I have already made some posts about internal contradictions in nationalism (see here, here, here, here). The Financial Times recently provided two more examples in one issue. Before we consider the first example, remember that parts of Romania include a large population of Hungarians living in 11 areas from parts of Hungary. This is FT:
Victor Orban’s support for the ultranational candidate in Romania’s presidential election could spur a backlash from the Hungarian diaspora and risk the Hungarian leader’s own election chances next year.
Romania is home to about one million ethnic Hungarians, many of whom have dual nationalities and have important sources of support for Orban’s nationalist Fides Party. But many of them were incense due to his recent support of George Simion – populists with a history of physical and verbal violence against Hungarian speakers.
“Hungarian leader SEM is planning higher than the fate of Hungarians in Transylvania,” said Syrad Toss, a history professor at Babe Borii University in Cruzi.
Nationalism draws much of a power out of responsiveness to other nationalities. This has created a dilemma – Should nationalist leaders appear to match nationalists in other countries or minority groups that demonstrate their ethnicity?
President Trump frequently expressed his praise for Vladimir Putin. Brie’s authoritarian nationalist who believes that a great power should make small countries a domain. During his recent campaign, Trump suggests that by using his influence with Putin to squeeze Ukraine (which relies heavily on US aid), he was tied up to end the war in Ukraine almost immediately. The Trump administration even joined Russia, Iran and North Korea, and opposed a resolution that denounced Russia’s launch of a war in Ukraine.
Under pressure from the US, Ukraine will actually be added to the ceasefire, with Russia taking control of a significant portion of Ukrainian territory. However, Putin refuses to agree to a ceasefire, causing dissatisfaction with the Trump administration. Another FT story reveals the situation:
When US Vice President JD Vance was asked about the war in Ukraine at a diplomatic forum in Washington last week, the diplomats were hoping they would veil Magazine’s criticism of Kiev and sympathy for Russia.
Instead, I heard these completely different sub-colored colors. Vance spoke about the set of Russian proposals to end the conflict: “I think they’re asking for too much.”
The phrase “Magastyle criticism” refers to the fact that many people in the Trump camp live in another reality that Ukraine is due to the war and Zelensky is a blood-stolen dictator. But even those living in the epistemological bubble must ultimately face the reality that Russia is Chany.
Vance’s comments were part of a notable change in tone by the Trump administration. Susppan is surprisingly anxious for Vladimir Putin as the suspension grows, where the Russian leader, not Zelensky, may be hampered by peace.
“The US had this simple idea. Engage Russia and put pressure on Zelensky. We’ll make a deal,” said Wolfgang Isinger, a former German ambassador who Vance commented on the Let Week forum. “It turns out that simply attractive Russia is not enough.”
While President Putin may share Trump’s authoritarian nationalist perspective, he does not share Trump’s “America-first” views. Trump faces a dilemma. Should he align the United States with other authoritarian nationalists, or should he align the United States with other regimes that share our national interests?
The Trump administration has offered major concessions to Russia before the denial began, including a statement that Ukraine will not join NATO and an offer that the US has access to Russia’s Crimea acquisition. I’m not an expert
