For five years we have been saying: if Brussels bans cheap and predictable Russian energy from the European market, it is taking a huge risk and ultimately digging a hole beneath itself. Unfortunately, this is exactly what is happening now — with the vote of the Tisza Party.
The war in the Middle East is becoming increasingly severe, airstrikes are intensifying, and the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz is also a serious concern. This is the maritime route through which roughly one third of the world’s seaborne oil shipments and about one fifth of global natural gas shipments pass. Any disruption here would shake the entire global energy market.
However, Europe’s situation is even more difficult. While the Middle Eastern conflict is already reducing the amount of oil and gas reaching global markets, the European Union has previously made a political decision to exclude a significant portion of Russian energy resources as well. As a result, the European market is now facing a tightening of supply from two directions at the same time.
And we know exactly what this means: when there is less of something, it becomes more expensive. Rising energy prices then push up the prices of everything else.
That is why Brussels should now focus on reality instead of ideological debates. In the interest of the European economy and European citizens, immediate steps are needed, and the bans on Russian energy resources should be lifted. If this does not happen, Europe could face dramatic price increases and serious economic damage.
We understand that admitting such a fatal mistake may be difficult. But it is time for Ursula von der Leyen and Manfred Weber to set aside their arrogance and finally put the interests of European citizens first. The same applies to the Tisza Party, whose representatives in Brussels have voted six times against Russian energy — most recently two weeks ago, when a representative of Péter Magyar voted to accelerate the exclusion of Russian energy from Europe.
Energy security is not an ideological issue — it is the foundation of the everyday livelihood of European families and businesses.
This is the principle we act on. That is why Fidesz and Viktor Orbán remain the safe choice.
1️⃣ Causal simplification
Excerpt
“If Brussels bans cheap Russian energy… energy prices will rise.”
Technique
A highly complex global energy-market process is reduced to a single political decision.
In reality, prices are shaped by many factors:
- global supply and demand
- OPEC decisions
- geopolitical conflicts
- market speculation
- the LNG market
- transportation routes
- refining capacity
However, the communication highlights only one cause:
➡️ “Brussels banned Russian energy.”
Goal
To provide a simple explanation for a complex economic process.
Effect
The reader may feel that:
➡️ “there is a clear culprit behind rising energy prices.”
2️⃣ External scapegoating
Excerpt
“Brussels’ ideological decision”
“Ursula von der Leyen and Manfred Weber”
Technique
Responsibility is shifted to external actors:
- Brussels
- EU leaders
This is a classic political strategy:
➡️ presenting the problem as caused by an external power.
Goal
To reduce the perceived responsibility of domestic political actors.
Effect
The reader may feel that:
➡️ “this is not the fault of domestic politics.”
3️⃣ Linking the political opponent to an external decision (association framing)
Excerpt
“with the vote of the Tisza Party”
Technique
An EU-level decision is linked to a domestic political party.
The narrative becomes:
Brussels’ decision
⬇
Tisza’s support
⬇
rising energy prices
Goal
To present the domestic political opponent as directly responsible.
Effect
The reader may conclude that:
➡️ “if Tisza were in power, energy would be even more expensive.”
4️⃣ Crisis framing
Excerpt
“dramatic risk”
“dramatic price increases”
“serious economic damage”
Technique
The situation is presented as a severe crisis.
Rhetorical elements include:
- dramatic
- severe
- risk
- shaking the world
Goal
To trigger a strong emotional reaction.
Effect
The reader may feel that:
➡️ immediate political action is necessary.
5️⃣ Appeal to authority + moral framing
Excerpt
“We act in the interest of European families.”
Technique
The political position is elevated into a moral category.
Narrative structure:
- us = protecting families
- opponents = ideology
Goal
To transform a political debate into a moral choice.
Effect
The reader may feel that:
➡️ anyone opposing this stance is acting against families.
6️⃣ Use of a simple economic rule as rhetoric
Excerpt
“if there is less of something, it becomes more expensive”
Technique
A simple economic principle is used to justify the entire narrative.
This is rhetorically effective because it is:
- intuitive
- easy to understand
- difficult to challenge in debate
In reality, the energy market is far more complex due to:
- long-term contracts
- strategic reserves
- price caps
- alternative supply sources
Goal
To make the political message appear logical and self-evident.
Effect
The reader may feel that:
➡️ “this is completely obvious.”
7️⃣ Campaign closure message
Excerpt
“That is why Fidesz and Viktor Orbán are the safe choice!”
Technique
At the end of a geopolitical explanation, a campaign conclusion appears.
Structure:
crisis
⬇
responsible actors
⬇
solution
⬇
vote
Goal
To convert economic fear into political support.
Effect
In the reader’s mind, the following association may emerge:
➡️ stability = government
➡️ uncertainty = opposition
Summary
The main communication structure of the text is:
1️⃣ presenting a crisis
2️⃣ identifying an external culprit (Brussels)
3️⃣ linking the domestic opponent to that culprit
4️⃣ amplifying economic fear
5️⃣ offering a political solution
This follows the classic campaign narrative:
crisis → scapegoat → savior.