I think it's been convenient to blame Hungary, but the truth is, plenty of countries are unhappy about banning Russian hydrocarbons, with Germany leading the list. They can weather the consequences of their veto, because there isn't much will to make it happen anyway - i.e. there are no consequences.

I can imagine Finland/Sweden being very different. Who benefits/loses from Finland/Sweden joining? These countries are very well-armed, with large, well-trained armies, so they are a welcome addition for most. Baltic states must be delighted. Germany must be realising that hugging Russia for decades hasn't paid off, but it is in a clinch; its army has had decades of peacetime budgets, while they find themselves on the gas/oil hook. Hungary's own immediate neighbours, Romania and Slovakia at least, are quite wary of Russian threat and will welcome at least a diffusion of Russian targets in the area.

Would there be consequences to ruining the plans of US, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Slovakia and Romania, and many other countries? No doubt, and beyond what Hungary is prepared to pay.

But then what do I know? I'm an armchair strategist.

> Would there be consequences to ruining the plans of US, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Slovakia and Romania, and many other countries? No doubt, and beyond what Hungary is prepared to pay.

You can add Norway and probably Denmark to that list. With Finland and Sweden in Nato, all of Scandinavia becomes significantly more defendable. This would enable all Scandinavian countries to combine their defensive efforts, and would it make it extremely hard for Russia to attack any individual country.

And keep in mind that Stoltenberg is Norwegian....

> plenty of countries are unhappy about banning Russian hydrocarbons

But only one is blocking.

It only takes one party to block and there is shame in blocking, why would another country admit that they would have blocked if not for the vote of that shameless Hungarian?

Simple: there will a lot of focus on persuading that single country to change its position. And once persuaded (or "persuaded") it will be too late (and ridiculous) for the "secret supporters" to voice their opposition.

> why would another country admit that they would have blocked if not for the vote of that shameless Hungarian?

This may be true or not. Doesn’t matter. Those others waited. Hungary didn’t.

> I'll remind you that Russia is a democracy and Putin is a democratically elected leader, as much as Biden is. And people in the USA have much less trust for the democratic process than Russians at the moment.

Erm... huh? You cannot, not in a million years, compare the democratic processes of US or EU states with what's going on in Russia. I'm not even sure where to start. How about this then: Russia's premier opposition leader, Alexey Navalny, got poisoned with deadly poison known to be used only by Russian secret services, and almost died. Did Biden or Trump or any other US politician try to kill their opponent?

I suspect given that comment, we won't find common ground, but for others' benefit:

> It paid off incredibly well actually. Why do you think Germany is the first industrial power in Europe? Who's selling them all the cheap gas that keeps the industries going?

Germany decided to wean itself off atom and onto gas/renewables. That was a political decision, which drove energy prices up. France instead doubled-down on nuclear and is doing just fine. Affordable energy is achievable without Russian gas, just not overnight. For sure the going was good for Germany for a while, but now they find they are held by the balls.

It's not okay to poison political opponents even if they are just much a piece of sh*t as the poisoner.

But if Navalny isn't okay, let's talk instead about Russia poisoning Yushchenko in 2004 with dioxin...

Imagine Biden poisoning Trump for comparison.

I can't, but I can very well imagine any USA president carry the assassination of foreign leaders through the CIA. Actually no need to imagine as it's history, more and less recent.

> And yet, Russia has usually a higher voter turnout for presidential elections. Yet, Putin approval is at a sky high of 82% while Biden is plummeting at 42%, just the half

The most important mark of a democracy is the ability to get rid of unpopular leaders at the end of their term, as the US did in 2020 and may be doing in 2024.

The mark of a dictatorship, on the other hand, is that they subdue any opposition by any and all means available. When the totalitarianism is total, the leader will get 99% of the votes in elections and a similar reported approval rating. Those who do not support the regime and not already eliminated, are too scared to say so.

> Putin approval is a sky high of 82%

After all independent media got closed down, put to prison or killed. The vast majority of those 80% watch only TV, a brain washing machine telling the world is full of Nazis and NATO threatening the existence of Russia.

Everybody in Russia knows that for being against Putin you can be beaten up by the police, put to prison and whatnot. So how many dare to answer what they really think when they suddenly get a phone call from an unknown person?

I am sure both exist. The brainwashed ones who believe all the lies and those who don't dare to admit that they don't believe it. How the percentages are proably nobody has too good guesses.

> After all independent media got closed down, put to prison or killed.

Source?

> The vast majority of those 80% watch only TV, a brain washing machine telling the world is full of Nazis and NATO threatening the existence of Russia.

Source?

> Everybody in Russia knows that for being against Putin you can be beaten up by the police, put to prison and whatnot

Source?

> I am sure both exist. The brainwashed ones who believe all the lies and those who don't dare to admit that they don't believe it. How the percentages are proably nobody has too good guesses.

Source?

It is one thing protecting interest and an other abusing a possibility almost all the time, blackmailing allies and distorting group efforts.

Btw. the ruling party - practically means Orbán himself - is more like protecting personal interest than the contry's, likely (very likely) financial interests of self while the country's interest is completely elsewhere concerning both financial and the big picture.