According to the young supporters of Tisza, there is no war. But there is. It is happening next door, and they want to drag Hungary into it.
To the best of my knowledge, the war in Ukraine has now been going on for four years. Yes, today marks the anniversary. How is it that we have only now reached the point—just a few months before the elections—where it has become a matter of existential security whether our grandchildren or our children will be sent to war?
You seem like an informed person. Open the Western press and read Manfred Weber’s statement from yesterday. Manfred Weber, President of the European People’s Party and the political superior of Péter Magyar, once again declared that he wants to see European young people in Ukraine, wearing military uniforms with the European Union flag on them.
Your Péter Magyar stands there, bowing and nodding in Munich with Anita Orbán, in front of Donald Tusk and Friedrich Merz. Like this, nodding along to the idea that Europe will go to war by 2030.
They say Viktor Orbán supports an aggressor. Is that what I see? What I see is Viktor Orbán defending the Hungarian people and Hungarian interests.
In Croatia there is conscription. In Germany they are already sending out notices for mandatory medical examinations. In the Netherlands they are introducing a “freedom tax” to fund the military. In Scandinavia they are drafting everyone. In Norway letters are being sent out stating that private property could be confiscated in the event of war.
Shall I go on?
🧠 Rhetorical–Propaganda Analysis
Narrative: “Real war threat vs. war-denying / Brussels-subordinate opposition”
Structure: Technique – Goal – Effect
1️⃣ Dramatization of Existential Threat – “Our children will go to war”
📌 Technique:
- Immediate, personal future framing: “Will our grandchildren or our children go to war?”
- Emphasizing the anniversary → increasing historical weight
- “A matter of existential security” → existential framing
🎯 Goal:
To transform a foreign policy debate from a strategic issue into a family-level existential question.
💥 Effect:
The audience does not engage in geopolitical analysis but reacts emotionally, out of fear.
This is classic fear appeal framing.
2️⃣ Appeal to External Authority – Manfred Weber
📌 Technique:
- Mentioning a specific name and position (President of the European People’s Party)
- Referring to the “Western press” as legitimizing evidence
- Visual imagery: military uniforms + EU flag
🎯 Goal:
To strengthen the credibility of the war narrative by referencing a well-known EU political figure.
💥 Effect:
Listeners may perceive this not as domestic political exaggeration, but as an openly declared plan.
3️⃣ Subordination Narrative – “Péter Magyar’s boss”
📌 Technique:
- Portraying the political opponent as controlled by external actors
- Descriptions of gestures (“bowing,” “nodding”) → visually humiliating framing
- Reference to the Munich context
Related figures:
- Donald Tusk
- Friedrich Merz
🎯 Goal:
To present the opponent not as an independent political actor, but as an executor of foreign interests.
💥 Effect:
The election is framed not as a competition between policy programs, but as:
“National sovereignty vs. subordination to Brussels.”
This is classic sovereignty-threat framing.
4️⃣ Chain of International Examples – “They are drafting people everywhere”
📌 Technique:
- Rapid listing: Croatia, Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Norway
- References to draft notices, property confiscation, “freedom tax”
- “Shall I list more?” → rhetorical emphasis
🎯 Goal:
To present wartime mobilization as a general European trend.
💥 Effect:
The audience may perceive war involvement as an inevitable process that can only be avoided through political choice.
This technique often operates via the availability cascade mechanism:
many examples → heightened perception of probability.
5️⃣ Moral Contrast – Orbán Viktor as Protector
📌 Technique:
- “Supporting an aggressor” vs. “defending Hungarian interests”
- Emphasis on personal interpretation: “This is what I see.”
🎯 Goal:
To morally legitimize the leader’s role as defender.
💥 Effect:
The conflict is framed not as a foreign policy dilemma, but as:
“Who will protect Hungarian families?”
🔎 Overall Picture
The text is not structured as a policy-based argument, but as:
- Fear-based mobilization
- Sovereignty-threat framing
- External control narrative
- Dramatization of family security
The political choice is therefore framed not as party preference, but as:
➡️ “War or peace”
➡️ “Our children’s safety or obedience to Brussels”