Trump's envoys for peace in Ukraine, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner visited Moscow but the negotiations did not have significant advances.
Maybe President of United States remembered his glorious days with models and other night women in the nineties but he must recognize that Russia now is very different form that one, thanks to Putin.
HUNGARY'S REJECTION OF CONFRONTATION WITH RUSSIA
TRENDS RESEARCH & ADVISORY, OCTOBER, 26, 2025.
CEO of Gulf State Analytics - USA
Since Russia launched its “special military operation” in Ukraine in February 2022, most European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states have aligned behind a common policy of supporting Kyiv and confronting Moscow through economic sanctions, military assistance to Ukraine, and diplomatic isolation. Yet Hungary, under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, has consistently diverged from this “consensus” and emerged as the EU and NATO’s most prominent advocate for a more cautious approach to Russia. Budapest has resisted strict sanctions, maintained close economic ties with Russia, especially in energy, and advocated dialogue over confrontation. In doing so, Hungary has carved out a distinct and complex role within Europe’s evolving geopolitical landscape: one that presents itself as a moderating voice amid growing East-West polarization, but often at the cost of alienating Western allies who see Budapest’s stance as undermining the unity needed to counter Russia in Ukraine.
As a frontline NATO country bordering Ukraine’s western flank, Hungary occupies a strategically sensitive position in the alliance. At the same time, its heavy dependence on Russian energy significantly constrains its foreign policy options and grants Moscow a degree of leverage over Budapest. Hungary’s position illustrates the internal frictions within NATO and the EU, where divergent national interests complicate efforts to present a unified front against Russia amid this ongoing war in Ukraine. More broadly, Budapest’s approach reflects deeper tensions within the West about how to balance national sovereignty, economic pragmatism, and collective security commitments in an era of renewed geopolitical confrontation between great powers.
From Soviet Satellite to NATO Member
Like many nations in Central and Eastern Europe, Hungary spent the decades following World War II firmly under the Soviet Union’s authoritarian grip. Yet by the 1970s, a distinct shift in national discourse had emerged, increasingly oriented toward engagement with the West.[1] This pivot was closely tied to Hungary’s neo-liberal economic policies, which sought growth through limited market reforms and greater openness to Western trade and finance.[2] The 1980s marked a deepening of this Western orientation. Hungary joined the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and despite opposition from Moscow, it established formal diplomatic relations with the European Economic Community—the forerunner of today’s EU.[3] These moves signaled Budapest’s growing desire to assert a more autonomous foreign policy, particularly during the twilight years of Soviet rule, when Mikhail Gorbachev’s policies of Glasnost and Perestroika loosened Moscow’s hold on its satellite states.[4]
Capitalizing on this moment of relative liberalization, Hungary accelerated its westward turn. The watershed moment came in 1990, when the country held its first multi-party democratic elections in over four decades.[5] Under Prime Minister József Antall, the new government prioritized Euro-Atlantic integration as a pillar of its foreign and security policy.[6] While NATO membership remained a longer-term ambition at the time, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 was a pivotal turning point that cleared the way for Hungary to pursue deeper strategic ties with the West.
This trajectory culminated on 12 March 1999, when Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic became the first former Warsaw Pact members to join NATO.[7] Its accession marked both a symbolic and practical transformation in Hungary’s security posture—from a Soviet satellite to a committed member of the Transatlantic Alliance. In the years that followed, Hungary actively participated in NATO-led missions, including the Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan after the launch of the U.S.-led “War on Terror” in 2001.[8] Today, Hungary remains one of only a handful of NATO countries to meet the alliance’s two percent GDP defense spending benchmark.[9] This legacy of westward integration continues to shape Budapest’s strategic outlook, including its complex stance on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
Despite Hungary’s membership in NATO and the EU since 1999 and 2004, respectively, there are multipolar dimensions to Budapest’s foreign policy with Orbán at the helm.[10] Hungary’s ties with the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), which is part of its “Eastern Opening” policy aimed at diversifying international partnerships beyond the EU, is one case in point.[11] In a grander geopolitical and geoeconomic context, Hungary aspires to act as a “keystone state,” skillfully navigating the competing interests of major global powers—namely the United States, Russia, and China—while at times positioning itself as a bridge among them.[12] This strategic posture aims to enhance Hungary’s autonomy and consolidate its role as a sovereign actor within a shifting geopolitical landscape. Hungary’s geography lends itself naturally to this ambition: situated at the crossroads of East and West, the country is well-placed to serve as a critical gateway for energy transit and trade routes essential to the broader project of Eurasian integration. Infrastructure initiatives such as the Budapest-Belgrade-Piraeus cargo railway and the East-West Gate Terminal exemplify Hungary’s efforts to cement its status as a logistics and commercial hub connecting European markets with Eurasia’s expanding economic networks.[13] In times of geopolitical volatility—particularly in the wake of the Ukraine conflict beginning in February 2022—Hungary’s role as a Central European transit point pursuing a “connectivity-based strategy” becomes all the more strategic, enabling it to leverage both geography and diplomacy to maintain relevance and flexibility on the international stage.[14]
This is one more example of disinbformation.
