❗War madness is raging across Europe. ❗
Andrius Kubilius, the EU’s Commissioner for Defence, recently spoke about the need to create a large European army numbering in the hundreds of thousands, which would be centrally controlled, bypassing the peace-oriented member states.
The Lithuanian politician defined the army’s primary purpose as the defence of Ukraine, while Europe’s pro-war leaders have already decided to deploy European soldiers to Ukraine.
The position of the national government is clear: ceasefire instead of escalation, peace negotiations instead of war.
Hungary continues to reject Brussels’ war plans—we will not send European soldiers to Ukraine. The Hungarian path is the path of peace. Peace, security, and predictability can only be guaranteed by governments that are trustworthy, loyal, and experienced.
In times of danger, FIDESZ is the only safe choice!
Hi, szandra! Hello, hello!
I have one more question—because the first piece of war-escalation news has already arrived, fresh from the press. I saw it.
Andrius Kubilius, Lithuania’s EU Commissioner for Defence, spoke about the need for a 100,000-strong EU force whose task would be to defend Ukraine, and that this would be done by bypassing peace-oriented member states.
What do I think about this?
I believe this fits perfectly into the series of pro-war statements that have been continuously coming from EU defence circles over recent weeks and months. Once again, this is about someone working to take one step closer to drawing Europe into this war.
Meanwhile, over the past months we have been working on exactly the opposite—above all, to ensure that Hungary stays out of such an escalation. We continue to say clearly: we do not want to send soldiers to Ukraine, we do not want our sons taken into a war, and we do not want our money sent to Ukraine either.
We want Hungarian money to go to Hungarian people.
So naturally, we will stand against all such pro-war pressure.
And what happens if, for example, a soldier under the EU flag clashes with a Russian soldier?
That is an excellent question—because from that point on, with the European Union effectively entering this war, we are once again facing an ill-considered and dangerous pro-war proposal. To make such a statement requires either enormous stupidity, saying it without thinking through the consequences, or immense bad faith—a conscious and deliberate intention to draw Europe into war.
I don’t know which is worse. But based on the statements made in recent months, I believe the latter scenario is more likely.
1️⃣ “War hysteria is raging across Europe” – apocalyptic opening frame
🔹 Technique: fear-mongering, exaggerated framing
🔹 Effect: immediate creation of panic and emotional urgency
🔹 Problem:
- no definition of what “hysteria” actually means,
- no evidence provided—only emotional labeling.
👉 Goal: to push the reader into emotional mode before rational thinking begins.
2️⃣ Andrius Kubilius – authority + distorted claim
🔹 Technique: appeal to authority + exaggeration
🔹 Narrative:
- “a hundred-thousand-strong European army,”
- “centrally controlled, bypassing peace-minded member states.”
🔹 Issue:
- it is unclear whether this refers to an actual decision, a proposal, or a policy debate,
- the word “bypassing” creates a conspiracy-like impression without evidence.
👉 Classic propaganda trope: “Brussels is secretly plotting against us.”
3️⃣ “Europe’s pro-war leaders have already decided” – collective guilt
🔹 Technique: overgeneralization + homogenization
🔹 Effect:
- differences between EU member states are erased,
- anyone who disagrees with the government is labeled “pro-war.”
❌ Factual problem:
- no names, no timing, no concrete decision identified,
- the claim “they have decided” is unsupported.
4️⃣ “The national government’s position is clear” – false binary choice
🔹 Technique: false dilemma
peace = Fidesz
war = everyone else
🔹 Reality:
- diplomacy, arms deliveries, sanctions, and ceasefires are not binary issues,
- several EU countries speak simultaneously about defense and negotiations.
👉 Framing: anyone who is not Fidesz is portrayed as “escalating the war.”
5️⃣ “The Hungarian path is the path of peace” – identity mantra
🔹 Technique: national exceptionalism
🔹 Effect:
- emotional identification (“we are different, we are better”),
- criticism is implicitly framed as anti-national.
This is not an argument, but a repeated slogan.
6️⃣ “Only trustworthy, loyal, and experienced governments…” – self-legitimizing closure
🔹 Technique: moral self-superiority
🔹 Problem:
- no evidence that only Fidesz fits this description,
- the statement is exclusionary: no other political alternative can be legitimate.
7️⃣ “In an age of danger, only FIDESZ is the safe choice” – classic campaign slogan
🔹 Technique: fear + exclusivity
🔹 Message:
- the question is no longer whether it is good,
- but whether you dare to take the risk.
👉 This is not security, but the logic of political coercion.
🧠 Summary – what is really happening?
This text:
❌ does not analyze EU defense debates,
❌ does not distinguish between proposals, statements, and decisions,
✅ but functions perfectly as a campaign message.
Primary objective:
👉 prevent voters from weighing options,
👉 and tie fear directly to a single political party.