'Not even capable of defeating Ukraine' — Orban questions Russia's ability to attack NATO
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has questioned Russia's ability to attack NATO countries, as it is not "even capable of defeating Ukraine," he said in an interview with French TV channel LCI on June 8.
"The Russians are too weak for that," Orban said. "They're not even capable of defeating Ukraine, so they're incapable of really attacking NATO."
Over three years into its full-scale war, Russia has failed to achieve Ukraine's surrender or at least the complete occupation of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, which was reportedly among the Kremlin's demands in Russia's first peace proposal in 2022.
Russian troops have recently intensified their offensive, moving deeper into Sumy Oblast, as well as closing in on Dnipropetrovsk Oblast.
Russian propaganda has for years insisted that NATO and its further expansion pose a threat to Moscow. The Kremlin has also claimed that Ukraine's ambition to join NATO was a major trigger for its invasion, although in 2014, when Moscow annexed Crimea and started the war in the Donbas region, Ukraine's chances and desires of joining the alliance were low.
Orban, widely regarded as the European Union's most pro-Russian leader, said that it is not in the interests of the EU, including Hungary, to have "a direct conflict with Russia" or "a threat of war," so Ukraine must not join NATO.
"Europe must be strengthened in the long term, and there must be a strategic agreement with Russia," Orban said, adding that sanctions against Russia are "destroying Hungary and the whole of Europe."
Under the Orban regime, Hungary has become widely regarded as the most Kremlin-friendly state in the EU.
Budapest has been blocking the opening of EU accession negotiation clusters with Kyiv and signaled further obstruction in recent weeks after Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) said it had uncovered a Hungarian spy network in western Ukraine.
Orban also encouraged Hungarians to vote in a non-binding national poll on Ukraine's EU bid that the government launched in early March. The poll has garnered criticism for low turnout and manipulative questions, written to encourage citizens to reject Ukraine's accession.
Read also: Key to Russia's potential defeat lies in its economy
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Ukraine showers Trump with praise for strikes on Iran while ex-Russian prez floats giving Tehran nukes
Ukraine's Foreign Ministry cheered the US strikes against Iran, and backed President Trump's assertion that Tehran cannot be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev blasted the move and starkly warned that 'countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads,' while chiding that Trump can kiss his dreams of a Nobel Peace Prize goodbye. 'As early as this spring, the United States warned Iran of the consequences in the absence of constructive steps,' Ukraine's Foreign Ministry said in a statement. 'Iran is complicit in the crime of aggression against Ukraine. The Iranian regime is providing military assistance to Russia, including the supply of UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] and technologies that Russia consistently uses to kill people and destroy critical infrastructure.' Throughout the war, Russia has turned to Iran and North Korea for resources to assist in its bloody invasion of neighboring Ukraine. Iran has supplied the Russians with critical drone technology. 3 President Trump ordered strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran. AP 3 President Trump has had a rocky relationship with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY/AFP via Getty Images Ukraine had once been in possession of the world's third-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons during the collapse of the Soviet Union. It relinquished those nukes as part of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in exchange for security guarantees from the US, Russia and the United Kingdom. 'We are convinced that the measures taken by the United States and Israel against Iranian nuclear facilities have sent a clear message to the Iranian regime — a message that the continuation of policies aimed at destabilizing regional security is unacceptable,' Kyiv added in a statement. 'As for Iran's future, we firmly believe that the Iranian people — with their proud, millennia-old history –deserve a dignified, free, and happy life in peace and mutual understanding with Israel and all other nations of the world.' Russia roundly condemned the strikes, with Medvedev being among the most forceful. 3 Dmitry Medvedev delivered a stern rebuke of President Trump over the strikes on Iran. 'A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads,' Medvedev put in an ominous X post. 'At this rate, Trump can forget about the Nobel Peace Prize — not even with how rigged it has become. What a way to kick things off, Mr. President.' There are at least eight countries believed to have nukes: China, India, France, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the US. Israel has been coy about whether it posses them. Vice President JD Vance rebuked Medvedev's apparent threat. 'First of all, I think it's a bizarre response, but I also don't know that that guy speaks for President Putin or for the Russian government,' Vance shot back. '[Russia has] been very consistent that they don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon.' 'I'll let President [Vladimir] Putin speak to what the official Russian position on this is.' Medvedev served as Russia's president from 2008 to 2012 and is generally seen as a close ally of Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin. Currently, he serves as the deputy chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation.
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
With 40,000 troops in the region, U.S. braces for response as Iran weighs its options
WASHINGTON — Fallout from President Trump's historic gamble to strike Iran's nuclear facilities reverberated across the Middle East Sunday, as Washington braced for an unpredictable response from a cornered but determined Islamic Republic. While the Iranian government downplayed the impact of the U.S. attack, noting the depths of its nuclear know-how built over decades of study, U.S. military officials said its precision strikes against Iran's three main nuclear facilities caused 'extremely severe damage and destruction.' A senior Israeli official told The Times that Jerusalem was so satisfied with the operation that it was prepared to suspend hostilities if Iran ends its missile salvos against Israeli territory. 'We are ready to be done,' the Israeli official said, granted anonymity to speak candidly. As the dust settled, the sun rose and satellite imagery emerged of the wreckage, the main question among Trump administration officials became how Tehran would respond — both militarily, against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and around the world, as well as with the remnants of its nuclear program, with so much of it destroyed. Tehran's nuclear-armed allies, in Russia and North Korea, have been critical of the military campaign, with former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev raising the prospect of Moscow giving Iran a nuclear warhead in response to the attacks. The Israeli official dismissed that idea, alluding to direct talks with Moscow over the Iranian program. 'We are not concerned,' the official said. Trump's military action, dubbed 'Operation Midnight Hammer,' was a contingency years in the making, prepared and much feared by Trump's predecessors over two decades as a desperate last resort to a nuclear Iran. Ever since Tehran resumed its fissile enrichment program in 2005, Republican and Democratic presidents alike have warned that the Islamic Republic could never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. But a constellation of diplomatic talks and complex agreements have failed to dissuade Tehran from a fundamental principle of a 'right to enrich' uranium — near to weapons grade — on its own soil. Despite the dramatic nature of the U.S. air raid, few in Washington expressed an appetite for a prolonged U.S. war with Iran and echoed Israel's interest in a truce after assessing its initial operations a success. Vice President JD Vance denied that the United States was 'at war' with Iran on Sunday, telling CBS that the nation is, instead, 'at war with Iran's nuclear program.' But the prospect of another full-scale U.S. war in the Middle East, made palpable by the weekend strikes, shook Capitol Hill on Sunday, compelling Democrats who have long advocated a tough approach to Iran to push for a vote to restrict Trump under the War Powers Act. More than 60 members of Congress, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both of New York, called on the Trump administration to seek congressional authorization for any further action. At least one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, joined in the call. The Pentagon said that seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers deployed a total of 14 Massive Ordnance Penetrators — 30,000-pound bombs known as 'bunker busters,' for their ability to destroy facilities buried deep underground — against Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. The U.S. operation followed an Israeli campaign that began last week with strikes against Iranian air defenses and nuclear facilities, scientists and research facilities, as well as against military generals, ballistic missile launch pads and storage depots. While the United States and Israel believe that Saturday's strikes were a strategic victory, some concern remains that Iran may have removed critical equipment and materiel from its site in Fordow — an enrichment facility that had been burrowed into the side of a mountain — to an undisclosed location before the U.S. operation began, the Israeli official said. 'That remains a question mark,' the official added, while expressing confidence that Israeli intelligence would be aware of any other significant nuclear facilities. Addressing the nation on the attacks on Saturday night, Trump warned Iran that U.S. attacks could continue if it refuses to give up on its nuclear program. 'There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,' Trump said, flanked by his vice president, national security advisor and secretary of defense. 'Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight's was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes.' Across the region Sunday, the question paramount on observers' minds was what shape Iran's response would take. Iranian officials downplayed the strikes' impact, acknowledging damage to nuclear facilities but that the know-how remained intact. 'They [the United States and Israel] should know this industry has roots in our country, and the roots of this national industry cannot be destroyed,' said Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, according to a Sunday interview with the semi-official Tasnim News Agency. 'Of course, we have suffered some losses, but this is not the first time that the industry has suffered damage. … Naturally, this industry must continue and its growth will not stop.' Hassan Abedini, the deputy political director of Iran's state broadcaster IRIB, said the three targeted nuclear sites had already been emptied some time before the attacks and that they 'didn't suffer a major blow because the materials had already been taken out.' Other officials, including leaders in the targeted areas in Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, reassured residents there was no nuclear contamination as a result of the strikes and that they could 'go on with their lives,' according to a statement Sunday from government spokesperson Fatemah Mohajerani. The U.S. attacks drew swift pleas for restraint from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both of which issued statements calling on all parties to de-escalate. Iraq, meanwhile, said the U.S. escalation 'constitutes a grave threat to peace and security in the Middle East,' according to an interview with its government spokesman on Qatari broadcaster Al-Jazeera. Oman, a key mediator in the negotiations between Tehran and Washington, was more scathing, expressing what it said was its 'denunciation and condemnation' of the U.S.'s attacks. In Europe, as well, governments urged caution and affirmed support for Israel. 'We have consistently been clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and can no longer pose a threat to regional security,' France, Germany, and Italy, known as the E3, said in a statement. 'Our aim continues to be to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.' The last significant face-off between Iran and the United States happened during Trump's first term, when he ordered the assassination of top Iranian commander Gen. Qassem Suleimani in 2020. That attack spurred predictions of a furious retaliation, with fears of Tehran deploying its missile arsenal or activating its network of regional militias to attack U.S. forces and interests across Washington's footprint in the region. Instead, Tehran reacted with little more than an openly telegraphed ballistic missile barrage on a U.S. base in Iraq. Iran's options are even more limited this time. Much of that network — known as the 'Axis of Resistance' and which included militias and pro-Tehran governments in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Afghanistan and Yemen — lies incapacitated after more than 20 months of Israeli attacks. Allies such as Russia and China, though issuing condemnations of the U.S. attack, appear to have little appetite for involvement beyond statements and offers of mediation. And how much remains of Tehran's missile capacity is unclear, with the Israeli official estimating roughly 1,000 ballistic missiles – half of their capacity before the most recent conflict started – remaining available to them. Nevertheless, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned that the United States should expect 'regrettable responses.' 'Instead of learning from repeated failures, Washington effectively placed itself on the front lines of aggression by directly attacking peaceful installations,' said a statement from the Guard Corps on Sunday. It hinted that its targets would include U.S. military presence in the region. 'The number, dispersion, and size of U.S. military bases in the region are not a strength, but have doubled their vulnerability,' the statement said. The United States has more than 40,000 stationed in the region, according to Pentagon figures, and has bases in at least 10 countries in the region, not to mention a significant presence at sea. Yet experts say the likeliest scenario would involve disruptions to shipping lanes, with Iran leveraging its control of the Strait of Hormuz, an oil transit chokepoint handling a fifth of the world's energy flows, that is 30 miles wide at its narrowest point; or calling on Yemen's Houthis to intensify their harassment campaign of merchant vessels on the Red Sea. It a situation in which Iran has experience: During its conflict with Iraq in the eighties, Tehran engaged in the the so-called 'Tanker War,' attacked hundreds of Iraqi ships near Hormuz and entering into direct confrontations with the U.S. Navy. Shippers are already girding themselves for disruptions. But Danish shipping giant Maersk said it was continuing to use the Strait of Hormuz for the time being. 'We will continuously monitor the security risk to our specific vessels in the region and are ready to take operational actions as needed,' Maersk said in a statement. Wilner reported from Washington, Bulos from Beirut.
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Europe frets about US retreating from region ahead of NATO
With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former president Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. The stakes got significantly higher overnight after the U.S. struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region. Europeans have been kept in the dark about the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Advertisement Up until early June, no official from the United States had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. Advertisement It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the United States turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries, long reliant on American hard power, will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. Advertisement If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the U.S., is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. Advertisement 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. Advertisement 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said.
