The headline paraphrases Czech European Affairs Minister Martin Dvořák (here) after Prime Minister Viktor Orbán used his veto to block an economic package proposed by the European Council to help Ukraine (here). Minister Dvořák called Orbán a “Trojan horse”, but I preferred a term with legal connotations. In this text, I use the word “traitor” literally: to knowingly and treacherously betray someone’s trust by acting against him, to make a pact with the enemy.

The historic moment of the start of negotiations accession of Ukraine to the EU

On December 27 this year, the European Council voted to start negotiations on Ukraine’s accession to the European Union as a “geostrategic investment in peace, security, stability and prosperity” (here). We did not see among supporters of the Ukrainian cause here an explosion of joy commensurate with an absolutely historic event. Since 2014, the impoverished population of Ukraine has been clearly dedicating their lives to their “European dream”. In Brussels, his aspirations were recognized. Cautious comments such as “it will be difficult”, “it will take a long time”, “we will have to wait until peace comes on the territory of Ukraine”, etc. dominated. DOES NOT MATTER! From now on, the main players will face each other on a map with fixed lines: Ukraine, the eastern edge of Western Europe; its economy is managed and supported by the EU.

Why “betrayal” is the right word

Of course, the above reasoning is valid unless there is a disaster. Funding provided by the United States is currently blocked and Viktor Orbán used Hungary’s veto to stop the planned aid in the European Council. In the case of Ukraine falling under Soviet occupation and its absorption by the empire, the interests of the European Union and its member states would be significantly affected.

Even more critical is Hungary’s refusal to discuss and ratify Sweden’s accession to the bloc in parliament. The new NATO Strategy defines the Russian Federation as an enemy. I quote: “The Russian Federation, which destroyed the peace in Europe by launching a war of aggression against Ukraine, is recognized the most important threat to the security of the Alliance” (italics ours; regarding the NATO Strategy Concept adopted in 2022, here).

The Allies decided to complete Sweden’s accession to NATO in 2023. Turkey constantly raised objections, but in the end President Erdoğan in October of this year sent a protocol to the parliament on the ratification of Sweden’s accession. Hungary has promised to present the accession project to the higher forum in Budapest in September. He didn’t do it then, he didn’t do it in the months that followed. Even the last commitment, for the month of December, was not fulfilled[1].

By joining NATO, Sweden will significantly strengthen the North Atlantic Alliance. With a powerful army, advanced military equipment, geostrategic position, and membership in the Arctic Council, Sweden will significantly change the balance of power with Russia. Sweden creates a strategic pair with Finland, to the point that for a long time there was only a project of their unification.

In the current dangerous situation on the continent and in the world, the inclusion of Sweden in NATO is a geostrategic necessity. By opposing (delaying) Sweden’s accession, the current Hungarian leadership is undermining the security of every member state of the Alliance. Viktor Orbán’s government “willingly and treacherously” serves Putin’s criminal regime against the interests of Euro-Atlantic citizens. The fact that the Russian Federation was recognized as “the most important threat to the security of allies” means, in his own understanding, that Orbán is making a deal with the enemy. This is betrayal.

There is no article on the expulsion of a member of the North Atlantic Alliance. There is an exit

What would be done? Recognition and acceptance of the real situation! Hungary is now a disadvantage, an obstacle, a danger for the North Atlantic Alliance. Among the 14 articles of the North Atlantic Treaty, there is not one that stipulates what happens when one of the members of the Alliance betrays. There is only one way out (Article 13). I reproduce it:

“After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any member may cease to be a party thereto one year after its notification of denunciation has been communicated to the Government of the United States of America, . . .”

Of course, Hungary’s withdrawal from NATO would be an unfortunate loss. It’s just that the Central European country is much less important to the Alliance than Sweden. And the shortcoming, the obstacle, the danger that it poses as a country in NATO can become unbearable in the conditions of a long war with Russia. It is time for NATO member states and bodies to ask the Orbán government, publicly, if closed doors are not enough, to choose: with genocidal Russia or with us. If the explicit condemnation of treason is not enough pressure, more expensive means should be found.

The word “treason” should be used in committees, in communiques, at internal meetings and in external relations of NATO and the EU. It will be repeated in front of the press. “Treason” and “Viktor Orbán” will become inseparable until the Prime Minister in Budapest feels that his behavior will be forced to contradict the association.

Some subjective accents

I write these lines also as an expression of great disappointment. Immediately after 1990, I advocated mutual respect between Romanians and Hungarians, considering it a condition for the emancipation of the entire Romanian society. For 34 years I have done everything in my power for the best relations between the two communities. In 1995, I protested against the appeal of the Civic Alliance party to the UDMR with a request to express loyalty to the Romanian state[2]. But now the issue of loyalty of Hungarians to the interests of the society in which they live has become relevant.

In Romania in 2022, more than 600,000 Hungarians were also Hungarian citizens. In the general elections in Hungary of the same year, 83% of the Transylvanian Hungarians who participated in them voted for FIDESZ. According to statistics, the vast majority of Hungarians in Romania support FIDESZ, i.e. the policies of the Orbán government.

The idea dear to Hungarian communities in Europe is their belonging to one cultural nation. Belonging to the Hungarian cultural nation together with belonging to the body politic of the Hungarian state brings self-awareness, protection, and a socio-cultural project to Hungarians everywhere. But this membership also carries obligations. Hungarians from Romania and Slovakia, where they live in significant numbers, become citizens of Hungary, voters in general elections in a neighboring country, public and political activists have to reconcile their loyalties to the two states and the transnational communities to which they belong. However, supporting, even tacitly, a policy that is contrary to the interests of NATO and the EU is a policy against Romania and Slovakia, members of two international organizations. Supporters of FIDESZ policy towards NATO and the EU are betraying the countries in which they live. In fact, he betrays his own interests. _

Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro