Partial successes have been achieved by the Patriots. The situation is that something truly unprecedented has happened. Twenty-four countries have decided to grant war loans to Ukraine.
The problem is that war loans are meant to be repaid, and for that, the war has to be won. So the decision itself means that a large part of Europe’s leadership has decided that Europe must go deeper into the war. Now it’s no longer just about financing it, but about setting victory as an explicit objective—because only that way can the loans be repaid.
Frankly, the European leadership is in a terrible state. Many times I thought this was some kind of joke or part of a political game, but over the last couple of days it became clear that they are dead serious. They genuinely mean what they have been saying: that we must fight a war—and prepare for a war—like the ones our grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought.
But we Hungarians, for example, do not want this—and I believe others don’t either. This whole madness is simply incomprehensible.
1️⃣ Framing inevitability
“For now, it looks like Europe will not stay out of the war.”
This is psychological preconditioning.
It is not a statement of fact, but mood-setting: it suggests that
👉 there is no choice
👉 drifting into the war is inevitable
This is the classic “not today, but tomorrow for sure” logic.
2️⃣ Technical decision = entering the war
“24 countries have decided to provide war loans to Ukraine… which means going deeper into the war.”
This is deliberate concept-blurring:
- a financial decision ≠ military involvement
- a loan ≠ entering a war
- political support ≠ “Europe winning the war”
👉 A textbook slippery manipulation, where an administrative act is tied to apocalyptic consequences.
3️⃣ Constructing forced logic
“Loans must be repaid → therefore the war must be won”
This is a false causal chain:
- as if Europe were the belligerent
- as if Europe had to achieve a military victory
- as if no other outcomes existed (negotiations, frozen conflict, partial settlement)
👉 This is not analysis — it is psychological coercion.
4️⃣ The “mad elite” narrative
“European leadership is in a terrible state… they mean this dead seriously.”
This is emotional delegitimization:
- “European leadership” is portrayed as collectively insane
- irrational
- dangerous
👉 It does not argue — it diagnoses mental instability.
5️⃣ Activating historical trauma
“We must fight a war like our grandfathers and great-grandfathers did.”
This is the strongest manipulative element:
- world-war imagery
- total mobilization
- generational fear
👉 This is not a realistic description of the situation, but memory-political shock tactics.
6️⃣ “We Hungarians” – emotional appropriation
“We Hungarians, for example, do not want this.”
This is collective voice abuse:
- the speaker elevates their own opinion into a national will
- anyone who disagrees is implicitly “not truly Hungarian”
👉 A classic case of identity-based exclusion.
In summary
This text does not inform. It:
- instills fear
- suggests inevitability
- blurs key concepts
- triggers emotional reflexes
- weaponizes historical trauma
📌 This is not war analysis.
This is war psychology.