The next Hungarian government will decide whether we are dragged into the war or stay out of it.
We have been living in the shadow of war for four years, while Brussels and the pro-war forces would continue to support the destruction for years to come. Hundreds of thousands of lives have become memories, families have been torn apart, while the front line has barely moved.
We, the people of Budapest, know from our city’s history exactly what war leaves behind: ruins and mourning. Eighty-one years ago, the Siege of Budapest came to an end. Behind me, everything stood in ruins, and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Hungarians became only memories. Today, after four years of war, tens of thousands of our compatriots in Transcarpathia are living through it directly.
Millions have been killed or permanently crippled. Millions of mothers, wives, and children are grieving. Millions have fled their homes. Bankruptcy, crisis, hell — while the front line has hardly shifted in recent years.
While European leaders would send more weapons and soldiers, we urge peace. The Hungarian government can do nothing else but press for peace. Yet in Brussels they say no to peace and yes to war. They want to finance the war for at least two more years, demanding another 800,000 victims. They would send soldiers and aim to be ready by 2030 for a war against Russia.
It will depend on the next Hungarian government whether we are drawn into this conflict or remain outside of it. Viktor Orbán can say no — no to war and no to Brussels. Meanwhile, Péter Magyar has aligned himself with pro-war leaders.
We are choosing a destiny, not just a government. Enough of war — Fidesz is the safe choice.
🧠 Rhetorical–Propaganda Analysis – “War Shadow + Historical Trauma + Fate Decision” Narrative
Structure: Technique – Goal – Effect
1️⃣ Framing an Existential Threat – “We will be dragged into the war”
📌 Technique:
Presenting the election as a survival decision (“war or staying out”).
🎯 Goal:
To transform political competition into a security panic scenario.
💥 Effect:
Voters no longer weigh policy programs but react to perceived danger.
This is classic fear framing + survival framing.
2️⃣ Moral Binarism – “We want peace, they want war”
📌 Technique:
False dilemma:
– peace = Fidesz
– war = “Brussels” + “pro-war forces” + opposition
🎯 Goal:
To narrow the political field into two moral categories.
💥 Effect:
The debate becomes a loyalty test:
“Whoever is not with us is pro-war.”
3️⃣ Personification of the External Enemy – European Union as “Brussels”
📌 Technique:
Depicting institutional decisions as actions of a single, hostile actor.
🎯 Goal:
To dramatize a sovereignty conflict.
💥 Effect:
Creates a “Hungary vs. external forces” siege mentality.
4️⃣ Activation of Historical Trauma – Budapest ostroma
4
📌 Technique:
Evoking the devastation of World War II.
🎯 Goal:
To connect past tragedy with present political decisions.
💥 Effect:
War appears not as a geopolitical issue, but as a collective national trauma.
This is strong emotional anchoring.
5️⃣ Shock Through Large Numbers – “800,000 victims”, “millions”
📌 Technique:
Using specific high figures without contextual verification.
🎯 Goal:
To create the appearance of objectivity while intensifying emotional impact.
💥 Effect:
Numbers gain moral weight and feel convincing even without scrutiny.
6️⃣ Fate Rhetoric – “We choose destiny, not a government”
📌 Technique:
Dramatizing the election as a historic turning point.
🎯 Goal:
Maximum mobilization.
💥 Effect:
The decision becomes a moral obligation rather than a policy choice.
7️⃣ Personal Savior Narrative – Orbán Viktor vs. Magyar Péter
📌 Technique:
– A strong leader who can “say no”
– An opponent portrayed as having “made a deal”
🎯 Goal:
To turn a systemic political debate into a question of personal character.
💥 Effect:
Political evaluation is reduced to personal trust.
📌 Overall Pattern
The text follows a classic campaign formula:
external threat → historical trauma → moral binarity → exclusive solution
This is not policy argumentation but emotional mobilization.