Finland and Sweden submitted official applications to join NATO on May 18, 2022, and the accession protocols were signed on July 5. On the same day, Canada, Iceland, Norway and Denmark started ratification procedures. Romania entered the queue on July 21, while Slovakia, the last country in the series, opened the procedure on September 27, 2022.

The quick entry of Finland and Sweden into the North Atlantic Alliance is possible because the cooperation of the two countries with NATO already has a long history. The armies of Finland and Sweden adhere to NATO standards. They are stronger than many members of the Alliance. The war started by Russia showed how welcome the NATO umbrella is in the destabilization of the continent. Events such as Russia’s cooperation with Iran, the missile madness of the North Korean leader, and the latest signs that China will soon support Russia with weapons, deepen the instability in the world.

These rational arguments became “Euro-Atlantic politics”, as they were assumed by the population of the New and Old Continents. First, by the Finns and Swedes, who asked their governments to abandon the traditional policy of neutrality. Then European citizens, who in various ways encouraged support for Ukraine. The attitude of the Euro-Atlantic population to the war started by Russia is the subject of numerous studies. I mention some of the results of one as fresh as possible, prestigious think tank “European Council on Foreign Relations” (here)[i]:

– the share of 21% of Americans, 22% of Britons and 30% of citizens of 9 European countries.[ii] would agree to Ukraine handing over Russian-occupied territory to Russia if the war ends soon;

– a much larger share – 34% of Americans, 44% of Britons and 38% of Europeans – believe that Ukraine should return all its territory, even if it means a longer war and more Ukrainians killed or displaced;

– about 55% of Americans, 65% of Britons and 54% of Europeans see Russia as an enemy, and those who see it as a rival are added to them;

– more than 84% of citizens of the three Western communities believe that Europe supports Ukraine to protect its territorial integrity, preserve Ukrainian democracy and protect its own security – and not for mercantile reasons.

I have mentioned only a part of the ECFR results, at least covering a small part of the whole set of details that are relevant in assessing the European attitude towards the participants in the war in Ukraine. They are recent and representative, and therefore in solidarity with other studies.

Turkeyto Recep Tayyip Erdogan

The mobilization of the Finnish and Swedish peoples in favor of joining NATO seemed to be the only factor that could matter for the expansion of the Alliance.[iii] However, two contradictory notes appeared during the introduction. The first is President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.[iv] Ability to make a decision a veto on admission, Erdogan asked Finland and Sweden to lift any restrictions on arms sales to Turkey, which they did, and to change anti-terror laws, which both countries did. He also demanded the extradition of some fighters against his regime Erdogan. However, in democratic countries, the removal of a resident from state protection is controlled by the justice system. In December 2022, the Swedish Supreme Court blocked the extradition of a Turkish journalist accused of involvement in the coup attempt Erdogan since 2016. However, Turkey insists on overturning the verdict of the courts, which are the heart of Swedish institutional civilization.[v] It is as if Turkey, when it expressed its desire to become a member of the European Union, was asked to renounce the Islamic religion.

Leader from Ankara shows his firmness, as elections in Turkey are scheduled for May this year (synthetic and comprehensive analysis of his strategy Erdogan, here). With this behavior, he betrays the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and all other member countries. This is not even selfish behavior, because Turkey also benefits from the fact that NATO, of which it is a member, is strengthened by the entry of new states. It is the arrogant behavior, interested in immediate, essentially insignificant benefits, that calls into question the very principle that underlies the contract: solidarity between members. At a meeting between NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu on February 16 of this year, the former addressed himself without hesitation:it’s time (emphasis added) to ratify the accession applications with both Finland and Sweden” (for more information here).

Hungary. Insidious, systematic and thought-out support for pro-Putin policy

If in the case of Turkey its hasty behavior to take advantage of the situation still has minimal logic, in the case of Hungary its reluctance cannot find a rational justification. Hungary initially promised to ratify the accession of Finland and Sweden last fall. In early December 2022, the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that the ratification vote would take place in early February 2023 without preconditions. (In Budapest, there was not even a way to invent “conditions”.) A few days ago, the Hungarian parliament announced the opening of the procedure for ratifying the requests of Finland and Sweden on March 1 ac It would seem completely irrational that the majority, led by Viktor Orban do anything but vote for an act of such obvious importance. There are also voices of the political opposition who have doubts (see here). These fears are caused by the insidious, systematic and calculated way in which the government in Budapest is advancing the Putinist war program in Ukraine. This will dominate the ratification debate.

From a long list that supports this claim, I dwell on a representative example for all three attributes: a dialogue between Zoltan Kovac, Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and International Relations in three governments Orban and chief analyst of the Századvég Foundation, Laurent Soumégy, on a study called “Project Europe” (here). Their “conclusions” examined the position of Europeans regarding measures taken by governments in response to the war in Ukraine.

The title of the speech of both was highlighted in bold: “Europeans are tired of bloodshed.” Zoltan Kovacs and Lorant Sumeghi argued in flawless English that the Govt Orban he was absolutely right in his assessments and policies regarding the war, while Western European politicians also failed to live up to the expectations of European citizens. Here are some subheadings of a research report:

– European public opinion is strongly divided regarding the armament of Ukraine;

– the political leadership of several EU member states acts against the will of society;

– in several states of the European Union, the decisions of the political elite in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war do not meet the expectations of the population;

– Brussels must act immediately to promote peace and reduce inflation through sanctions;

– 62% of EU respondents and 63-63% of citizens of the former socialist bloc and countries of the Visegrad Group are worried about the possibility of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis turning into a bigger war or involvement in their own country;

– Brussels must contribute to ending the war.

The picture obtained by the Századvég Foundation’s research differs significantly from that of the European Council on Foreign Relations, and during the debate Zoltan Kovacs and Lorant Soumégy emphasized the differences differently. They insisted on the need to put pressure on governments to start peace talks between the warring parties. They never uttered phrases like “Russian invasion of Ukraine”, “a war started by Russia” or similar phrases; they did not mention the crimes of the Russian army; they never referred to Moscow’s threat to other European states. Ukraine and Russia turned out to be equally, to the same extent, simply “adversaries”.

The organizers of the study claim that the Századvég Foundation developed a new methodology 7 years ago: it replaced perception-based surveys – just like Westerners do! – with surveys based on “real reality”. I do not dwell on the technical complexity of such a statement.

Although polls are a useful tool for certain topics (such as vote maps in an electoral contest), using them to inform public policy requires caution. However, officials from Budapest sought to do just that: with their investigation, justify and determine a change in North Atlantic policy regarding the war initiated by the Russian Federation.

Surveys can be easily abused. What happened to the research promoted by Zoltan Kovacs and Lorant Sumeghi is a real manipulation. Check out this question to European citizens they discussed: Do you think governments should pay more attention to “protecting and helping the family, having children?” OR “LGBT issues, sexual minorities and their help”? Of course, the vast majority gave priority to protecting the family and children. Could it be otherwise? The question violates all rules of respectable research.[vi]

Another question from the same category of manipulation: “should we finally call on the leaders of the European Union to do something to reduce uncontrolled prices and end the war, instead of inaction”? Respondents apparently agreed that EU leaders should “do something to lower prices” and that their inaction was unacceptable, the false conclusion that European leaders should end the war in order to to be in harmony with the citizens became the focus of the discussion “Europeans are tired of bloodshed.” So, according to the “experts”, weapons should no longer enter Ukraine. The same thesis will be the key to the intervention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Hungary in the UN, Peter Siyarto, on the day of the first year of the invasion of Ukraine (here). Stopping the supply of weapons to Ukraine would serve Putin’s plans so well, so clearly, that even he does not require it from the West, except for a limited formula of red lines: missile launchers must not hit “his” border, planes must not be sent, etc.

By refusing to ratify, Hungary would betray its Alliance partners, betray the Hungarian minority in Ukraine, and betray itself.

Termination of military aid to Ukraine can only result in the annexation of Ukraine and its annexation to Russia. An apocalyptic disaster for Ukrainians, a horror for the countries surrounding the “former” Ukraine, life ended under the sword of Damocles. Even Hungary will be more vulnerable than it is now.

A Putin victory would be a disaster for the estimated 140,000 Hungarian minority in Ukraine (156,600 according to the 2001 census). The empire would ruthlessly Russify both the majority and the minorities. And even if Putin made an exception for Hungarian minorities, given the Orbán government’s aid today, they would end up living an intolerable life under Putin’s regime. In an absurd way, Hungary, which was so determined when the guarantees of the ethno-cultural identity of Ukrainian nationals were reduced (but only one aspect of their life), today supports a policy that stifles the existence of Hungarians in Ukraine with blinding consequences. Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro