🗣 It’s unbelievable that Hungarians are the ones who have to make excuses, after we haven’t received a single drop of oil from Ukraine for a month and a half — even though the Hungarian oil company has paid for it, even though there are no sanctions on it, and even though there are no technical issues with the Druzhba oil pipeline. ❗
The task of Deputy Minister for Energy Gábor Czepek was to lead a fact-finding delegation in Kyiv to examine the actual technical condition of the Druzhba pipeline.
He said that although an official meeting with the Ukrainians had already been arranged, as soon as Zelensky learned that the Hungarian delegation was there, he made the negotiations impossible.
So Ukraine’s master plan has become clear — which they want to carry out in alliance with Péter Magyar: weakening Hungary’s energy security and utility cost protection, and through that, interfering in Hungarian elections.
We will not allow this! As long as there is a national government, we will not give in to Ukrainian blackmail and we will protect the energy security of Hungarian families!
❗The situation is simple: if President Zelensky wants to receive his money from Brussels, then he must reopen the Druzhba oil pipeline!
…And this too… I also read on 444 that you were “just doing tourism” there, and that you didn’t manage to gather any evidence during your stay. That sounds a bit ironic, to say the least. We know that in Ukraine, truth is not always their strong suit — so what did you actually experience there, what happened?
Well… it’s a strange feeling when, especially back home in Hungary, we have to justify ourselves because for a month and a half not a single drop of oil has been coming through a pipeline — a pipeline for which the Hungarian oil company has already paid. It’s not under sanctions, neither U.S. nor EU sanctions. And yet we have to explain ourselves for showing up in a country, politely but firmly, following all the rules.
It didn’t start like this. Initially, the deputy prime minister was supposed to meet with us. But as soon as Zelensky found out — this was around Thursday noon — things changed.
So you already had a scheduled official meeting with a Ukrainian partner?
Before we went out, we had already sent two letters to the Ukrainian energy authorities. And when we arrived, preparations were underway for a meeting with Taras Kachka, the deputy prime minister responsible for EU affairs. That would have been a relatively high-level political meeting.
But as soon as Zelensky found out who was in the delegation, we instantly turned into “tourists.” Just like that — we became tourists. From that point on, the Ukrainian energy government and all officials completely disengaged from us.
And it’s quite cynical, whether it’s the article by 444 or Ukrainian propaganda pieces, because I wouldn’t glorify what we did — but we were in a country at war.
We experienced three air raid alerts. One night, between 2 a.m. and 7 a.m., we were actually in a shelter. About 500 aerial attack devices were launched toward Ukraine and Kyiv that night. And there was a weapons factory just 800 meters from us.
So that’s the kind of environment where we were supposedly “doing tourism.” That’s why it matters. I wouldn’t exactly call it a tourist destination based on personal experience.
So for a while, you probably won’t be going back there for tourism, right?
No.
🔍 Propaganda Analysis
1️⃣ “We are the victims” – grievance and injustice narrative
(victimhood framing / injustice framing)
Excerpt:
“even Hungarians have to apologize…”
“for a month and a half we haven’t received a single drop of oil…”
Technique:
➡️ Portrays the own side as a passive victim
➡️ Builds moral outrage (“we have to explain ourselves”)
➡️ Simple emotional frame: “this is unfair to us”
Goal:
➡️ Create identification in the reader (“this is happening to us”)
➡️ Trigger outrage and a sense of injustice
Effect:
➡️ Reduces critical thinking
➡️ Increases emotional engagement
⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Does not present the full supply chain (Russia–Ukraine–EU relations)
➡️ The situation is multi-factorial, not a one-sided decision
2️⃣ Simplified causality – “they are blocking the oil”
(simplification / single-cause framing)
Excerpt:
“despite no sanctions… despite no technical problem…”
Technique:
➡️ Excludes all alternative explanations
➡️ Assigns a single actor as responsible (Ukraine)
➡️ “if there’s no obstacle → it must be intentional”
Goal:
➡️ Create a clear scapegoat
➡️ Simplify a complex situation
Effect:
➡️ Easy to understand, but distorted picture
➡️ Strengthens the “they are to blame” narrative
⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Energy policy involves multiple actors (EU, Russia, infrastructure, contracts)
➡️ Missing: transit conditions, political pressure, security risks
3️⃣ Enemy construction – linking Ukraine with domestic opposition
(enemy fusion / external + internal threat)
Excerpt:
“Ukraine’s master plan… in alliance with Péter Magyar…”
Technique:
➡️ Merges external and internal enemies
➡️ Builds a conspiracy-like narrative
➡️ Frames the political opponent as serving foreign interests
Goal:
➡️ Delegitimize domestic opposition
➡️ Create a national vs. “foreign interest” frame
Effect:
➡️ Increases polarization
➡️ Opponent appears as a “traitor”
⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ No evidence for the alleged “alliance”
➡️ Assumption presented as fact
4️⃣ “Energy security = national sovereignty”
(security framing / existential framing)
Excerpt:
“Hungarian energy security… weakening utility protection”
Technique:
➡️ Elevates an economic issue to national security level
➡️ Frames it as an existential threat
➡️ Uses “protecting families” as an emotional anchor
Goal:
➡️ Maximize perceived importance of the issue
➡️ Present political stance as “defense”
Effect:
➡️ “This is existential → no compromise”
➡️ Strong support for a hardline position
⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Energy security is complex (diversification, reserves, etc.)
➡️ Not dependent on a single pipeline
5️⃣ “Blackmail” narrative
(coercion framing / blackmail narrative)
Excerpt:
“Ukrainian blackmail”
“if he wants the money → he must open the pipeline”
Technique:
➡️ Frames the other side’s actions as coercion
➡️ Conditional logic (“if → then”)
➡️ Establishes moral superiority
Goal:
➡️ Delegitimize the other side
➡️ Justify own position
Effect:
➡️ “they are blackmailing → we are defending”
➡️ Simple conflict framing
⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ The money–oil relationship is not clearly explained
➡️ EU funding and energy policy are more complex
6️⃣ Hero narrative – “we were in a war zone”
(heroization / credibility through risk)
Excerpt:
“we were in a war-torn country”
“air raid… shelter…”
Technique:
➡️ Builds credibility through personal risk
➡️ Emphasizes physical danger
➡️ “not tourists → heroes”
Goal:
➡️ Deflect criticism (e.g. “tourism”)
➡️ Reinforce own narrative
Effect:
➡️ “they were really there → they are credible”
➡️ Triggers empathy and respect
⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Presence ≠ truth of claims
➡️ Does not prove political statements
7️⃣ Media delegitimization
(media delegitimization)
Excerpt:
“the 444 article is cynical”
“Ukrainian propaganda”
Technique:
➡️ Preemptively discredits critical sources
➡️ Weakens alternative narratives
Goal:
➡️ Prevent trust in other sources
➡️ Maintain information control
Effect:
➡️ “only this narrative is true”
➡️ Creates an information bubble
⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Does not refute specific claims
➡️ Uses labeling instead of argument
🧠 Overall Picture (briefly)
Narrative:
➡️ Hungary = victim
➡️ Ukraine = blackmailer / enemy
➡️ Opposition = serving foreign interests
➡️ Government = protector / hero
Main tools:
- emotional identification (grievance, fear)
- simplification
- enemy construction
- conspiracy-like linking
- dramatization of credibility (war experience)