For a long time the word \"peace\" has been used in a somewhat confusing way by some politicians.<\/p>\n
A few days ago I referred here to some words from Viktor Orb\u00e1n<\/a>, Prime Minister of Hungary, in which he spoke about peace in these terms: \"The European peoples want peace, order and prosperity, but the Brussels elite offers them war<\/strong>, migration and stagnation.\"<\/em> I already indicated then my opinion on those words<\/a>.<\/p>\n Orb\u00e1n affirms in Newsweek that NATO seeks war<\/big><\/p>\n Today I return to this matter in relation to an article by Viktor Orb\u00e1n published yesterday by Newsweek<\/a>, with this title: \"The point of NATO is peace, not endless war<\/strong>.\"<\/em> The article begins with these words from the Hungarian Prime Minister:<\/p>\n \"NATO is approaching a watershed moment. It is worth remembering that the most successful military alliance in world history started as a peace project<\/strong>, and its future success depends on its ability to maintain peace. But today, instead of peace, the agenda is the pursuit of war; instead of defense it is offense.<\/strong> All this runs counter to NATO's founding values.\"<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Later, Orb\u00e1n also comments the following:<\/strong><\/p>\n \"Today ever more voices within NATO are making the case for the necessity\u2014or even inevitability\u2014of military confrontation with the world's other geopolitical power centers<\/strong>. This perception of inevitable confrontation functions like a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more that NATO's leaders believe conflict to be inevitable, the greater will be their role in precipitating it.<\/strong>\"<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Orb\u00e1n does not mention Russia even once in his article<\/big><\/p>\n There is one thing that really caught my attention in this article: Orb\u00e1n talks about \"the war in Ukraine\", but he does not mention Russia even once.<\/strong> Reading the article, it gives the impression that Russia is like a big elephant in the room that is there but doesn't need to be mentioned, for whatever reasons.<\/p>\n Obviously, although Orb\u00e1n does not want to give visibility to the threat posed by Russia, that threat is there<\/strong>. If for the first time in a long time there are NATO member countries that assume the serious possibility of being involved in a war (including Poland), it is precisely because Russia has become the greatest threat to peace<\/strong> in Europe because of its invasion of Ukraine, but not only because of that.<\/p>\n European countries threatened by Russia in the last two years<\/big><\/p>\n Before the invasion of Ukraine, Russia had already invaded Georgia in 2008, a country in which it continues to maintain troops to this day<\/strong> in the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, controlled by pro-Russian separatists. Since the invasion of Ukraine, Russia has issued threats against Finland, Sweden<\/a>, Poland<\/a>, Lithuania<\/a>, Latvia<\/a>, Estonia<\/a> and Moldova<\/a>. The threats against Finland and Sweden were launched by Russia the day after the start of the invasion of Ukraine and led to these two Nordic countries, traditionally neutral, ending up requesting membership in NATO. In May 2022, the Russian Duma expressly threatened Poland with being the next invaded<\/a>, which has led that country to considerably increase its defense spending and increase the size of its Army.<\/p>\n When someone talks about the need for peace in Europe, it is very dishonest to omit which country is threatening that peace: Russia<\/strong>, and it is even more dishonest to present those who defend themselves against these threats as countries that are eager to go to war. Orb\u00e1n's words are equivalent to referring to a problem of bullying without citing the bully and criticizing those bullied<\/strong> for being willing to respond by force to any aggression.<\/p>\n What Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty says<\/big><\/p>\n On the other hand, it is worth asking what Orb\u00e1n intends NATO to do if Russia attacks one of its member countries<\/strong>. It is very good to talk about peace when there are no threats to disturb it, but when there are, omitting the existence of these threats to suggest peace at any price is an unserious speech that implies, in the end, giving in to the aggressor<\/strong>. Since Orb\u00e1n cites the founding values \u200b\u200bof NATO, the logical thing is to go to the founding text, the North Atlantic Treaty<\/a>, signed in 1949. This is what its Article 5 says:<\/p>\n \"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all<\/strong> and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked<\/strong> by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force<\/strong>, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.\"<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n NATO is not intended to appease any bullies<\/big><\/p>\n In his article, Orb\u00e1n states that \"NATO provides not only defense and deterrence, but also reassures external actors.\"<\/em><\/strong>. It's true. The North Atlantic Treaty, in its Article 1, states that the parties undertake \"to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means<\/strong> in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered\"<\/em><\/p>\n What Orb\u00e1n does not say is that NATO is not intended to reassure any thugs who are dedicated to threatening their neighborhood<\/strong>, as is the case with Russia. In that case, NATO's role is not to reassure, but to give protection to the member countries of the Alliance<\/strong>. If these countries have also decided to support Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO, it is for an obvious reason: if Russia manages to subdue Ukraine, its threat to peace will increase<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The reasons of European countries to support Ukraine militarily<\/big><\/p>\n Finally, democratic countries cannot be expected to stand by impassively at the atrocities committed by Russia in Ukraine<\/strong>, including the torture and murder of unarmed civilians, the torture and murder of Ukrainian prisoners of war, Russia's systematic attacks against the civilian population with the sole purpose of sowing terror<\/strong>and, ultimately, the claim that the sovereignty and independence of a European country be subordinated to the imperialist ravings of a tyrant.<\/p>\n After talking about the two world wars, Orb\u00e1n laments in Newsweek the fate of his country: \"These wars left Hungary with no control over its future.<\/strong> After 1945 we became an unwilling part of the Soviet bloc, and thus also of the Warsaw Pact.\"<\/em> That is precisely what Ukrainians are trying to avoid: becoming vassals of Moscow again<\/strong>, a vassalage that they already knew for many years and that even came in the form of genocide: the Holodomor<\/a>. The other countries of Europe have many reasons to help the Ukrainian people with military assistance, because the next ones attacked could be us<\/strong>.<\/p>\n ---<\/p>\n
\n