Hungary has voiced serious concerns about the possibility of allowing long-range missile strikes on Russian territory, warning that such a move could elevate tensions and pull Europe deeper into a costly confrontation. The remarks came from Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó during a press conference broadcast on a national television channel. He stressed that a decision of this kind would complicate efforts to maintain stability in the region and could undermine existing security arrangements in Europe.
He argued that approving long-range strikes would run contrary to Europe’s security interests, potentially provoking unpredictable reactions and increasing the risk of miscalculation in a volatile arena. The emphasis on security concerns reflects a broader unease among allied states about any action that could widen the conflict and pull in additional actors and interests.
NATO’s Secretary General, speaking to the public, indicated that allowing Kyiv to launch long-range strikes into Russia would not be treated as a red line by the alliance, underscoring a careful approach to extending military support while avoiding automatic escalatory triggers. This stance illustrates the difficulty of balancing solidarity with Kyiv against the risk of unintended consequences in a highly sensitive theater.
The day before, Russian President Vladimir Putin asserted that Kyiv would not be able to carry out deep strikes into the Russian Federation without satellite data from European and American sources. In his view, discussions about Western missiles amounted not to permission for Kyiv but to direct participation by NATO countries in the conflict.
A major British newspaper reported that the West’s decision to permit long-range missiles could lead to a sharp escalation and have dramatic consequences for the conflict’s trajectory across Europe and beyond.
Earlier, discussions in the Federation Council raised questions about why the United States would be reluctant to authorize Kyiv to attack Russian territory, highlighting the political and strategic sensitivities behind any decision to widen cross-border actions.