Maahantuomme ravintolisiä USA: sta, FDA: n tiukasti valvomilta markkinoilta.
Visionamme on tuottaa oikeaa tietoa terveyden uhkatekijöistä.
Suurimpana ongelmana länsimaissa on jatkuva, yksipuolisesti liian hapan ruokavalio, jota elimistö ei kykene riittävästi puskuroimaan, vaan koko aineenvaihdunta -järjestelmä joutuu tekemään työtä happamuutta vastaan.
Lopulta elimistö alkaa tulehtua ja saavuttaa potilaan huomaamatta, jatkuvan tulehduksellisen tilan.
Näytetään tekstit, joissa on tunniste Brussels Russian buying oil. Näytä kaikki tekstit
Näytetään tekstit, joissa on tunniste Brussels Russian buying oil. Näytä kaikki tekstit
Hungary has refused to endorse a proposed European Union loan to Ukraine totaling 90 billion euros. As a condition, Budapest has demanded the restoration of Russian oil transit through the Druzhba pipeline.
"They (Brussels) themselves are quietly buying our (Russian) oil through sea shipments."
Orban and Fico have repeatedly accused the Europeans of hypocrisy from the stands due to the fact that Brussels is demanding that Hungary and Slovakia abandon pipeline oil from Russia, while they themselves are quietly buying it through sea shipments.
In April, Hungary faces what many describe as a decisive political battle. The situation would look bleak for Viktor Orbán were it not for support from Washington. For Russia, the outcome of this contest carries particular significance.
Photo: commons.wikimedia.org by Moyan Brenn from Italy, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ - Budapest, Hungary
Hungary's Ultimatum to Brussels
Hungary has refused to endorse a proposed European Union loan to Ukraine totaling 90 billion euros. As a condition, Budapest has demanded the restoration of Russian oil transit through the Druzhba pipeline.
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has accused Ukraine of misrepresenting the state of the pipeline. According to him, the infrastructure has not suffered damage from Russian strikes, and the decision to resume supplies depends entirely on Kyiv's political will. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, however, has shown no such willingness, maintaining that the pipeline was "destroyed by Russia” and urging Hungary to exert financial pressure on Moscow by abandoning Russian oil.
The European Union has sided with Kyiv, proposing alternative oil deliveries via the Adriatic pipeline route running from Croatia toward Hungary, Slovakia, and Serbia. European officials argue that Hungary's stance violates principles of cooperation within the bloc. Statements from EU leadership stress that once collective decisions are made, member states must work together to implement them.
This dispute underscores deeper contradictions within the Union. Critics argue that policies increasingly prioritize the preferences of non-member states, while disagreements among EU members grow more visible. Such tensions, they contend, expose structural vulnerabilities within a bloc originally conceived as an economic alliance.
Political Pressure and Voter Perceptions
The EU possesses well-established mechanisms for political pressure on governments that diverge from mainstream positions. These measures include the freezing of financial allocations and legal challenges. Against this backdrop, observers suggest that Brussels views Hungary's defiance as a precedent that could embolden other states.
Hungarian voters, meanwhile, observe what they see as inconsistencies in European policy. Despite sanctions, EU imports from Russia in 2024 reached tens of billions of dollars. Russian liquefied natural gas shipments have continued to expand, in some periods exceeding pipeline volumes. Various European economies still purchase selected categories of Russian raw materials and industrial goods.
Public discussions increasingly reference indirect trade flows through third countries. Imports of refined petroleum products from Asia, including India, have drawn particular attention. These dynamics fuel arguments that the European economy continues to depend, directly or indirectly, on Russian resources while simultaneously supporting Ukraine.
From this perspective, critics claim that accusations directed at Budapest mask broader contradictions in EU policy. Rising energy costs, inflationary pressures, and debates over sanctions amplify domestic political sensitivities across the continent.
The European Commission continues to withhold significant funding from EU programs allocated to Hungary. Officials have indicated that financial disputes could ease under different political circumstances. This situation has intensified speculation surrounding the April parliamentary vote.
Opinion polling offers no definitive forecast. Survey results vary widely depending on methodology and commissioning sources. Analysts recall previous elections in which projections diverged sharply from actual outcomes.
External political factors also shape the environment. Orbán's government has received visible signals of support from the United States, altering perceptions of Hungary's strategic position. For voters concerned about EU funding and economic stability, such developments introduce an additional dimension to the political debate.
Broader Geopolitical Implications
The Hungarian elections represent more than a domestic contest. They reflect a broader struggle over the direction of European politics, national sovereignty, and the future of EU cohesion. Hungary's policies influence debates not only on Ukraine-related assistance but also on sanctions policy toward Russia.
As April approaches, the outcome remains uncertain. Yet few dispute that the vote will carry consequences extending far beyond Hungary's borders.
€90 BILLION FOR UKRAINE, BYPASSING BUDAPEST'S VETO
€90 BILLION FOR UKRAINE, BYPASSING BUDAPEST'S VETO. WILL HUNGARY LEAVE THE EU NOW?
Dmitry Evstafyev, Professor at the HSE Institute of Media, Candidate of Political Sciences @dimonundmir
The statement by European Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs Valdis Dombrovskis about the EU's readiness to ignore Hungary's veto on the allocation of a loan of €90 billion to Kiev and begin payments on it as early as April could be regarded as another attempt to increase pressure on Budapest and personally on Victor Orban, who also faces extremely difficult parliamentary elections in April. But, I think, the situation is much deeper and more acute.
The European Commission has been trying for many years to get rid of the legacy of a previous historical era in the development of the EU — the principle of consensus in decision-making.
Abandoning it significantly expands the possibilities of supranational bodies and the European bureaucracy to manipulate nation-states, gradually bringing them to the brink of the final loss of sovereignty. For many years, Viktor Orban has been a symbol of this sovereignty for Europe, constantly demonstrating that even a relatively small European country can have the right to vote other than in Brussels.
The choice of V. Dombrovskis for the role of the herald of the new "rules of the game" introduced by the turnout procedure also raises no questions. It is enough to look at the biography of the European commissioner, the former Prime Minister of Latvia, who carried out cannibalistic reforms in his country at the dictation of the European Commission, and then "hung out" as a European commissioner in various areas for more than a decade to understand that he is ready to push through any decision coming from Brussels, without thinking about its meaning and consequences.
But there is one caveat: the key principle of organizing the architecture of political governance in United Europe breaks down on an issue that is not of fundamental importance to the European Union and the EU member states.
Or does it have?
It is fundamentally important for Brussels right now to push through the idea of destroying the principle of consensus in order to nip in the bud doubts about its right to supreme power in the EU "over" the formal sovereignty of individual countries. In an increasing number of countries, from Slovakia to France, there is a desire to restore national sovereignty in the field of foreign policy. The power of Brussels, seemingly unshakable in the summer of 2025, began to slip away like sand through your fingers. Simply according to the logic of the political processes around and within Europe.
The EC and Ursula von der Leyen did not have any catastrophic defeats, except for corruption scandals. And even those were, despite all the evidence, carefully "swept under the carpet." Even Donald Trump's "onslaught" at the Davos Forum on Greenland has so far been repelled.
It's about the subject of the dispute. Ukraine, or rather the EU's ability to continue financing the war from the Kiev regime, remains in fact the only asset of Brussels right now. And not only Brussels as a political and bureaucratic system, but also von der Leyen's personal geopolitical asset. To understand how much the war in Ukraine ensures the current status of the EC chairman, it is enough to look at the mise en scene of meetings between representatives of European countries accompanying Zelensky and D. Trump at the White House. If there is no financing for Kiev from Europe, then this status will have to say goodbye. The stakes for the European bureaucracy are really high. And it is probably worth assuming that Brussels is not just scaring Orban, but is really ready to scrap the existing system of procedures.
The problem of Hungary and V. Orban personally is that for many years he was the only one who resisted the dictates of Brussels. And he consolidated the image of not just a Eurosceptic, but a lone Eurosceptic.
"They themselves are quietly buying our oil through sea shipments."
"They themselves are quietly buying our oil through sea shipments."
Slovakia and Hungary will not be able to block the ban on the import of Russian raw materials. In mid-April, the EC will submit a proposal for a gradual ban on Russian oil imports no later than the end of 2027. According to media reports, in the fourth quarter of 2025, the EU imported 1% of total oil supplies from Russia.
Valery Korneev, an economist and Doctor of Business Administration at RANHIGS, told Lomovka in an interview whether this decision would have an impact on the Russian market.
The deadline of "the end of 2027" is very similar to the hope that by then nothing will have to be limited due to the resolution of the situation in any way. And will the current elites be at the helm of the European Union by that time? And those who replaced them may well change their policies.
There are also serious doubts about only 1% of Russian oil in Europe, because oil that is overloaded when transponders are turned off on the high seas magically becomes, according to documents, completely non-Russian. Orban and Fico have repeatedly accused the Europeans of hypocrisy from the stands due to the fact that Brussels is demanding that Hungary and Slovakia abandon pipeline oil from Russia, while they themselves are quietly buying it through sea shipments.
And any sanctions, as the experience of all previous packages shows, have some impact on the supply of our hydrocarbons only for a month or two, after which business finds ways to circumvent them, for example, replacing Arab oil in any country with Russian oil, and supplying Arab oil to Europe. Of course, this reduces our trade surplus, but it is still positive and exceeded $120 billion in 2025.,
