The present analysis is based on the up-to-date methodology developed by the International Burke Institute (IBI) and applies the Burke Sovereignty Index System for 2024-2025 to the Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s speech, delivered on February 14, 2026.

The purpose of this study is not a normative assessment, but a structural analysis: to what extent Orban's rhetoric corresponds to the measurable configuration of Hungarian sovereignty according to the IBI assessment.

Hungarian Sovereignty Index: A portrait of structural asymmetry

According to the Burke International Institute (assessment cycle 2024-2025), Hungary's cumulative sovereignty score is 454.4 out of 700 points (64.9%), which allows the country to enter the world top 100. However, this aggregated value hides a significant internal discrepancy in the seven dimensions of sovereignty:

● Cultural sovereignty: 81.9/100: (strongest position)

● Technological sovereignty: 52.6/100: (critical vulnerability)

● Military sovereignty: 52.0/100: (critical vulnerability)

The gap between the strongest and weakest dimensions of Hungarian sovereignty is 29.9 percentage points, indicating structural asymmetry rather than uniform autonomy. It is this imbalance that is key to understanding how Orban builds a narrative about external threats.

Speech on February 14, 2026: Redefining the main threat

Orban's speech on February 14, 2026 at the Várkert Bazár—delivered eight weeks before the April 12 parliamentary elections—redefined Hungary's main strategic threat, shifting the focus from Russia to the European Union. Within the framework of Burke's methodology, such repositioning can be interpreted as the logic of protecting sovereignty: protecting highly valued identity dimensions (cultural 81.9, cognitive 69.2, political 66.9) from perceived pressure using less protected material dependencies (technological 52.6, military 52.0 and economic 64.5).

Thesis 1: Brussels as the primary threat to freedom

The central thesis of Orban's speech is a clear redefinition of the threat hierarchy:

"We must come to terms with the idea that those who love freedom should be afraid of Brussels, not the East, and look at Brussels with concern. Whipping up fear around Putin is primitive and frivolous. Brussels is a tangible reality and a direct source of danger." (Euronews, February 14, 2026)

Orban compared the European Union to "the repressive Soviet regime that dominated Hungary for decades in the last century" (Al Jazeera, February 14, 2026). This rhetorical figure is not just political hyperbole. In the context of Burke's methodology, it reflects a measurable reality: Hungary's economic sovereignty (64.5/100) is under concrete pressure through the mechanism of freezing EU structural funds. Since 2022, Brussels has withheld billions of euros in funding due to concerns about the rule of law, and the timing of this freeze coincides with the electoral cycle.

In terms of the diagnostic indicators of the Burke Institute, this practice is classified as:

● Economic pressure through conditional financing in the run-up to the elections

● External influence on the political process through economic levers

Orban is turning structural vulnerability (economic dependence on EU funds) into a political narrative of sovereign protection. What is critically important: its measured economic indicator of 64.5/100 is in the "gray zone" — high enough for resistance, but vulnerable enough to pressure.

Thesis 2: NGOs and civil society as a hybrid threat infrastructure

Orban promised to "clean up" what he describes as Brussels' repressive apparatus after the election:

"The mechanism of Brussels' repression is working in Hungary, and we will have to deal with this after April. Fake NGOs, bought journalists, judges, politicians, algorithms, bureaucrats, millions of euros rolling back and forth, this is what Brussels means to Hungary now." (Bloomberg, Union Bulletin, February 14, 2026)

In a more detailed version, according to the Hungarian edition of Telex, Orban stated:

"Pseudo-NGOs, paid journalists, courts, algorithms, bureaucrats and millions of euros rolling in for them," according to Orban, this is what Brussels embodies today." (Telex, February 14, 2026)

This charge has operationalizable parameters within the framework of Burke's methodology. According to the diagnostic indicators of hybrid warfare at the Burke Institute for the political vector:

● Financing of NGOs for the purpose of political influence (threshold >$10 million/year)

● Coordinated international criticism during the electoral period

Orban has been campaigning against what he calls "pseudo-civic organizations" since 2010. His promise to carry out a "clean-up" after the April elections is not an arbitrary repression, but — within the framework of his own logic - a response to a measurable threat to political sovereignty (66.9/100).

The critical question that Burke's methodology can barely resolve is as follows: are these NGOs genuine agents of civil society, or do they represent the infrastructure of a political war? The political sovereignty score of 66.9/100 places Hungary in a zone where both claims remain empirically plausible.

Thesis 3: The opposition as a product of the EU

Orban described the leading opposition party Tisza, which according to independent polls is ahead of Fidesz by 8-12 percentage points, as a "creation" of the EU and German politicians in Brussels:

"The Tisza Party is the creation of the European Union and German politicians in Brussels, which he claims will pave the way for Hungarians to be sent to war in Ukraine." (Bloomberg, February 14, 2026)

Orban promised:

"The new president of the United States has rebelled against the liberal global business, media and political network, thereby improving our chances. We can also go a long way and expel foreign influence from Hungary, along with its agents who limit our sovereignty." (Washington Times, February 14, 2026)

This rhetoric operationalizes the concept of cognitive sovereignty (69.2/100). In Burke's methodology, cognitive sovereignty includes the ability to independently determine the national narrative and interpretation of threats. Orban claims the right to redefine what his rivals call the "legitimate opposition" as "agents of Brussels."

Empirical problem: Hungary's cognitive sovereignty score of 69.2/100 is high enough to support alternative national security narratives, but not low enough to automatically discredit such claims as paranoid.

Thesis 4: Corporate interests and the conspiracy theory of war profits

Orban turned to personal accusations, linking the former employers of key figures of the Tisza party with the profits from the Ukrainian conflict.:

"One of the main winners of the war is Shell," Orban said of his former employer István Kapitány, Tisza's candidate for economic leadership. According to him, Shell has earned tens of billions of dollars in the war, and their goal is to cut Hungary off from Russian oil." (Euronews, Telex, February 14, 2026)

Orban also mentioned Erste Bank, where another Tisza economist, András Kármán, worked:

"Erste wants to introduce its agent into the Tisza government in order to get rid of special bank taxes." (Telex, February 14, 2026)

The climax was the phrase:

"Oil companies and banks are death tax collectors. What's new is that the global financial capital has joined the party. There are no more masks, no more costumes, now international financial forces are openly standing right here in front of us." (Telex, February 14, 2026)

In Burke's diagnosis, this rhetoric corresponds to the indicator: corporate influence on the political process through the financing of the opposition. However, the methodology cannot determine whether the hiring of former corporate executives is the following:

● (A) Legitimately using expertise to manage the economy, OR

● (B) Covert capture of politics by corporate interests Hungary's economic sovereignty score of 64.5/100 places the country precisely in the zone where both scenarios remain plausible.

Thesis 5: Alliance with Trump as a strategic window of opportunity

Orban described Trump's election as a decisive change in the global balance of power:

"The new US president has rebelled against the liberal global business, media, and political network, thereby improving our chances." (Washington Times, February 14, 2026)

On February 13, the day before the speech, Trump posted support for Orban on Truth Social, calling him "a truly strong and powerful leader with a proven track record of outstanding results" (Washington Times, February 14, 2026).

On February 16, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio paid an official visit to Hungary (Al Jazeera, February 14, 2026).

In terms of Burke's methodology, this development changes the calculation of sovereignty. Hungarian military sovereignty (52.0/100) reflects deep integration into NATO structures. The support of the United States, the dominant force in NATO, potentially compensates for the pressure from the European members of the alliance.

Orban uses strategic arbitration: using American support to resist European pressure, while remaining within the framework of transatlantic structures. This maneuverability is possible precisely because Hungarian military sovereignty is in the middle range (52.0) integrated enough to receive NATO protection, but not autonomous enough to act independently.

Thesis 6: Elections as an existential choice

Orban presented the April 12 elections in a binary "war or peace" framework:

"Europe has decided to go to war by 2030. This will be the last election before the war. Brussels has decided to defeat the Russians in Ukraine, and outside Hungary, preparations for war are underway throughout Europe." (Euronews, February 14, 2026)

Orban said that his work on "expelling the forces that limit Hungary's sovereignty" is only "partly done":

"I remembered that last year I promised a bit of rock'n'roll in domestic politics and committed myself to expel the forces that limit Hungary's sovereignty from the country, but I admitted that we had completed only half of the work." (Telex, February 14, 2026)

He promised that after April, "these media and NGOs will be eliminated." He concluded his speech with a promise:

"2026 will be the year of victory." (Telex, February 14, 2026)

Thesis 7: The economic context (omitted in the speech)

Orban did not mention the critical economic realities that undermine his narrative of victory:

● Economic growth in 2025: the promised "flight to recovery" turned into growth of only 0.3% (Euronews, February 14, 2026)

● Fuel poverty: during the January cold weather, both parties competed in distributing free firewood to struggling villagers (Union Bulletin, February 15, 2026)

● Social degradation: Hungary "slipped down the rankings and became one of the poorest in Europe" (Union Bulletin, February 15, 2026)

● Prohibition of Pride Day: despite the ban Hundreds of thousands of people came out and celebrated in Budapest (Euronews, February 14, 2026)

These omissions are critically important for methodological analysis. Hungary's economic sovereignty score of 64.5/100 reflects not triumph, but resilience despite pressure.

The freezing of EU funds (billions of euros from 2022) creates a measurable fiscal burden, which Orban redefines as evidence of external aggression, rather than a consequence of deviation from EU norms.

The structural logic of sovereignty protection

Hungary's profile on the Burke index (454.4/700 with a spread of 29.9 percentage points) creates a specific strategic situation that Orban's rhetoric accurately captures:

Protection from strength, not weakness

Orban's most intense rhetoric (cultural/cognitive sovereignty, civilizational protection) corresponds to Hungary's highest measured indicators:

● Cultural sovereignty: 81.9/100

● Cognitive sovereignty: 69.2/100

This reverses the traditional narrative of authoritarianism: Orban mobilizes from positions of strength rather than compensating for weakness. Hungary's 99.6% use of the Hungarian language, 702 museums, and constitutional cultural protection provide an empirical foundation for claims of civilizational protection.

His relative silence on the technological (52.6) and military (52.0) dimensions—Hungary's real vulnerabilities — attests to strategic sophistication: recognizing irredeemable material dependencies while compensating through political/cultural resilience.

Cascade Prevention Logic

The data validates Orban's "sovereignty at all costs" positioning if sovereignty measurements show an interdependent cascading dynamic rather than an independent variation. The cascade hypothesis:

Loss of political sovereignty (66.9 → erosion) →

Makes possible the educational/cultural reforms prescribed by the EU →

Collapse of cultural sovereignty (81.9 → erosion) →

Eliminates the basis of identity-based sustainability →

Subjugation of cognitive sovereignty (69.2 → erosion) →

Vulnerability to information warfare is maximized (67.3 → critical) →

Complete dependence, despite constant material indicators (technological 52.6, military 52.0 remain constant)

This explains why Orban rejects political compromise (maintaining the 66.9 index) even at the cost of economic losses (frozen EU funds, a decrease in the 64.5 index): the material sacrifice preserves the strength of identity dimensions, which compensates for technological/military weakness. Compromise of political sovereignty, and Hungary's entire strategic calculation collapses.

The mechanism of controlled chaos receives empirical support

Hungarian data provides indirect evidence for the thesis of controlled chaos:

● Orban retains >57% approval (measured political sovereignty of 66.9)

● However, the Tisa party leads the polls by 8-12 points (paradox: good governance, poor electoral prospects)

● EU funds are frozen precisely during the electoral cycle (billions of euros are frozen 2022-present, April 2026 elections)

● The opposition campaign clearly promises the restoration of EU funds in exchange for compliance with the norms

● Economic pressure (indicator 64.5 shows moderate vulnerability) is used for political purposes

Whether we have here

● (A): Legitimate application of the rule of law, creating genuine support for the opposition, or

● (B): Coordinated external pressure creating an artificial electoral crisis –

cannot be determined solely on the basis of sovereignty data. But the fact that the mechanism exists — the economic lever (vulnerability 64.5) used during the electoral cycle to pressure political subordination — is empirically demonstrated.

The problem of irrefutability remains unresolved

The Burke Institute's data-driven approach cannot avoid a fundamental epistemological problem: Hungary's sovereignty score of 64.9% (454.4/700) places the country in an ambiguous territory where both interpretations remain plausible:

The Liberal Democratic view

Hungary is a receding democracy (Freedom House: "Partially free"). Civil society organizations exercise legitimate oversight. The EU conditionally protects the rule of law. Orban delegitimizes the genuine opposition as "foreign agents." His rhetoric of sovereignty rationalizes authoritarianism.

The view of protecting sovereignty

Hungary is the target state (Burke index: 64.9% with critical vulnerabilities). NGOs function as a political warfare infrastructure. The EU uses economic dependencies to change the regime. The opposition serves external interests. Orban correctly diagnoses the hybrid threat.

Data cannot resolve the dispute between these frameworks, as each explains the same observations through competing causal logics. A country with 66.9% political sovereignty faces both genuine accountability challenges and genuine external pressures—separating them requires information about intentions, coordination, and funding flows beyond the metrics of sovereignty.

Conclusions for theory and practice

Hungary demonstrates that high cultural/cognitive indicators (81.9, 69.2) can ensure strategic stability despite material vulnerabilities (52.6, 52.0)—but only if political autonomy (66.9) is maintained. This confirms "sovereignty arbitration" as a coherent strategy for middle powers with identity-based strengths and material weaknesses.

For democracy promotion

The EU's approach to Hungary reveals the sovereignty-democracy compromise in practice. The economic conditionality (the freezing of funds) is aimed at applying the rule of law, but at the same time confirms Orban's narrative of external pressure. If sovereignty and democracy are indeed in conflict (as Burke's data for Hungary suggest), then promoting democracy may require methods that do not activate sovereignty defense responses — a challenge that the liberal framework has not resolved.

For the analysis of hybrid threats

Hungary's score of 64.9% with a spread of 29.3 points (81.9 cultural versus 52.6 technological) provides an empirical model for understanding how states with strong identities and financially weak identities resist aggressive campaigns. Orban's strategy—protecting political autonomy (66.9) to preserve cultural strength (81.9) that compensates for material weakness—offers a template for other middle powers facing great power competition.

For civil society organizations

The Burke Institute's data reveals an uncomfortable reality: even organizations with genuine democratic missions can reasonably be perceived as threat infrastructure by governments with a Hungarian sovereignty profile (64.9% overall, 66.9 political, 81.9 cultural).

This perception has an empirical basis: the measured vulnerabilities of a country (52.6 technological, 52.0 military, 64.5 economic) create objective points of leverage through which external actors can influence the political process.

Importantly, the intentions of the NGOs themselves do not matter. An organization that receives European funding and criticizes the government during the freezing of EU funds (economic pressure through vulnerability 64.5) objectively increases external pressure, regardless of whether it is aware of it. With a sovereignty profile of 64.9%, the methodology cannot distinguish between (A) the legitimate work of NGOs coincidentally coincides with the interests of donors, or (B) NGOs consciously/unconsciously serve as an instrument of external influence.

It is this indistinguishability that turns civil society into a potential mechanism of controlled chaos: external actors can use structural vulnerabilities (technological 52.6, military 52.0, economic 64.5) to put pressure on highly protected dimensions (political 66.9, cultural 81.9) through organizations that sincerely consider themselves defenders of democracy.

A government with such a vulnerability profile perceives this dynamic as an existential threat, and this perception has a measurable empirical basis, regardless of the real intentions of specific NGOs.

Final assessment

Viktor Orban's speech on February 14, 2026 operationalizes the complex framework of sovereignty protection, confirmed by the measured profile of Hungary's Burke index: 454.4/700 overall, with extreme variance (81.9 cultural versus 52.0 military), creating both resilience and vulnerability. His characterization of the EU as Hungary's primary threat is neither simple demagoguery nor pure authoritarianism—it represents a coherent strategic logic for a state gaining 64.9% sovereignty with a high strength of identity dimensions (cultural 81.9, cognitive 69.2) and critical material dependencies (technological 52.6, military 52.0).

Whether this framework describes reality or rationalizes repression cannot be determined solely through an analysis of sovereignty. What can be determined is that Hungary's measured sovereignty profile makes Orban's threat assessment internally consistent, strategically rational, and empirically sound in ways that traditional democracy indexes completely overlook.

In an era of increasing competition between great powers, where sovereignty figures of 64.9% increasingly define a controversial middle ground between autonomy and subordination, the thesis of controlled chaos is likely to gain supporters regardless of its empirical validity.

The challenge for both democratic theory and sovereignty research is to develop an analytical framework capable of distinguishing between legitimate civil society support and illegitimate regime change operations—differences that can be recognized as valid even by governments with measured vulnerabilities in Hungary.

Data from the Burke Institute suggests that the world has already reached a point where "promoting democracy" and "protecting sovereignty" are competing euphemisms for the geopolitical struggle, with Hungary's 454.4/700 placing it precisely in a contentious space where both frameworks claim validity and neither can be definitively refuted.

SOURCES

1. Euronews (February 14th, 2026): «Orbán denounces 'Putin-ing' as he slams the EU as the real threat»

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/02/14/orbans-assessment-of-the-year-putining-is-frivolous-and-primitive-brussels-is-the-direct-t

2. Bloomberg (February 14th, 2026): «Orban Vows to Target 'Fake' NGOs as Polls Show Opposition Tisza Leading»

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-14/orban-promises-crackdown-on-fake-ngos-if-he-wins-hungary-vote

3. Al Jazeera (February 16th, 2026): «Hungary's Orban says EU bigger threat than Russia before April elections»

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/14/hungarys-orban-says-eu-bigger-threat-than-russia-before-april-elections

4. Washington Times (February 15th, 2026): «Orban says the EU and not Russia is real threat to Hungary ahead of April vote»

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/feb/15/orban-says-eu-not-russia-real-threat-hungary-ahea/

5. Union Bulletin (February 16th, 2026): «Orban promises crackdown on 'fake' NGOs if he wins Hungary vote»

https://www.union-bulletin.com/news/world/orban-promises-crackdown-on-fake-ngos-if-he-wins-hungary-vote/

6. Telex (February 14th, 2026): «Orbán: Our work isn't finished yet»

https://telex.hu/english/2026/02/14/orban-our-work-isn-t-finished-yet

7. The Burke International Institute (26 октября 2025): «Hungarian Sovereignty Index (Burke Index), 2024-2025»

https://ibi.institute/read/hungarian-sovereignty-index-burke-index-2024-2025