Prime Minister Robert Fico’s covert visit to Moscow has sparked accusations of treason, with critics branding him “Putin’s agent inside Slovakia.” Observers warn that Fico’s engagement isn’t about negotiating cheap energy but about aiding Putin’s attempt to claw his way back onto the global stage. The Kremlin’s claim that Slovakia could host peace talks—announced without Bratislava’s input—is seen as part of Russia’s broader effort to fracture Western unity and project the illusion of diplomacy.
Fico’s silence is interpreted as complicity, with critics accusing him of trading Slovakia’s credibility for economic crumbs while legitimising Putin’s war narrative. The trip is described as a public display of submission, reinforcing fears that Slovakia is sliding into Moscow’s sphere of influence alongside Hungary and Serbia. Allegations that Russian specialists were invited to Slovakia have triggered concerns over espionage and growing Kremlin infiltration. As Slovakia’s reputation within the EU and NATO hangs in the balance, critics argue that Fico’s actions risk turning the country into a pawn in Putin’s geopolitical game.
Reports that Slovakia could potentially host peace talks between Russia and Ukraine were first circulated by the Kremlin, prompting widespread scepticism among Slovak and international experts. Analysts warn that the narrative undermines Slovakia’s international standing and plays into Russia’s broader strategy to destabilise Ukraine and the West.
The Kremlin-controlled TASS news agency quoted Russian President Vladimir Putin as saying, “We are not against it. If it happens – why not? Slovakia holds a neutral stance, which makes this an acceptable option for us.” Despite this, Prime Minister Robert Fico has not publicly acknowledged the possibility, a silence that observers see as indicative of the Kremlin’s unilateral shaping of the narrative.
Former Slovak Prime Minister Mikuláš Dzurinda highlighted the significance of the Kremlin’s timing, pointing out that Moscow waited days to announce the possibility. “Fico would normally boast about such a development, but his silence suggests Russia is using this as part of its psychological warfare,” Dzurinda remarked. He argued that Slovakia’s perceived role in such talks casts the country in a negative light.
In a stark Facebook post, journalist and writer Arpád Soltész lambasted Fico’s covert visit to Moscow, highlighting broader concerns over Russian expansionism and Europe’s vulnerability. Soltész drew a parallel between Hungary’s subservience to economic gain under Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s willingness to compromise its values under Fico. He suggested that Fico’s pursuit of cheap Russian gas mirrors Hungary’s prioritisation of economic benefits over human suffering, asserting that Slovaks, like Hungarians, may accept exploitation if it guarantees immediate survival.
Former Foreign Minister: Fico is Putin’s Agent in Slovakia
Adding to the concern, former Foreign Minister Rastislav Káčer described Fico’s Moscow visit as evidence of open collaboration with Russia. In a public post, Káčer accused Fico of aligning Slovakia with hostile powers, suggesting that the Prime Minister’s actions reflect loyalty to Putin’s imperial ambitions. He claimed Fico’s visit resembled a public display of submission, characterising it as “kneeling politics,” in which Fico “kissed Putin’s boots.”
Káčer alleged that Fico’s visit was part of a broader, intelligence-coordinated effort involving Russia, Hungary, and Serbia to create a pro-Russian zone in Central Europe. He warned that Fico’s loyalty to Moscow aligns with leaders like Orbán and Vučić, who have long supported Russia’s ambitions to fragment Ukraine and reshape regional borders. The former minister dismissed claims that Fico’s trip was driven by energy concerns, emphasising that Slovakia’s existing gas and oil agreements negate the need for new negotiations in Moscow.
Soltész echoed this warning, painting a grim picture of Ukraine’s war of attrition and predicting potential internal collapse driven by war fatigue. He cautioned that if Ukraine falls, Russia’s path to deeper European incursion will become inevitable, with Romania standing as the last barrier. Soltész referenced alleged Russian interference in Romanian elections, annulled by the constitutional court, underscoring hybrid warfare as a potent Kremlin tool. By exploiting social media platforms and disinformation, Russia allegedly manipulated Romanian politics, leading to the rise of far-right, pro-Russian candidates.
Reflecting on Slovakia’s precarious position, Soltész criticised domestic institutions for failing to counter Russian operations, contrasting them with Romania and the Czech Republic, where security agencies actively resist foreign interference. He ultimately warned that Russian imperial ambitions, if unchecked, could stretch to absorb Moldova, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Austria. Soltész condemned public complacency, suggesting that fear-driven appeasement makes Slovakia vulnerable to subjugation under Russian influence.
Both Dzurinda and former Defence Minister Martin Sklenár, now an expert with Globsec, dismissed the potential for meaningful peace talks. Sklenár noted that the announcement emerged from Moscow, not Bratislava, raising questions about the origin of the initiative. “It is unclear if this idea came from Slovakia or if Russia is attempting to push it onto us,” Sklenár told SME. He stressed that Slovakia’s immediate interest should lie in stabilising Ukraine’s situation, as peace talks are only possible from a position of strength.
Káčer further expanded on these concerns, emphasising the domestic implications of Fico’s actions. In a second post, Káčer highlighted the lack of transparency surrounding Fico’s Moscow trip, calling into question its legality. “Slovakia remains a parliamentary democracy, and the Prime Minister is not a monarch,” Káčer stated, explaining that all foreign trips by government officials require cabinet approval. He demanded clarity on whether Fico’s visit was authorised by the government and questioned the absence of public records detailing the delegation and purpose of the trip.
Karel Hirman, former Economy Minister, revealed via social media that Fico allegedly invited Russian specialists to Slovakia under the guise of summit preparations. However, this claim remains unverified by other officials. Sklenár dismissed the notion that Slovakia would require Russian advisors, pointing out that Slovak authorities are capable of liaising with embassies independently. Hirman’s post further questioned whether the involvement of Russian specialists could expose Slovakia to greater risks of espionage or malign influence, given the security sensitivity surrounding the ongoing war in Ukraine.
Ukrainian security analyst Hlib Fishchenko, head of the Institute for European Security Research, criticised Fico’s engagement with the Kremlin, describing the visit as damaging to Slovakia’s relationship with Kyiv. “Ukraine was not informed of Fico’s trip. This undermines trust, particularly when the Ukrainian president is transparent about all diplomatic engagements,” Fishchenko explained. He suggested that the Kremlin’s real aim is to legitimise Putin’s leadership in Europe. “Russian media and Telegram channels frame Fico as the leader who breached the West’s wall of isolation against Russia,” he added.
The Kremlin’s narrative, according to Fishchenko, feeds into Russia’s ongoing psychological operations. “This message targets Ukraine to sow doubt and confusion. It suggests Russia is ready to negotiate while the West refuses, positioning Fico as a bridge-builder,” he said. Dzurinda echoed this sentiment, arguing that the move primarily serves to destabilise Ukraine internally by undermining public confidence. “The Kremlin’s intent is to divide Ukraine politically and weaken unity,” he added.
