Today, the quasi opposition motioned the formal legislation to vote on a formal bill introduced outlining the ratification of Hungary’s sister states in the EU, Finland and Sweden to NATO. (This bill was proposed by the supermajority of MP’s manually selected and controlled by Orban with power to amend, repeal and reinstate the formal constitution)

Despite their own formal bill, the formal speaker of the formal assembly denied putting the bill to a vote. Then the formal opposition moved to overturn the formal decision of the speaker by a formal vote, but the Orban supermajority formally voted to not put the question of the sister state’s accession to a vote.

What might possibly be Orban’s rationale to have his representatives in the formal legislation so cast their formal vote other than trying to give Putin a little more time to potentially turn the tide, and get everyone “reasonable” about whether NATO should want to let Sweden or Finland among its ranks?

  • I voted to close as the style of the post and the comment threads show that it is there to argue for a certain narrative, not out of genuine curiosity. Commented Oct 4, 2022 at 8:07
  • 1
    The question should not be closed as it is the most inquired-into aspect of the the question as testified by the discourse of Hungarians on Hungarian forums clearly demonstrating the answer is worthy of debate. (see "Fidesz-KDNP did not want to put the accession of the Finish and the Swedish to Nato" ("A Fidesz-KDNP nem akart szavazni a svédek és finnek NATO-csatlakozásáról ") 444.hu/2022/10/03/… […] Commented Oct 4, 2022 at 8:33
  • online translation to English: 444-hu.translate.goog/2022/10/03/… Commented Oct 4, 2022 at 8:33
  • Lots of comments deleted. Please remember that Politics Stack Exchange is not your personal blog. Please keep your personal political opinions to yourself.
    – Philipp
    Commented Oct 4, 2022 at 8:40
  • @Phillipp user Gyenge Adam has been haunting the questions I have made in connection with Hungary; he accused me of making a knowing false statement in one of them which, indeed, escalated quickly at that time. This time, he made a conclusory statement unsupported by fact or law; I cited the decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Baka v. Hungary which found that Orban used constitutional amendments to fire the President of the Supreme Court. This is a matter of law, not even fact let alone the subject of dispute. He doesn't he to soil my questions […] Commented Oct 4, 2022 at 8:47

1 Answer 1


There are probably two different rationales in play here that have nothing to do with giving Putin time, apart from me not seeing how that would benefit them anyway.

1. Display of Power

Even if they consider voting in favour of the ratification as their official line of communication still is, it will be important to them that it is them, not the opposition, who have complete control over the point of time and the whole formal process. Voting in favour of an opposition movement of any kind can always be taken both as a validation of other, related opposition positions and a sign of a lack of control and initiative from themselves. In other words: they make clear that it is them and only them who have a say in any political decision.

2. It is a political bargaining chip

The government of Hungary has but one interest and that's their own, as evidenced with playing either sides when it suits them. Accordingly, as all other NATO members rely on their ratification, they will try to maximise what there is to gain politically. Some weapon deals here, some money there. Probably, not all of the negotiations on that are finished yet, if they even made up their mind about what exactly they can and want to get for this ratification.

  • 1
    Why couldn't it be because Hungary is genuinely against Finland and Sweden joining NATO and want to play for time (helping Putin indirectly there)? I think this might also be a possibility. Commented Oct 3, 2022 at 18:05
  • 1
    @Trilarion That is a possibility, yes, but they voted in favour in the NATO committee session and repeatedly stated they will ratify it. So pure speculation there. Commented Oct 3, 2022 at 20:34
  • @PhilipKlöcking What "speculation"!? Merely a surmise possibility that it is not true. (See, for e.g., "No matter what Moscow does, Hungary’s prime minister consistently carries water for the Kremlin.” by Amanda Coakley, Foreign Policy, August 3, 2022, foreignpolicy.com/2022/08/03/… ; "[Ex-prime minister of Hungary]: I’ve seen documents that prove Orbán is being blackmailed by Russia, by Justin Spike, The Budapest Beacon, April, 2017 budapestbeacon.com/…) Commented Oct 4, 2022 at 9:02
  • See also: Putin’s Asymmetric Assault on Democracy in In Russia And Europe: Implications for U.S. National Security; A minority staff report prepared for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations U.S. Senate; January 10, 2018 govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-115SPRT28110/html/… Commented Oct 4, 2022 at 9:03

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .