Kyrylo Sazonov, a Ukrainian soldier and blogger, stated with a smile that Ukraine halted oil deliveries in order to increase Tisza’s chances in the election.

Brussels and Kyiv are colluding against Hungarians, thereby putting Hungary’s security at risk.

We will not allow this! Let’s fill out the national petition and on April 12 send a message to Péter Magyar, Zelenskyy, and Ursula as well: Hungarians are not to be played with!

Fidesz is the safe choice!

It is absolutely astonishing. A Ukrainian military blogger openly said that yes, oil deliveries to Hungary were stopped in order to cause inconvenience to Fidesz ahead of the election, because rising fuel prices would hurt them and help bring Péter Magyar to power — someone who serves the goals of Brussels and Ukraine.

1️⃣ Designating an External Enemy – “An Ukrainian soldier admitted it”

📌 Technique: authority framing + amplification of a single example
👉 A statement by a Ukrainian soldier-blogger is presented as if it reflected the official position of the Ukrainian state.
👉 One individual → the intention of an entire country.

🎯 Goal:
– To create the appearance of “evidence”
– To concretize the enemy image

💥 Effect:
The audience feels: “They admitted it.”

---

2️⃣ Conspiracy Framing – “Brussels and Kyiv are colluding”

📌 Technique: coordinated external attack narrative
👉 Multiple external actors (Brussels, Kyiv) grouped into a single hostile bloc.
👉 Hungary positioned as the victim.

🎯 Goal:
– To frame the election as a sovereignty struggle
– To elevate a domestic political debate into a geopolitical threat

💥 Effect:
Voters no longer weigh policy options, but think in terms of “national self-defense.”

---

3️⃣ Activating Economic Fear – “Fuel prices will skyrocket”

📌 Technique: everyday livelihood trigger
👉 Fuel prices = immediate, personal, easy-to-understand threat.
👉 Presented as a political consequence.

🎯 Goal:
– To provoke anger and anxiety
– To link price increases to a political opponent

💥 Effect:
An economic issue → reframed as a deliberate political attack.

---

4️⃣ Delegitimizing the Internal Opponent – “Péter Magyar is Brussels’ and Ukraine’s man”

📌 Technique: agent narrative
👉 Not portrayed as an independent political actor, but as a proxy.
👉 Framed as representing foreign interests.

🎯 Goal:
– To undermine credibility
– To turn the election into a question of loyalty

💥 Effect:
The question shifts from “What does he represent?”
to “Whose man is he?”

---

5️⃣ Mobilizing Closure – “We won’t allow it! Petition! April 12!”

📌 Technique: emotional climax + immediate call to action
👉 Anger → signature → vote
👉 Strong, combative language.

🎯 Goal:
– To convert emotional energy into political mobilization
– To consolidate the voter base

💥 Effect:
The message encourages action rather than reflection.

---

🧠 Summary

This narrative rests on three pillars:

1. External interference (Ukraine + Brussels)
2. Internal traitor (the opposition)
3. Existential threat (energy prices, security)

The election is thus framed not as a contest of programs, but as a moral battle about national self-defense.

So you’re saying that if a new epidemic were to break out, you would take your child or your grandchild to the hospital that clearly has a sign saying “infection raging,” that is locked down with padlocks — even though there is another hospital where there is no problem?

And then, when your child dies, you would stand up and blame everyone else — even though they show that the door was locked and you were the one who forced it open.

That is exactly what they have now done to 10 million people: despite repeated warnings, they went ahead deliberately — and when the consequences came, they stood up and declared that everyone else was to blame.
And you applaud them.

You know, most people would not have taken their child to the wrong hospital. They would have wisely chosen the safe one.

Quite simply, there is a Hungarian path — a sovereign path — represented in Hungary by Viktor Orbán, and in Europe he is practically the only one who represents it. He dares to say what serves the interests of the Hungarian people and what does not. It is not in our interest for Ukraine to join the European Union in 2027. It is not in our interest to send our money to Ukraine. It is not in our interest to cut ourselves off from cheap, predictable Russian energy, because that would send utility bills and fuel prices skyrocketing.

Opposed to this is another alternative, represented by Péter Magyar, backed by forces fundamentally committed to Brussels — and behind them stand names such as István Kapitány or Andrea Bújdosó, the leader of the Tisza Party’s metropolitan faction, who are openly committed lobbyists, for example, for Shell and for those energy companies whose interest lies in cutting off Russian energy.

In my view, these are the two alternatives, and in April the Hungarian people will be able to choose between them.

1️⃣ False Analogy – The “Infected Hospital” Comparison

Technique: false analogy
👉 It equates a geopolitical and economic decision with a life-or-death medical emergency.
👉 The image of a “locked, infection-ridden hospital” is dramatic, but it is not equivalent to EU, energy, or foreign policy questions.

Goal:
– To trigger emotional shock
– To portray the other side’s decision as irrational and irresponsible parental behavior

Effect:
The debate shifts from policy discussion to moral panic.

---

2️⃣ Moral Superiority – “If You Choose Differently, You Endanger Your Child”

Technique: moral framing + guilt induction
👉 It links a political decision to the metaphor of a child’s death.
👉 The opposing side is not simply mistaken — but irresponsible and dangerous.

Goal:
– To demonize the opponent
– To elevate one’s own side to moral high ground

Effect:
Anyone who disagrees becomes a “bad parent,” “irresponsible,” or even a “traitor.”

---

3️⃣ “There Are Only Two Alternatives” – False Dilemma

Technique: false dichotomy (two-option framing)
👉 “The Hungarian sovereign path” vs. “forces committed to Brussels”
👉 It excludes nuance and any middle ground.

Goal:
– To simplify the choice into a black-and-white decision
– To turn a complex geopolitical issue into an identity question

Effect:
Voters evaluate loyalty rather than policy programs.

---

4️⃣ Designating an External Enemy

Technique: external enemy framing
👉 “Brussels,” “energy companies,” “Shell,” “lobbyists”
👉 Domestic political debate is presented as foreign interference.

Goal:
– To activate national self-defense instincts
– To elevate an economic debate into a sovereignty issue

Effect:
The political opponent becomes a “foreign agent.”

---

5️⃣ Fear Appeal – Energy Prices

Technique: fear appeal
👉 “Utility bills and fuel prices will skyrocket.”
👉 No concrete figures, but a strong future threat.

Goal:
– To trigger existential anxiety
– To frame change as danger

Effect:
Security-oriented voters gravitate toward the status quo.

---

6️⃣ Personalization – Name-Dropping

Technique: guilt by association
👉 Specific individuals and companies are linked to political positions.
👉 Suggestion without evidence: “committed lobbyists.”

Goal:
– To undermine credibility
– To tie the opponent to economic interest groups

Effect:
Voters stop evaluating the claim itself and instead ask: “Who stands behind them?”

---

Summary

The text does not engage in a data-based debate. Instead, it:

• Uses strong emotional imagery
• Elevates political decisions to a moral battlefield
• Constructs a two-pole worldview
• Builds an external enemy narrative
• Appeals to fear and identity

This is a classic campaign communication structure.

❗ Shocking figures: every year, 400,000 people die or become disabled as a result of the war taking place in our neighboring country. This is not just a statistic — it is a real tragedy.

Yet in Brussels, they have declared that “this is our war.” There is no turning back, only escalation remains. And now they want to grant another 1.5 trillion dollars in loans to Ukraine, indebting every European, every Hungarian family. One thing we know for certain: we would never see that money returned.

👉 As for the pro-war opposition at home: may Tisza win the election the same way Ukraine repays this money…!

We stand on the side of peace and will not allow Hungarian families’ money to be sent to war.

🟠 That is why Fidesz is the only safe choice on April 12!

The Ukrainians want a Hungarian government that supports Ukraine’s EU membership, provides weapons and money, and would even accept human sacrifice if necessary. Today, Hungary stands in the way of this, and it sets a dangerous example for Europeans by showing that it is possible to say no.

Because we do say no. Cooperation is important, but fast-tracking Ukraine’s accession to the European Union would bring war and severe economic damage.

As long as Hungary has a national government, we will not allow ourselves to be dragged into a war. For us, the security of Hungary and the Hungarian people comes first.

The Ukrainians are using every possible means to ensure that Hungary has a government that guarantees three things: that Ukraine is admitted to the European Union, that it provides weapons — and if necessary, even people — and that it hands over a significant portion of its money. These are the three things they want. Today, Hungary is an obstacle to this. In fact, Hungary is a dangerous example, because it shows that it is also possible not to give in.

Hungary does not support Ukraine’s EU membership. This is how they behave already — and what would happen if they were inside? Not to mention that if we admit them to the Union, we also admit the war. There is no such thing as one EU Member State fighting along a 1,000-kilometre front while the others do not come to its aid. If one EU Member State ends up in a state of war, the others can hardly exempt themselves from involvement.

That is why we must cooperate with Ukraine and reach agreements with them — but we must not admit them as a member, because that would bring the war inside. And it would also ruin the economy.

1️⃣ External Interference Frame – “The Ukrainians want a government that…”

📌 Technique: sovereignty framing + external threat narrative
👉 The domestic political debate is presented as driven by outside will.
👉 The Hungarian election is framed not as an internal political matter, but as a clash of foreign interests.

🎯 Goal:
– Activate national self-defense instincts
– Tie the political opponent to a “foreign principal”

💥 Effect:
Voters do not weigh policy platforms; instead they ask:
“Who is trying to interfere in our country’s fate?”

---

2️⃣ War-Import Metaphor – “We would be letting the war in”

📌 Technique: fear amplification + metaphorical dramatization
👉 EU membership is not framed as a legal–political issue, but as a physical danger.
👉 “Letting the war in” equates accession with opening the border to a concrete threat.

🎯 Goal:
– Trigger existential fear
– Frame EU enlargement as a security risk

💥 Effect:
The debate shifts from economic–legal reasoning → to a survival-level concern.

---

3️⃣ Moral Ultimatum – “Weapons, money, even people if necessary”

📌 Technique: three-part escalation + shocking endpoint
👉 The list intensifies step by step (money → weapons → human lives).
👉 The strongest emotional trigger comes last.

🎯 Goal:
– Maximize the perceived stakes
– Turn the decision into a moral compulsion

💥 Effect:
Voters feel the choice is literally a matter of life and death.

---

4️⃣ “Dangerous Example” – Normative Threat Framing

📌 Technique: precedent-setting narrative
👉 Hungary is portrayed not merely as different, but as setting a “dangerous example.”
👉 The international conflict gains a moral dimension.

🎯 Goal:
– Strengthen internal group cohesion (“we are the ones resisting”)
– Construct a heroic self-image

💥 Effect:
Identity-based loyalty intensifies.

---

5️⃣ Inevitability Logic – “We could hardly opt out”

📌 Technique: deterministic argumentation
👉 Suggests that as an EU member, there would be no room for choice.
👉 A complex international legal issue is simplified into a binary inevitability.

🎯 Goal:
– Eliminate uncertainty
– Create a sense that “there is no alternative”

💥 Effect:
The audience is less likely to explore alternative scenarios.

---

🎯 Overall Picture

The text follows a classic sovereignty–fear-based campaign framework built on:

• External interference
• War threat
• Economic collapse
• Moral resistance
• National self-defense

It is not a policy debate about the conditions of EU accession,
but an identity-based choice:

👉 “Let the war in” vs. “Protect Hungary.”

❓️ Who benefits from the shutdown of Russian oil?

If there is no Russian oil and we have to source energy elsewhere, it will not be Hungarian families who benefit, but international energy companies, Shell, and major financial players.

➡️ People linked to multinational corporations do not enter politics because they are concerned about Hungarian families. They are not coming to protect utility price caps — which they call a sham and want to abolish — or family support financed from the bank tax. They are coming to reclaim their money. Including the 15,000 billion forints that the state previously collected from them in the name of burden-sharing. One of the key stakes of the election, therefore, is how much large international companies leave in the common pot and how much they take out of the country.

The “regime change” they speak about actually means dismantling the model that supports families, agriculture, and small and medium-sized enterprises. The real question is whether the money stays in Hungary or flows back to big capital. We want to keep Hungarian families’ money at home.

🟠 That is why in April, Fidesz is the safe choice.

Regarding the recent Ukrainian decision that there will be no Russian oil and we will have to procure it elsewhere — who will be the primary winner? Shell. Shell. We cannot seriously believe that someone sent here from Shell would govern in the interest of Hungarians rather than fulfilling the mandate of their own company and serving their personal interests.

Similarly, no one was sent here from international financial institutions because poor Hungarians lack capable financial experts. That is not the issue. They were sent to remove the bank tax from the country — the very tax from which we support families. They want to reclaim that money: first the 2,000 billion forints from the 2026 budget, then step by step the 15,000 billion previously taken from them.

Let us not be blind. Elections are often about political change and power — and about money. Not personal money, but the money of large international corporations. How much should they contribute to a country’s common good? What level of social responsibility should they assume? In our view, they must contribute — and significantly. They earn well, but a portion must remain here.

Those who come directly from these companies have always considered this contribution excessive. They have always opposed and protested against it. If they come to power, what do you think will happen?

Let us not be blind. What they call “regime change” would dismantle the structure of the Hungarian economy — the Hungarian model we have built — and replace it with a Brussels model, where money flows elsewhere. Not to families, not to agriculture, not to small and medium-sized businesses, but out of the country as dividends to large capital.

That is one of the greatest stakes of this election.

1️⃣ Identifying an External Enemy – “Shell Wins First Place”

📌 Technique: external enemy framing + multinational demonization
👉 The issue is not presented as an energy or geopolitical question, but as a situation where someone is deliberately benefiting at the expense of Hungarians.
👉 Naming a specific company (Shell) personalizes the concept of “big capital.”

🎯 Goal:
– Focus public anger on a clearly identifiable actor
– Turn an economic issue into a moral conflict

💥 Effect:
Voters do not weigh the realities of energy supply.
Instead, they ask:
“Who is trying to profit off us?”

---

2️⃣ Agent Narrative – “People Sent Here”

📌 Technique: sovereignty framing + questioning loyalty
👉 The opponent is not portrayed as a political competitor, but as a “sent representative.”
👉 Implicit claim: they do not serve Hungarian interests.

🎯 Goal:
– Undermine the opposition’s legitimacy
– Turn the election into a loyalty test

💥 Effect:
The question becomes not “What do they propose?”
But: “Who do they work for?”

---

3️⃣ Money-Recovery Conspiracy – “15 Trillion”

📌 Technique: large-number activation + dramatization of threat
👉 Repetition of massive figures (2 trillion, 15 trillion).
👉 A step-by-step image of “taking the money back.”

🎯 Goal:
– Maximize the perceived stakes
– Elevate the election to an issue of economic survival

💥 Effect:
Voters do not think in terms of policy programs.
They think:
“They want to take our money.”

---

4️⃣ False Dilemma – “Keep It Here or Send It to Big Capital?”

📌 Technique: binary framing
👉 Two options only:
– money stays with families
– money goes to big capital

👉 No nuance, no middle ground.

🎯 Goal:
– Create a simple, emotionally charged decision frame
– Occupy the moral high ground

💥 Effect:
The election is no longer an economic policy debate → it becomes a question of loyalty.

---

5️⃣ “Hungarian Model vs. Brussels Model”

📌 Technique: identity framing + system-preservation narrative
👉 The current system = families, SMEs, agriculture.
👉 Change = capital outflow, dividends, foreign interests.

🎯 Goal:
– Legitimize the existing governing structure
– Make change appear dangerous

💥 Effect:
Change is not presented as an alternative → but as a threat.

---

📌 Summary

The text is not a technical policy debate about energy strategy.

It follows a classic campaign formula:

• External enemy (multinationals, Shell, Brussels)
• Internal agents
• Threat of enormous financial loss
• Defense of the national model
• A simple moral choice

The core framing:

👉 Politics = a financial struggle between big capital and the nation.
👉 The election = whether the money stays at home.

Go, Attila Steiner! Hegyvidék wants an anti-war representative who does not bow to Brussels and will not allow Hungarians’ money to be sent to Ukraine! 🇭🇺
His opponent represents the exact opposite — Péter Magyar is a captured man who can’t say no not only to Brussels but not even to a drug-fueled party.

I wholeheartedly recommend Attila to everyone in Hegyvidék and Újbuda! ☺️

There are fifty days until the April 12 parliamentary elections, so the official campaign has begun. So let me welcome you here, Szandra, at the Fidesz office on Királyhágó Square, and thank you very much for being among our first supporters.

Well, I am truly very happy to recommend Attila with the best of intentions. I have known him for a long time, and this district would gain a very determined, reliable, hardworking, and decent representative in him. So I encourage everyone to vote for Attila — and first, to help him collect the necessary nomination signatures.

Beyond knowing Attila personally and being able to sincerely recommend him, I also know that as the Fidesz–KDNP candidate, he stands with the national side. Everyone there represents the position that we want to stay out of this war, we do not want to send Hungarians’ money to Ukraine, and we will defend Hungarian sovereignty.

That is what we can expect from Attila — and that is why I recommended him, with all my heart.

Thank you very much!
Let’s make Hegyvidék and Újbuda great again — Fidesz is the safe choice!

🧠 Rhetorical–Propaganda Analysis – The “Anti-War vs. Captured Man” Narrative

The text follows a classic campaign communication structure: personal endorsement + war framing + character assassination + loyalty-based identity construction.
I’ll break it down using the usual framework: Technique – Goal – Effect.

---

1️⃣ “Anti-war representative” – Moral Framing

📌 Technique: binary framing + moral high ground

👉 The candidate is not defined by policy or program, but by a moral category: “anti-war.”
👉 The election is framed not as a policy choice, but as a moral stance.

🎯 Goal:
– Elevate the campaign into a security issue
– Turn voting into a moral obligation

💥 Effect:
The voter no longer evaluates what the candidate has done,
but instead asks: “peace or war?”

---

2️⃣ “Does not bow to Brussels” – Sovereignty Narrative

📌 Technique: sovereignty framing + external enemy construction

👉 The political conflict becomes a question of national independence.
👉 “Brussels” appears as a faceless external power center.

🎯 Goal:
– Activate national identity
– Question the opponent’s loyalty

💥 Effect:
The debate shifts from policy to allegiance:
“Hungarian interests or foreign interests?”

---

3️⃣ “Magyar Péter is a captured man” – Delegitimization

📌 Technique: character assassination + insinuation

👉 Claims the opponent is “captured” without concrete evidence.
👉 Attacks the person rather than the argument.

🎯 Goal:
– Undermine the opponent’s autonomy
– Create distrust

💥 Effect:
The audience questions personal integrity rather than policy positions.

---

4️⃣ “Can’t even say no to a drug party” – Moral Smear

📌 Technique: scandal framing + reputational attack

👉 Suggests moral weakness without context or proof.
👉 The phrase “drug party” acts as a strong emotional trigger.

🎯 Goal:
– Provoke moral outrage
– Portray the opponent as unserious or irresponsible

💥 Effect:
Political debate turns into moral judgment.

---

5️⃣ “I personally know him” – Credibility Shield

📌 Technique: testimonial framing + personal endorsement

👉 The candidate’s virtues are supported by personal acquaintance, not facts.
👉 “I wholeheartedly recommend him” reinforces emotional trust.

🎯 Goal:
– Build credibility
– Create a sense of closeness and authenticity

💥 Effect:
The voter feels they are receiving insider validation.

---

6️⃣ “On the national side everyone…” – Group Identity Construction

📌 Technique: in-group vs. out-group framing

👉 The “national side” is presented as morally positive.
👉 The opponent is implicitly placed outside the national community.

🎯 Goal:
– Strengthen tribal loyalty
– Intensify polarization

💥 Effect:
The election becomes identity-based rather than policy-based.

---

7️⃣ “Fidesz is the safe choice” – Security Anchor

📌 Technique: certainty framing + fear contrast

👉 Uncertainty (war, Brussels, Ukraine) is contrasted with safety (Fidesz).
👉 A simple, memorable closing message.

🎯 Goal:
– Activate the desire for stability
– Simplify cognitive decision-making

💥 Effect:
The choice is reduced to:
“Safe vs. risky.”

---

🔎 Overall Picture

The communication is not policy-driven, but:

• emotional
• identity-based
• security-oriented
• and strongly polarizing

Core narrative:
Peace + national sovereignty + reliable person
versus
Brussels + war + morally weak opponent