The key word of the next period — not just the next four, but the next ten years — will be security.
And we feel that we have been able to provide security for this country so far, and that we will be able to provide security in the future as well.
When it comes to concrete political issues, the key element of this security is war.
I have said this to you several times already: I participate in the meetings of the European Council, where European leaders are sitting, and a huge change has taken place there.
These council meetings have been transformed — they have become war councils, they decide about war.
I quote them: How do we win? How do we win the war? I could go on.
So everything has changed, and we must expect that now — not alone, but still only a few of us — are countries that, instead of the logic of a war economy, war loans, and wartime conduct, propose a completely different strategy for the European Union and for ourselves.
This strategy is peace, stability, peace agreements, and a peace economy.
Most recently, there were already three of us. And I believe there will be more.
My assessment of the situation is that across Europe, social movements opposing the pro-war elite are growing rapidly.
1️⃣ “Security” as a Rubber Concept
“The key word of the next ten years will be security.”
“Security” is never defined: military? economic? energy-related? rule of law?
Because it remains vague, every later claim can be retroactively attached to this empty frame.
This is classic frame-building: anyone who disagrees is automatically positioned as being “against security.”
👉 This is not a statement, but an emotional anchor.
2️⃣ Self-Justification Without Evidence
“We have provided security so far, and we will continue to do so.”
There is no benchmark, no comparison, no data.
Proof by assertion: repetition turns the claim into something that feels true.
Past and future are mechanically linked: if it supposedly worked yesterday, it must work tomorrow.
👉 Politics is turned into a matter of belief, not evaluation.
3️⃣ “War Council” – Dramatized Enemy Construction
“The meetings of the European Council have turned into war councils.”
A heavy metaphor that projects wartime imagery onto a political body.
No minutes are cited, no concrete decisions named → symbolic exaggeration.
The quoted line “How do we win?” is given without a source.
👉 The goal: fear + separation.
4️⃣ False Dichotomy
“War economy, war loans, war logic ↔ peace, stability, peace economy”
The argument is framed as if only two paths exist.
All intermediate options are erased: defense + diplomacy, sanctions + negotiations, etc.
The concept of “peace” is monopolized: anyone who disagrees is labeled “pro-war.”
👉 This is moral coercion, not debate.
5️⃣ “Few but Right” – The Chosen-Ones Narrative
“Not alone, but still only a few of us…”
Martyrdom and prophecy combined:
- we are few → therefore brave
- we will be many → therefore right
Future vindication is pre-granted.
👉 A textbook case of populist self-mythologizing.
6️⃣ “Growing Social Movements” – A Data-Free Crowd
“They are growing rapidly all across Europe…”
Who? Where? How many? Measured when?
“The people” appear as an abstract, faceless mass that only the speaker can interpret.
Bandwagon effect: if many believe it, it must be true.
👉 This is sentiment, not an empirical claim.
⚠️ Internal Contradiction
- “We are not alone”
- “We are still only a few”
- “Resistance is growing across Europe”
👉 Simultaneously isolated, exceptional, and representative of the majority—depending on what best serves the moment.
🧠 Overall Picture – What Is Actually Happening?
This speech is not really about war or peace.
It is about:
- identity construction (“we are on the right side”),
- fear framing (“they want war”),
- and morally shutting down debate before it can even begin.