The Tisza supporters are already in the pantry! – they snap their fingers in satisfaction in Ukraine.
Another pro-Zelensky analyst has revealed the truth about the war-supporting politics of Péter Magyar and his allies. Ljudmilla Pokrovcsuk said on a program that Péter Magyar would be a good leader for them because he would “befriend Kyiv” – he just cannot speak about it yet.
This strongly reinforces Zoltán Tarr’s earlier remarks; the saying “we can’t tell everything, because then we would fail” is starting to make more and more sense. We are once again hearing slip-ups suggesting that, if they came to power, Péter Magyar and his team would not be able to say no to the orders of either Brussels or Ukraine.
If in April we place our trust in the national government, we can stay out of the war and stand up for Hungarian interests – which is why Fidesz is the safe choice.
Another Ukrainian source also spoke about their connections with Péter Magyar. What do you think, Anna? Did you see it?
Yes, I did. Well, this only confirms what we have been telling Hungarians all along. And the Ukrainians have said many times that it would be best for them if Hungary’s prime minister were named Péter Magyar. And I understand very well why.
🧠 Rhetorical–Propaganda Analysis
Actors:
Szentkirályi Alexandra
Magyar Péter
Volodimir Zelenszkij
Fidesz
Tisza Párt
Narrative:
“An opposition favorable to Ukraine vs. a national government protecting the country from war”
Structure: Technique – Goal – Effect
1️⃣ Dramatizing External Influence – “The Tisza people are already in the pantry”
📌 Technique:
Cold War / 1968 cultural reference (“they are already in the pantry”).
Construction of an internal enemy image.
Portraying the opposition as serving foreign interests.
🎯 Goal:
To turn the election into a question of sovereignty:
not about policy programs, but about “external interference.”
💥 Effect:
The audience perceives not political competition, but infiltration and threat.
2️⃣ Appeal to Authority – “A pro-Zelensky analyst revealed their true colors”
📌 Technique:
Quoting a foreign analyst as “evidence.”
“Revealed their true colors” → framing as exposure.
Highlighting partial phrases (“he will befriend Kyiv”).
🎯 Goal:
To legitimize claims about the opponent’s intentions by citing an external source.
💥 Effect:
The audience may feel that “they themselves are saying it,”
so it appears as foreign confirmation rather than a domestic political accusation.
3️⃣ Suggestion and Conspiracy Framing – “We don’t say everything because we would fail”
📌 Technique:
Linking half-sentences together.
Quotations taken out of context.
Implying a hidden plan.
🎯 Goal:
To maintain uncertainty and suspicion without concrete evidence.
💥 Effect:
Emotional reaction (distrust) precedes rational evaluation.
4️⃣ Mobilizing Fear of War – “We can stay out of the war”
📌 Technique:
Binary framing: war vs. peace.
Existential threat narrative.
Moral appeal: “we can stand up for Hungarian interests.”
🎯 Goal:
To elevate the electoral decision into a security issue.
💥 Effect:
The political debate becomes simplified:
Vote for Fidesz → peace.
Vote otherwise → risk of war.
5️⃣ Repetition and Normalization – “The Ukrainians have said this many times”
📌 Technique:
Reference to repetition (“many times”).
Generalization (“the Ukrainians”).
🎯 Goal:
To solidify the narrative as if it were already a well-known fact.
💥 Effect:
The audience becomes less likely to question the claim.
🔎 Overall Picture
The communication relies on a classic sovereignty–war–external interference framework:
- Foreign actor (Ukraine, Kyiv)
- Opposition aligned with foreign interests
- National government as protective shield
Thus, political competition is reframed not as a policy debate, but as an existential and loyalty-based choice.