Anmelden
Viktor Orbán’s concession on Sunday following Hungary’s parliamentary election removes the most consistent single-state obstacle to EU consensus on Ukraine, and in doing so raises the probability of European escalation in a conflict the continent lacks the military capacity to sustain without American backing.
Orbán conceded defeat after early results showed the opposition Tisza party on course for a two-thirds majority, with Tisza projected to win 135 of 199 seats and Fidesz taking 57. Voter turnout surpassed 77%, the highest since the fall of communism in 1989. Tisza’s leader, Péter Magyar, a former Fidesz insider who founded the party two years ago, will become prime minister.
Orbán had functioned as a structural brake on EU Ukraine policy. For more than a year, joint EU summit communiqués on Ukraine carried an asterisk noting the position “was firmly supported by 26 heads of state or government” rather than all 27, because Orbán refused to sign any statement backing Kyiv. He vetoed a €90 billion EU loan to Ukraine, tying the bloc to a dispute over a damaged pipeline carrying Russian oil. He also blocked a 6.6 billion euro lethal aid package from the EU’s European Peace Facility, satellite image sharing with Ukraine, and EU accession talks for Kyiv.
Magyar stated Monday that Hungary would maintain its opt-out from participating in the €90 billion (approximately $100 billion) loan financially but would not veto it, allowing the EU to proceed. His personal reservations about weapons transfers and Ukraine’s EU accession bid are structurally irrelevant. Measures requiring unanimity were blocked by Orbán. Magyar will not block them. The brake is gone.
The significance of Orbán’s removal is that, without a veto blocking consensus, the EU is more likely to agree on additional weapons, money, and equipment transfers to Ukraine. That trajectory increases the probability of a Russian reaction. The question is whether European leaders have accurately calculated the risk.
European behavior suggests they have not. Countries that genuinely believe they must confront a nuclear-armed adversary, the world’s number-two military power, alone would be pushing for negotiations, not escalation.
The fact that Europe continues to increase support for Ukraine and celebrates Magyar’s victory indicates European leaders privately calculate that American intervention remains available despite the Trump administration’s rhetoric. That calculation may be wrong. When the Strait of Hormuz was threatened, and European energy security was directly at stake, Europe did not mobilize a naval coalition to support the U.S.
Even if they did not want to support Trump, they should have been willing to fight for their own oil and their own self-interest, but they were not. A bloc unwilling to deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and face Iran, which lacks a navy, in order to protect its own oil supply, is not a bloc prepared to fight Russia, the world’s number-two military power, over Ukrainian territory.
Trump has considered withdrawing the US from NATO and has stated he no longer wants involvement in the Ukraine war. The only basis on which Europe might still expect American intervention in a full-scale war with Russia is Article 5. But Article 5 is a collective defense obligation triggered by an external attack on a member state. It does not apply if NATO member actions provoke a Russian response.
If escalating weapons transfers or intelligence support crosses Russian red lines and Moscow retaliates, the legal and political basis for invoking Article 5 becomes contested. Russia has already argued that Western weapons used to strike Russian territory constitute co-belligerence. A substantial number of European countries are not NATO members, and Russia could strike any of them without triggering Article 5 at all.
There has been a lot of hollow talk from Canada and Europe about going it alone without the U.S. Most European militaries spent three decades configured for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, not peer warfare. Their doctrine, training, and institutional culture reflect that.
In Afghanistan, at the peak, roughly 40,000 of the 130,000 troops were non-American, the majority European. Many were restricted by their own governments from engaging in combat and instead focused on reconstruction, training, base security, and logistics. British combat deaths exceeded those of 26 other EU nations combined.
The UK suffered 454 deaths, including 404 killed in action, along with 615 seriously wounded and 2,187 wounded in action, with troop levels peaking at 9,500. In total, more than 850 non-U.S. NATO personnel were killed in Afghanistan, compared to over 2,400 Americans.
The Texas National Guard alone deployed approximately 23,000 personnel to Iraq and Afghanistan, maintained 3,000 to 5,000 troops in theater each year in an almost continuous cycle from 2001 onward, held divisional-level command in both wars, and operated without national caveats restricting combat. That is a single American state’s part-time force.
European naval capacity presents the same problem at sea. Europe fields six aircraft carriers on paper, two each for the UK and Italy, one each for France and Spain, but realistically 2-3 are operational at any given time. The Royal Navy operated without a carrier from 2014 to 2021. Spain decommissioned its dedicated carrier without replacement.
The number of UK Type 23 frigates available for operations at any given time fluctuates between five and six hulls out of eight nominally in service. During the 2011 Libya operation, against a military that was not a peer adversary, European coalition members quickly exhausted their supply of naval cruise missiles.
European nuclear submarine capacity is concentrated entirely in two countries. The UK operates 10 nuclear submarines, comprising 4 Vanguard-class ballistic missile boats and 6 nuclear attack submarines, with a sixth Astute-class commissioned in 2025 and a seventh expected in 2026. France operates 10, comprising 4 Le Triomphant-class ballistic missile submarines and 6 Barracuda-class nuclear attack submarines, with all six to be delivered by 2030 and approximately 4-5 currently operational.
Every other European country operates zero nuclear submarines. Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Norway, the Netherlands, Poland, Denmark, and Portugal rely entirely on conventional diesel-electric boats that must surface or snorkel regularly, have limited range, and cannot sustain prolonged open-ocean operations. Europe’s total operational nuclear submarine force is approximately 18-20 vessels, split between two countries. The US Navy alone operates more than 50 nuclear submarines.
Even if Europe had the submarines, aircraft carriers, manpower, weapons, and munitions to take on Russia, European defense continues to depend on American logistics, intelligence, satellites, and nuclear deterrence. In short, Europe doesn’t stand a chance against Russia without U.S. backing.
Europe is making political decisions that increase the probability of conflict with a military power it cannot independently confront. With Orbán gone, there is no longer an institutional mechanism inside the EU to slow that process down.
The post With Hungary’s Orbán Gone, Europe May Escalate in Ukraine, Triggering a War Without U.S. Backing appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
During an appearance on NewsMax2's "News Now," Breitbart News social media director Wynton Hall, author of Code Red: The Left, the Right, China, and the Race to Control AI, argued for beating China without "becoming China" regarding artificial intelligence.
The post ‘Code Red’ Author Wynton Hall on AI: ‘We Have to Beat China Without Becoming China’ appeared first on Breitbart.
Miguel Díaz-Canel, the figurehead “President” of Cuba, claimed to NBC that any military attempt from the United States to depose him would be met by Cubans willing to die for the communist regime that has oppressed them for 67 years.
The post Miguel Díaz-Canel: Cubans ‘Would Die’ Defending the Communist Regime if U.S. Ousts Him appeared first on Breitbart.
A crew member of Artemis II got a warm welcome from her four-legged friend when she returned from circling the moon.
The post WATCH: Artemis II Astronaut Christina Koch Reunites with Dog Who ‘Loved Her to the Moon and Back’ appeared first on Breitbart.
A family cat that went missing in California several years ago has since been found, thanks to a kindhearted rescuer and a microchip.
The post VIDEO — ‘He’s Finally Home’: California Cat Lost for Seven Years Reunited with Family in Florida appeared first on Breitbart.
Western democracies, including the UK, France, Canada and Australia, are facing backlash after allowing Iran and other authoritarian regimes to secure seats on influential United Nations (U.N.) bodies, with the United States standing alone in opposition.
The controversy stems from decisions by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), a 54-member body that plays a central role in shaping U.N. policy and staffing key committees.
Critics warn the outcome could allow governments accused of human rights abuses to influence global policy and control which civil society groups are granted access to the United Nations.
TERROR SPONSOR IRAN GETS UN LEADERSHIP OVERSEEING CHARTER PRINCIPLES
ECOSOC nominated the Islamic Republic of Iran to the U.N.’s Committee for Program and Coordination Wednesday, a body that helps shape policy on human rights, women’s rights, disarmament and counterterrorism.
The nomination is widely expected to be finalized, as the United Nations General Assembly typically approves such recommendations without a vote.
At the same session, ECOSOC elected China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia and Sudan to the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, which oversees accreditation and access for thousands of NGOs operating within the U.N. system.
The United States was the only member state to formally break from consensus.
MIKE WALTZ TURNS TABLES ON IRANIAN ENVOY AT HEATED UN MEETING
In remarks delivered April 8, U.S. Representative to ECOSOC Ambassador Dan Negrea said the U.S. "disassociates from consensus" on both decisions, calling several of the countries involved unfit for such roles.
"The regime threatens its neighbors and has, for decades, infringed on the Iranian people’s ability to exercise their basic human rights," Negrea said, adding that "we believe Iran is unfit to serve" on the committee.
The decision drew sharp criticism from UN Watch, a Geneva-based watchdog group.
Hillel Neuer told Fox News Digital: "By their cynical actions at the UN, major Western states have betrayed their own human rights principles, severely undermining the rules-based international order that they claim to support."
"We note that the EU states clearly had another option. They did take action in recent years to stop Russia from getting elected to similar bodies, and so we deeply regret that they failed to do the same now to stop the election of serial violators such as Iran, China, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia and Sudan."
"We salute the United States for their moral clarity and leadership in objecting to the election of the Islamic Republic of Iran and other brutal regimes."
Neuer warned the composition of the NGO committee could allow authoritarian governments to influence which organizations are accredited, potentially sidelining independent human rights groups.
"This means dictatorships will have a majority on the committee in order to deny United Nations accreditation to independent organizations that call out their human rights violations, and to accredit more fake front groups created by the regimes," he said.
Israel’s mission to the United Nations also pointed to political tensions surrounding the vote, saying Iran attempted to challenge Israel’s candidacy during the same ECOSOC session.
AMBASSADOR MIKE WALTZ LAYS OUT ‘AMERICA FIRST’ VISION FOR US LEADERSHIP AT THE UN
Israel was elected to several U.N. bodies, according to the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations, including the Commission on the Status of Women and the NGO Committee, despite opposition.
"Iran also tried to turn the elections at the UN into an arena for incitement against Israel and failed," Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon said. "Those who oppress women and trample on human rights in their own country will not teach us what women's rights are."
Ahead of the vote, around 70 civil society groups warned that countries with poor human rights records could secure seats on key oversight bodies, but the elections proceeded without a formal vote, a process known as approval "by acclamation."
Critics argue that this procedure allows controversial candidates to secure influential roles with limited transparency or accountability.
The developments are likely to intensify scrutiny over how U.N. bodies are staffed and whether political considerations are outweighing human rights concerns.
Fox News Digital reached out to the UK, France, Canada, Australia and U.S. mission for comment but did not receive responses in time for publication.
The Iranian mission to the United Nations declined to comment.
The United States began enforcing a naval blockade targeting Iranian maritime traffic Monday, sharply escalating tensions in the Gulf just hours after high-level talks in Pakistan between Washington and Tehran collapsed without a deal.
The move, announced by President Donald Trump, came after negotiations in Islamabad ended without a breakthrough, despite what participants described as rare direct engagement between the two sides.
But Lt. Gen. (ret.) Mohammed Saeed, former chief of general staff of the Pakistan Army, said in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital that the talks came far closer to success than their outcome suggests — and argued that diplomacy is still within reach.
"Both sides are saying they were very close … even inches away from a solution," he said based on his own knowledge and reports. Saeed retired in 2023 but remained part of the core team handling operational planning, internal security coordination, and sensitive periods of political tension.
JD VANCE RETURNS TO WASHINGTON AFTER 16 HOURS OF IRAN PEACE TALKS COLLAPSE IN PAKISTAN
"They talked to each other in a very friendly manner. There was, from both sides, an expression of accommodation and understanding from each other. So, what you can briefly say is that the engagement has sufficient potential to resume."
Speaking at the White House Monday, Trump defended the blockade, saying, "Right now, there’s no fighting. Right now, we have a blockade … Iran is doing absolutely no business, and we’re going to keep it that way very easily."
He added that Iran’s military capabilities had been significantly degraded, saying its "Navy has gone, their air force is gone, their anti-aircraft is gone, their radar is gone and their leaders are gone."
Vice President JD Vance, who led the U.S. delegation, pressed Iran to accept a strict "zero enrichment" policy and remove its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
"The simple fact is that we need to see an affirmative commitment that they will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon," Vance said at a press conference in Islamabad.
Iranian leaders rejected those demands, insisting that any agreement must include the immediate release of billions of dollars in frozen assets.
Now, with the blockade in place, Saeed suggested the move may be designed less as a military endgame and more as leverage.
"This blockade could be … a maneuver to build further pressure on Iran to negotiate," he said.
TRUMP WARNS CHINA OF 'STAGGERING' 50% TARIFF IF CAUGHT SUPPLYING MILITARY AID TO IRAN
The escalation has raised concerns globally, particularly for countries dependent on Gulf energy flows, including Pakistan.
"Everyone in the world must be worried about what kind of economic negative spin-offs such a blockade would have," Saeed said.
Saeed, who until recently sat at the center of Pakistan’s military leadership, framed the Islamabad talks as a critical reopening of dialogue after decades of hostility.
"It is the first time in 47 years … that there was engagement at the highest level," he said, calling it "a great moment for diplomacy" and a demonstration of Pakistan’s ability to maintain credibility with both Washington and Tehran.
He pointed in particular to Pakistan’s army chief, Asim Munir, a figure who has drawn unusual attention in Washington.
Trump has publicly praised Munir, at one point calling him his "favorite field marshal," elevating his profile as a key intermediary in regional diplomacy.
Munir, who rose through Pakistan’s intelligence ranks before becoming army chief, previously served as director general of military intelligence and later led the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). His career has been defined by deep involvement in regional security and intelligence coordination, including longstanding engagement with Iran.
‘GATE OF TEARS’ AT RISK: IRAN THREATENS MAJOR NEW GLOBAL CHOKEPOINT IF US MOVES ON HORMUZ
Those ties could prove critical in the current crisis, according to Saeed.
"What people do not know is that when he was director general of military intelligence … he was interacting with Iranians at multiple levels continuously," Saeed said, describing years of direct engagement with Iran’s military, intelligence and political leadership, including former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Qassem Soleimani, who was killed in a U.S. strike during Trump’s first term.
"He has had interaction with them for a long time … visiting Iran frequently and interacting on multiple issues," Saeed said, adding that many current Iranian officials would already be familiar with Munir from earlier roles.
That continuity, he argued, gives Pakistan a rare advantage at a moment when formal diplomatic channels are strained.
"What one can say is that he continues to be one figure internationally who has a personal interaction … in the intelligence community in Iran in the military hierarchy and also on the side of the political leadership," Saeed said.
"So that’s a huge advantage he has on the other side."
TRUMP VOICES FRUSTRATION WITH NATO, SAYS IRANIAN NAVY ‘DESTROYED’ AS US PREPS FOR BLOCKADE
For Pakistan, that personal access — combined with its simultaneous relationship with Washington — has become central to its effort to position itself as a credible intermediary, even as the region edges closer to confrontation.
At the same time, Pakistan’s role as a mediator has drawn scrutiny, particularly given its longstanding position on Israel and recent inflammatory remarks by senior officials.
When asked whether Pakistan can be seen as a neutral broker while not recognizing Israel — an actor directly involved in strikes on Iran — Saeed downplayed the issue, saying Israel was not part of the diplomatic track.
"Pakistan’s position with regard to relations with Israel has been consistent since our independence," he said, adding that Islamabad’s mediation efforts were focused solely on Washington and Tehran.
"Neither of their representatives was on the table … Pakistan was mediating between the U.S. and Iran," he said.
Despite the current escalation, Saeed maintained that diplomatic channels remain open.
"There is a lot of space … for resuming the process," he said, suggesting talks could restart in Islamabad or elsewhere if both sides shift course.
"On Pakistan's side, from my personal knowledge of the field marshal, they are relentless. They would not give up. They must not have given up. They must be continuously in touch with both sides. And they would try their best to convince both sides that the blockade is not going to be in their interest, in the interest of the region and in the interest of the international community."
