A large number of EU resolutions on Ukraine are being blocked by Hungary, said Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis.

Hungary is digging in and refusing to wave through billions in military aid for Ukraine, prompting growing dismay among other EU countries.

"I have to calm myself [when] I talk about this issue, because it’s getting really ridiculous now,” a senior EU diplomat said of the standoff with Hungary, speaking before Monday’s meeting of EU foreign ministers. “What’s happening is outrageous.”

Diplomats had hoped to have a new €6.6 billion package ready ahead of this week’s meetings of foreign and defense ministers in Brussels. The deal included €860 million for arms procurement, reported by POLITICO last week.

  • UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    It is time to develop a way to remove nations who clearly don’t have the EU’s best interest at heart. Hungary is long overdue to be bounced from the EU.

    • Oneser@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      While I understand the sentiment, such action doesn’t match the long term goals of the bloc to unify the continent. Another solution needs to be found to ensure single bad actors cannot hold up actions which severely impact the remaining stakeholders - I have no idea how it could be done though.

      Xoxo, Another useless armchair observer

      • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Another long term goal of the EU is to promote peace and democracy across Europe.

        Allowing Orbàn to further democratic backsliding at home and undermining of the EU’s democratic processes and missions goes contrary to that goal, and the usual withholding of EU funding isn’t a sentence at all to a quasi-dictator who revels in the fact that reduced funding means more social misery means easy elections for a populist who blames every problem on the EU.

        Kicking out Hungary is a solution of last resort and we aren’t there yet, but in a system where Member States could turn totalitarian (and as Sovereign states we have no legal means to force out a dictator), exclusion must be on the table if we are to uphold our democratic values.

    • BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      This is what makes the EU dysfunctional - there is not a way to bounce a member from the EU nor a way to override a member states veto. The state can even veto changes to try and override vetos.

      The EU continues to exist in a black hole between a super state and a club of nations. Until it resolves that long standing conflict small states like Hungary can hold the whole EU hostage to its demands.

      The problem is you’d have to override national sovereignty to get rid of Hungary and once you do that the EU suddenly looks much less democratic. The EU may be too big to force such a fundamental change through now.

      The solution to the current problem is obvious - European nations should bypass the EU to provide funds for Ukraine. But that is not palatable to the EU as it undermines the EU itself, making it irrelevant to an area it’s trying to take control of - security.

    • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      War is bad.

      Every day we extend this war, more and more people die, statistically mostly civilians. While we are spending billions on bombs, China spends billions on healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

      And for what? So that the part of Ukraine that was trying to secede during the civil war has to stay? Because Russia is going to start a war with NATO after spending a hundred thousand lives trying and failing to avoid having most of its population and industry a few hundred miles from a hostile NATO member?

      This is in nobody’s interest except the shareholders of weapons manufacturers.

      • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        You are wrong.

        This war is also in the interests of Putin.

        Putin decided to start the war of aggression.

        Putin invaded Ukraine.

        Ukraine gave up its nuclear arms on the guarantee of security from Russia. Russia has violated that guarantee by invading them.

        Putin can end the war today.

        US can not end the war today. Even if it left Ukraine alone, Ukraine would still fight to the end.

        EU can not end the war today. See above.

        The fastest and easiest way to end the bloodshed is for Russia to withdraw today.

        Leaving Ukraine to defend itself wouldn’t even end the bloodshed. After Russia has completed its revised objectives it would invade the entirety of Ukraine under newer revised objectives. Then it would invade other neighbours under other revised objectives. The bloodshed would continue until the USSR is reformed and a new cold war begins.

        Those suggesting the only way to end the bloodshed is through capitulation to the aggressor need to study their history better to see that capitulation to the aggressor never stopped an aggressor, it just lead to them going further until stopped.

        Imagine if the USA invaded Mexico - no one would be saying Mexico should end the bloodshed. And the USA’s adversaries sure as hell would be doing everything they can to help Mexico.

        For those in the back: Putin withdrawing from his war of aggression is the only known way to end the bloodshed today. All other solutions would result in further bloodshed.

          • nyctre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            Except if you’d read the article you’d see that’s bullshit and doesn’t support your claim at all.

            Quotes from the text: “And the Russians knew these provisions would make it more difficult for the Ukrainians to accept the rest of the treaty. They might, therefore, be seen as poison pills.”

            “Still, the claim that the West forced Ukraine to back out of the talks with Russia is baseless.”

            And calls it “putin’s manipulative spin”

            • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              It’s Foreign Affairs, literally a state-department mouthpiece, you have to read between the lines and understand the way they use emphasis and conjecture to manipulate the narrative.

              The atomic unit of propaganda isn’t lies, it’s emphasis.

              • nyctre@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                First of all, that’s your source, not mine. Also, if they wanted to keep their warmongering interests hidden why even publish that article? You make no sense

                Secondly, really? Your argument is “you’re supposed to believe putin, not the ones that conducted interviews, did research and wrote the article”? That’s biblethumping-level of weak, c’mon… “Nooooo, you’re interpreting the holy texts wrong”

                • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  I didn’t say anything about believing Putin, I wouldn’t trust him as far as I can throw him. My point is that you have to read any media critically and understand how they are trying to twist the facts. I chose a state department-aligned source so you wouldn’t disregard it out of hand.

                  The fact is that Russia offered a peace deal that would have ended the war with Russia even giving back much of the territory it had taken 2 years ago, Zelensky pulled out of the peace talks when he had guarantees of unlimited support. The writer’s bias of course, makes them suggest that actually Russia didn’t really want Ukraine to accept the peace deal.

                  • nyctre@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    The only thing the article shows is that putin is a lying sack of shit and that they’ve been negotiating a peace since february 2022. The fact that they couldn’t agree on terms and you blaming it on western support is purely your interpretation, has nothing to do with facts. It literally said in the article that russia’s first first peace proposal was capitulation. And negotiations brought it down to “neutral” russian puppet, at which point negotiations crumbled. There’s no bias there, that’s what happened. Even the last version of the draft was something that was unacceptable to Ukraine. Anyway, I’m done. You’ll keep blaming Zelensky, because that’s all you’re capable of doing, I’ll keep blaming putin, because he’s the one that started this and the one that can stop it. There’s no point in arguing further.

      • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Russia can end this war tomorrow. Any and all deaths are on them. Hell, if Russia would just stay out of their neighbours business, there would have been no civil war in the first place.

        If Russia would quit invading their neighbours, their neighbours wouldn’t have had the motivation to join NATO in the first place (see Sweden and Finland as the most current examples).

        • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          their neighbours wouldn’t have had the motivation to join NATO

          Joining NATO is not a defensive move, every single war its fought has been offensive in nature, and to quote Anthony Blinken “You’re either at the table or you’re on the menu”

          • Natanael@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            If Russia has legitimate reasons, why are all the reasons they give for their actions always a bunch of lies?

            Why did they have to stage false flag terror attacks on their own soil to justify an attack? Why do they have to doctor footage, make up fake citizens, and twist history?

            If they have the truth on their side, why not tell the truth?

            • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              If Russia has legitimate reasons, why are all the reasons they give for their actions always a bunch of lies?

              I’m not saying the invasion was legitimate or justified, those concepts don’t even factor into state actors. I’m explaining the things that motivated it.

              If they have the truth on their side, why not tell the truth?

              They’ve said over and over that it was over the failure to enforce the Minsk II agreement. But lies are convenient and animating so you get both. Same reason the US media pretended that Iraq had chemical weapons and was involved in 9/11. The populace probably would have been happy to go to war without those reasons, but it makes it easier and increases domestic support for the ruling party.

                • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  The alternative is what? Putin just hates the Russian and Ukrainian people so much he decided to create a humanitarian disaster? That he wanted the wealth and productivity of land that currently looks like a WWI battlefield?

                  Lets be realistic. Putin is an agent of Russia’s national bourgeoisie, he wouldn’t have power if he didn’t offer anticommunism and stability for the oligarchs he depends on.

                  • Natanael@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    Yeah this war made Russia sooo stable

                    Putin is a madman who wants more power and more land and more people under his control. They genuinely thought the Ukrainians would give up within days.

                    All the intel from that time shows they didn’t expect lasting resistance. They expected to be able to hunt and execute everybody who had been part of the old government without any hickups, then just take over. And this was supposed to happen after a false flag attack on Russian soil, blamed on the Ukranian government, most likely together with a PR flood trying to convince the population that they would be safer under Russian rule due to their own government “being too dangerous / erratic” or whatever else.

                    The balance between Putin’s and other oligarchs’ power is not very stable given how many of them he has had killed. He’s relying on fear to keep them all from ganging up in him way once, just like how he relies on fear with everything else.

          • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            “every single war it’s faught”

            So that would be Afghanistan.

            The Balkans were just generally on fire in the 90s and NATO enforced a no fly zone and sent peacekeeper forces after the fact.

            There’s a few more peacekeeping missions and no-fly zones (Lybia for example), then some training missions, some humanitarian missions (Pakistan for example), a few air campaigns against non-state entities (“terrorists” but realistically that’s often just a matter of perspective), and a bunch of anti-piracy actions.

            So it’s “every single war” with heavy emphasis on single.

            • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Peacekeeping? Libya had the highest HDI of Africa before NATO’s “peace keeping”. But it’s hard to separate the blame of NATO and just America for arming the factions. Same with the balkins.

              • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                Libya had the highest HDI of Africa before NATO’s “peace keeping”

                Dude, at least visit Wikipedia before you argue. Lybia was an example of NATO enforcing a no-fly zone, not peacekeeping. And Lybia’s HDI was back to pre-civil war levels three years ago (ie the 2021 data matches the 2013 data).

                Are you going to pretend that Muammer Gaddafi was a benevolent and beloved dictator, and that there’s no way Lybians would want him to fuck off all of their own?

                it’s hard to separate the blame of NATO and just America

                No it fucking isn’t. NATO lists all actions they’ve taken part of on their website. If the action is there, it was NATO, if it isn’t, it was not a NATO action.

          • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Strange, and which countries did NATO invade then?

            Because the only case NATO was called was after 9/11, but since it was about invading an other country all of it was voluntary. So the majority didn’t even participate.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Replace “we” with “Russia” and you get it

        Giving Russia what they want is in nobody’s interest except Putin and a select few of his politicians. They’ll then use the land in Ukraine to try to grab more land in Europe, notably Poland, Finland, and Moldova, through more war

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Not really. Being open minded doesn’t mean you give equal credence to nut jobs, conspiracy theorists, racists, etc.

            I wouldn’t listen to a Nazis opinions on Jews.

            I wouldn’t listen to a zionists opinion on Palestine.

            And I don’t listen to a tankies opinion on Ukraine.

            • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              That’s not at all what I meant.

              I’m an ml user - just because it seemed okay to me when I first started with Lemmy - and now I learn it’s got a rep for being for tankies etc

              If you look through my comment history you’ll see I’m probably just some lefty twit from Europe.

              I by no means meant you should tolerate the scum that promote Putin or Pooh Bear’s agenda.

              Just don’t assume everyone on .ml is a cunt. Be more open minded and less label driven.

              • gmtom@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                If you don’t want people to lump you in with the tankies, you can simply not associate yourself with said tankies.

                Just like I’m going to assume anyone on truth social is a right wing chritsofascist. There might be a dide on there that’s sane and alright, but I don’t care.

      • eee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        This is in nobody’s interest except the shareholders of weapons manufacturers.

        You forgot about a country called Ukraine there buddy.

        I gotta say, of all the conflicts going on in the world, Ukraine/Russia has got to be the one with the clearest “good” side and “bad” side. Pick another conflict to be edgy about.

        • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          For the people in Ukraine, this protracted war is the absolute worst possible outcome. Ukraine will never be a safe country again in either of our lifetimes. The state has had to privatize and sell off public assets like the power grid and take out massive loans. Ukraine will never be a prosperous country again in either of our lifetimes.

          As far as black and white conflicts go, there’s a country currently dropping 2000 lb bombs on a tent-city of mostly starving children, that formed from refugees of it’s earlier bombing campaign, who are mostly refugees of even earlier ethnic cleansing campaigns.

            • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              It absolutely is not. Nothing Russia could possibly impose on the people is worse than an entire generation of men lost to the meat grinder and the poverty that follows this kind of economic damage. A quick loss would have a million more Ukrainians living in their homes today instead of displaced throughout the world, and a hundred thousand still alive.

              • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                Nothing Russia could possibly impose on the people is worse than an entire generation of men lost to the meat grinder and the poverty that follows this kind of economic damage.

                Wrong. Ask Ukraine or all the other former SU countries. They already know how it is to “live” under Russian occupation. If you’re such a fan of that, go move over there for yourself, and join VK so you can at least spare us with your moronic propaganda.

      • SMillerNL@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        War is bad.

        Nobody was trying to secede. Ukrainians would like to stay Ukrainian and it’s good to help people who want help.

        • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          What of the Russian-speaking population who was still in revolt before the invasion? You know the civil war and all that?

          • DeLacue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Oh the Russian speaking population that sprang up in rebellion from nowhere in pretty much a single day with a clear and organised command structure from day one, with matching gear, uniforms and weapons and a bizarrely poor understanding of the local geography despite supposedly being locals. You know they attacked a movie theatre because they thought it was a local government center? Those rebels? The ones the locals didn’t recognise? The ones whose casualty numbers had a weird correlation with Russian servicemen dying from unexplained causes? Those rebels?

            Now I normally don’t call ‘Russian bot/troll’ too often but Russian propaganda about this is so poor I have a hard time coming to any other conclusion.

            • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Do you honestly not know that most of eastern Ukraine speaks Russian? Like this is an easily verifiable fact you can just google.

                • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  True, from the vitriol I’ve seen directed at Russians living in former Ukrainian territories, it’d genuinely be a toss-up whether they’d go with the guys who invaded and occupied them or the ones who passed anti-russian laws and have banderites talking about ethnically cleansing them in parliament.

                  There’s really no good outcome for anyone involved, and a longer war makes all of them worse.