believed this to be a terrible idea and stated it in context of warning Hungary’s Western allies about the dangers of playing here. Orban was implying that other Western decision-makers are lying about their actions in Ukraine and are putting us all at risk of a wider conflict. This is more:
The West is now in a sort of strategic paralysis. This is my term for it, trying to capture the thought. It isn’t seeking an immediate ceasefire, as that would be a failure of the world-historical significance test. But it isn’t seeking an immediate or complete victory, since that would lead to nuclear war. Orban answered almost immediately when asked his opinion on the conflict. He said, “If we want to have peace, we must convince both sides to have cease-fires.”
To me, this seems reasonable. This is because our leaders are making it less likely that we can negotiate an end to this very risky conflict through their rhetoric. This is due to the insanity of constant references by the American press and certain American politicians to Munich 1938. If peace negotiations are referred to as Chamberlain’s “peace of our time” foolishness following meeting with Hitler, then any attempt at bringing this conflict to an ending before further bloodshed, a wider war or, God forbid a nuclear exchange becomes politically impossible. This is not in America’s best interest. It is not America’s. Not the West’s.
Another clip taken from Pappin’s article, as it is slightly different to my reporting on the event.
The prime minister presented his impressions of Russia’s view at this point: First, they believe that time is on their side and, second, they feel that they need to have a buffer between NATO and them. Combining with the West’s cautious approach, Russia’s divergent views reduce the chances of an immediate cessation. In this context Orban explained what he thought Russia’s perception of Ukraine. He stated that Russia’s primary goal is to keep NATO away form the Russian border, and ” ifit’s not possible, to create Afghanistan zwischen Russia and the Ukrainian border.”
Orban said that Russia had turned Ukraine into Afghanistan. This was in the sense of making a lot of the country a chaotic, unruly mess for the sake creating a “safe zone” between Russia’s NATO members. This is a significant difference, if Pappin’s quote — which it may be; unfortunately my notes do not offer a clarification — It is strategic sense for Russia to try to conquer Ukraine if it cannot. This is not what Orban meant. I am simply stating my opinion. Pro-Ukraine Western politicians and intellectuals talk about bringing Ukraine to NATO, as George W. Bush did in 2008. They are condemning the country’s suffering to be destroyed by Russia.
You can read the entire thing. Niccolo Soldo has a report that explains what Zoran (Zoki), the president of Croatia, has been saying about the war in recent times. Excerpt:
Milanovic, who has been a vocal advocate for Russia since the start of the conflict, has stated two things: 1) This isn’t our (Croatia) war; and b) Russia will win one way or the other, because it is an existential crisis for them, which is not the case for the West. Except for the fact that the Commander-in Chief of the Croatian Armed Forces is the Presidency, it is almost exclusively ceremonial. The position of Premier is the holder of executive power. At the moment, it is the favoured Andrej Plenkovic of the centre-right HDZ. Plenkovic, unlike Milanovic, has chosen to not sway the ship on the issue of war in Ukraine and has remained true to the prevailing line from Brussels.
Milanovic, however, has not stopped being assertive in his statements to the media. Perhaps because he believes that a quasi-entirely ceremonial position allows him to do so. Continue reading for more information.
This week, Zoki angered Ukrainian supporters by saying that the West (USA and UK) has been prodding Russia for many years. He also claimed that Kosovo was taken from Serbia. I will now translate his words using a few sources from the Croatian media.
Index (and others):
We will not and cannot be forced to submit to foreign interests over which we have no influence. I see that NATO’s head is in South Korea and Japan. He is not my representative nor my country. I have known him for over twenty years. This part of the world is not in NATO’s vicinity, but it does have something to do with NATO. There are things happening in that area of the world in which we don’t have any say (and nobody asks us anyway), but this could quickly draw us in with deep commitments.
We are dependent on the ambitions and plans of others, not only in Ukraine.
He continues:
EU Parliament members are discussing dismemberment Russia. This is completely inappropriate. This is a terrible thing! Even we and the Serbs have never hated each other so much! This is madness. You should avoid it.
more:
What is the purpose of this war? A war against a nuclear force fighting in another country. Is there a way to defeat this country using conventional means? Who is paying for this war? Europe is. The USA pays the lowest price.
Russians? It is their Mexico …. or Canada, if you will. This is dangerous and real.
…………
We have watched from 2014 to 2022 how Russia has been provoked by the West into starting this war. The war was started. We are now discussing the possibility of sending tanks after almost a year. This year, not a single American tank will be sent to Ukraine. However, we will send all of the German tanks to Ukraine this year, and they will suffer the same fate as the ones sent before. An MP from Poland demands that Russia is partitioned. Russia has not attacked Poland and will not, since it isn’t strong enough.
Collectively, what we do as the West is morally degrading. The German tanks will further unify Russia and its people ….., and the same applies to China. We must avoid this, so we don’t become a circus of poodles. Participation in such a conflict is dangerous. Are you sure I’m not a Russian agent? I’m not the one who handed Agrokor (Croatia’s largest company) over to the Russians (signed by the current Premier and Brussels’ darling Plenkovic em>
You can read it all. I am a Niccolo Soldo subscriber and you should too.
Sign up today
Receive weekly emails to your inbox
I don’t have access to any US electronic media so I can’t tell what the discourse is on the war on TV or radio. I do not see Tucker Carlson clips that I find online. I have been reading the major print news outlets’ websites and, while I don’t always see all of it, I feel that Americans are not getting enough perspective and commentary on the war. I don’t know how much Europeans get this type of analysis or perspective in their media. Is it all pro-war jingoism? Please let me know if you have readers in continental Europe of this blog what your main war coverage is and how they comment. Email me at rod — at — amconmag — dot — com. It’s amazing to me that the US-led Western Alliance is steadily moving into the ever-more likely prospect of a shooting conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia and there is very little or no antiwar effort. This is probably because progressives and liberals finally have a war they love.
It’s something I cannot repeat enough: 2002 was a memorable year for me. I still remember how we talked about the war in Iraq. Although there was more discussion and debate back then, many of us — I admit to being on this side, to our later shame and regret — didn’t want to hear anyone warning against war. Not Pope John Paul II. Patrick J. Buchanan. No one on the Left. Look at what happened. The consequences of what’s happening now between Russia, the West and Ukraine are incalculable.
It is also a mystery to me why other countries, such as India, China and Brazil, don’t use the United Nations to start ceasefire negotiations. Is this really in China’s best interest? What purpose does the United Nations serve?
