Welcome to As Seen from The Right Bank, a new column for Hungarian Conservative. The column’s name reflects three ideas. First, the Danube Institute, for which I work, has its seat in the Castle District of Buda—literally on the Right Bank of the great river. Second, right is the political direction to which Hungarian Conservative (obviously) and the Danube Institute tilt. Third, there is the implication that the view from the other side is not necessarily correct.
The aim of the column is simple: to promote great written research in the social sciences and in a way that will save you time. If you like what you see—or even if you don’t—you will find a link to the research paper that is described briefly and in plain English.
Hopefully, the column will appear once a week, covering three research papers. The column’s field of vision will start with the Danube Institute, but will most definitely not end there. Sometimes the column will even cover research papers from authors who are usually found, philosophically or politically, on the Left. Insightful research comes from many places.
‘The aim of the column is simple: to promote great written research in the social sciences and in a way that will save you time’
Naturally, your views are welcome. This is particularly true if you disagree with the author of the research paper that is being discussed in this column. Both Hungarian Conservative and the Danube Institute look to encourage respectful debate. If you are aware of a research paper that is particularly inspiring, insightful or important, feel free to bring it to my attention. My contact details are shown below.
The Fourth Wave of Jihadists
A recently published research paper by Simon Cottee, a Visiting Fellow at the Danube Institute who is also a criminologist and author whose interests span violent extremism and terrorism, is an excellent example of the reports that will be discussed in this column. The paper flies in the face of conventional wisdom. It identifies a research gap that it fills with an original methodology.
Then the paper applies this methodology to 100 jihadi terrorist plots in Europe over the period 2015–2025. The hard numbers show that Muslim migrants to Europe are very over-represented in jihadist terrorism. In 79 per cent of the cases, the attacks were carried out by ‘lone wolf’ terrorists who had been inspired by ISIS. In 9 pr cent of the cases, ISIS operatives travelled to Europe with the intention of carrying out attacks there.
Finally, there are actionable insights for policymakers. As Simon himself observes:
‘The dominant academic and media narrative characterises European jihadism as a ‘homegrown’ phenomenon rooted in Western pathologies (lack of integration, alienation, Islamophobia, regime-change wars etc). But this obscures the involvement of foreign-born migrants in jihadist violence in Europe. Indeed, the data reveal a distinct fourth wave of jihadist terrorism that is inextricably linked to mass migration from Muslim-majority countries.
While policy discourse tends to focus on the benefits of migration, migrant-related jihadism is assuredly one of its costs and should be explicitly addressed in discussions of migration. Unfortunately, political sensitivity surrounding migration — and the fear of being tarnished as a ‘far-right’ sympathiser or ‘Islamophobe’ — has seriously distorted analysis and hampered effective policymaking. A more honest recognition of this migrant-driven wave would enable policymakers to address the threat more effectively and help contain the populist anger it engenders.’
Dr Simon Cottee’s Research Paper, Europe’s Jihadi Migrants: Mapping Migrant Involvement in Jihadi Terrorism in Europe (2015-2025) may be found here:
Very Different Narratives about Taiwan
In Simon Cottee’s paper, the narratives that are discussed relate to something that has already happened – namely, the large-scale migration of Muslims. Another paper that has crossed my desk recently concerns something that has not happened yet – namely, a (potentially violent) reunification between China and Taiwan.
The author is Eric Hendriks, a sinologist, sociologist and public intellectual who is a Visiting Fellow at the Danube Institute. The basic question that he answers is: How would the Chinese justify a reunification with Taiwan, and especially if it were done with force? His analysis looks at the historic context of a Taiwan that is not fully under the control of the mainland and the Communist Party of China (CPC), as well as Xi Jinping Thought and the views of China’s intellectuals and philosophers. In relation to the latter, he explains how the incorporation of Taiwan into the People’s Republic of China would be consistent with tianxia, an ‘all-under-heaven’ global harmony.
In times of conflict, it is important to understand the point(s) of view of the other side. As Eric himself notes:
‘Many Western observers, and Western-oriented Taiwanese, will interpret a Taiwan scenario as a survival struggle. On one side stands a small, fragile liberal democracy. On the other stands an authoritarian goliath. By extension, the fight is for freedom in a world where Might Makes Right. In contrast, ideologues on the pro-reunification side will understand themselves to be resisting the spirit of hegemony, in the name of global harmony and human flourishing. Such a configuration—in which both sides believe themselves to represent the Good in a fight between Good and Evil—is a recipe for disaster. It will require considerable wisdom to avert the worst outcomes.’
Dr Eric Hendriks’ Research Paper, A Study in Strategic Empathy: A Critical Exploration of Mainland Chinese Legitimisations for a Taiwan Scenario, may be found here:
Clouded by the Fog of War — Or Part of It
It is now over four years since the Russo–Ukrainian war began. A key feature of the war has been the extensive use of drones by both sides. Norbert Szári and Géza Gazdag—defence analysts at the Ludovika University of Public Service in Budapest and, respectively, a Senior Fellow and a researcher at the Danube Institute—look at what this means in practice. The key question that they consider is: How can the government of Hungary (ie, a NATO member) avoid being seen as being insufficiently committed to supporting Ukraine, in the context of hybrid warfare that is common in the 21st Century?
Hybrid warfare is, as the authors put it, ‘a situation where perceptions—or narratives—are a structural element of the conflict and not just an accompaniment to it.’ The paper explains how hybrid warfare is often associated with the use of drones. In short, perceptions of the drones arise not only from the confusion—or fog—of war but also from actions from Russia that seek to loosen the unity of NATO.
Aside from discussing the technical aspects of drone warfare and air-defence systems, the paper explains the geopolitical complexities facing the government of Hungary (and possibly of other NATO members). As Norbert and Géza note:
‘The essence of the Hungarian approach is precisely realist differentiation: as long as it has not been proven that a drone or aircraft is the result of deliberate state action, the incident cannot be classified as aggression, but at most as a security risk. For Hungary, therefore, the greatest challenge is not physically defending its airspace—for which a modern, NATO-integrated system is available—but remaining independent in the narrative space. In this sense, Hungarian strategic culture undertakes a dual task: it adheres to an evidence-based security-policy logic and seeks to prevent its sovereignty, in communicative or political terms, from dissolving in the current generated by wartime rhetoric.
The combination of strategic neutrality and responsible caution is a rare approach in the current European discourse. Hungary’s position is therefore not merely a foreign-policy deviation but a form of resistance, amid the noise of hybrid warfare, to the dominance of perceptions. At the same time, this position is vulnerable: the louder the wartime rhetoric becomes, the harder it is to maintain an analytical, measured approach.’
This is recommended reading—and especially for ambassadors to NATO.
Norbert Szári’s and Géza Gazdag’s Research Paper, A War of Narratives in the Air: Hungary’s position at the intersection of hybrid warfare and communication pressure, may be found here:
Related articles:
At a time when public debate is increasingly polarized and superficial, Hungarian Conservative remains committed to depth, intellectual honesty, and independent conservative thought.
Producing high-quality journalism requires resources. Your contribution helps us expand our coverage, reach new audiences, and keep our content accessible.
Please consider supporting our mission.
