Hungary expels 10 Russian diplomats as relations worsen

Steelman: both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Supporters of the expulsions would argue that a sovereign state has both the right and the duty to remove foreign personnel credibly linked to intelligence activity on its soil, especially once specific evidence has been assessed rather than acted on for political reasons. From this perspective, tolerating a large embassy contingent with alleged ties to Russian intelligence for years under the previous government represented a genuine security gap, and the new administration is simply fulfilling its basic responsibility to protect national institutions and citizens from espionage, however uncomfortable that is for a relationship that was once close. They would also note that Hungary has kept the door open to pragmatic dialogue, framing this as a targeted counter-intelligence measure rather than a rupture in relations.

The case against

Critics, or those sympathetic to a more cautious approach, would argue that expelling ten diplomats without publicly specifying the allegations risks being a largely symbolic, politically driven gesture that inflames tensions without demonstrably improving security, particularly given Moscow's warning that retaliation could effectively shut down Hungary's own embassy in Russia. They would emphasise that diplomatic channels, even with an adversarial power, serve a real function in crisis communication and citizen protection, and that unpicking one of the few remaining close relationships between an EU state and Russia carries strategic costs that should be weighed carefully against the security benefits, especially if the evidence has not been made transparent to the public.