❌ Neither Brussels nor the Ukrainian president can decide our fate over our heads!
In his open letter, Viktor Orbán stated that Zelenskyy, “Brussels, and the Hungarian opposition are taking coordinated steps to bring a pro-Ukraine government to power in Hungary.” That is precisely why the Druzhba oil pipeline has not been reopened — which amounts to outright blackmail, since there are no technical obstacles in the background.
❗ We will not allow Hungary’s energy security to continue being attacked! The Prime Minister has called on Zelenskyy to immediately reopen the oil pipeline.
No matter that they have been working for four years to force Hungary into the war, they will not succeed. We are on the path of peace, and we will remain on it. That is why only Fidesz is the safe choice.
Now let’s take a look at what is happening regarding the Druzhba oil pipeline. By now, everyone probably knows that no oil is currently arriving through the Druzhba pipeline because Zelenskyy’s government is unwilling to restart deliveries. On Monday, both Hungary and Slovakia stated that if the Ukrainians’ claim is true — that there are technical or engineering obstacles — then they should allow Hungarian and Slovak experts to go there and examine what can be done to restart the flow. Interestingly enough, the Ukrainians did not want to allow this, which is at the very least suspicious, in my view.
So today Viktor Orbán wrote a letter to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, urging him to immediately restore oil deliveries to Hungary via the Druzhba pipeline. He also made it clear that Hungary should not be drawn into the war between Russia and Ukraine. Although we sympathize with Ukraine, this is not our war, and Hungarians do not want to pay the price of it.
🧠 Rhetorical–Propaganda Analysis
Actors:
- Szentkirályi Alexandra
- Orbán Viktor
- Volodimir Zelenszkij
- Fidesz
- European Union
Narrative:
“Brussels + Zelensky + the Hungarian opposition coordinate an attack → energy blackmail → Fidesz as the force defending peace”
Structure: Technique – Goal – Effect
1️⃣ External conspiracy framing – “coordinated actions”
📌 Technique:
- Linking three actors as a single, unified and coordinated will.
- The phrase “coordinated actions” suggests a hidden strategy.
- Dramatization of a sovereignty threat (“deciding over our heads”).
🎯 Goal:
To transform the election from a domestic political debate into a struggle for national self-determination.
💥 Effect:
The audience does not see a policy dispute, but a “foreign forces vs. Hungarians” conflict.
2️⃣ Existential threat – “attack on energy security”
📌 Technique:
- Framing the oil supply halt not as a technical or geopolitical issue, but as a deliberate attack.
- Use of the word “blackmail” to trigger moral outrage.
- Claiming “there is no technical obstacle” as a fact, without presenting evidence.
🎯 Goal:
To evoke fear and a sense of injustice.
💥 Effect:
Energy policy becomes an emotional issue rather than a technical or diplomatic debate.
3️⃣ Rhetoric of suspicion – “at the very least suspicious”
📌 Technique:
- Implication and indirect accusation.
- “Interestingly” as a suggestive cue.
- Turning lack of proof into grounds for suspicion.
🎯 Goal:
To strengthen distrust toward Ukraine.
💥 Effect:
The audience “draws its own conclusions,” which is psychologically more powerful than hearing a direct accusation.
4️⃣ Moral superiority framing – “we are on the path of peace”
📌 Technique:
- Moral division: peace-oriented “us” vs. war-oriented “them.”
- A simple, emotionally strong dichotomy.
🎯 Goal:
To turn a political choice into a moral choice.
💥 Effect:
Anyone not voting for the governing party is implicitly positioned on the side of war.
5️⃣ Savior narrative – “only Fidesz is the safe choice”
📌 Technique:
- Dramatizing the problem → monopolizing the solution.
- Presenting one single safe option.
🎯 Goal:
To delegitimize alternatives.
💥 Effect:
Political pluralism narrows into a binary of “security vs. danger.”
🎯 Overall Picture
This communication follows a classic crisis-framing pattern:
- Identifying an external threat
- Linking internal “traitors” to that threat
- Dramatizing existential danger
- Constructing a moral dichotomy
- Positioning a single protector
The emphasis is not on the objective condition of energy infrastructure, but on the sovereignty–fear–protection triangle.