This article examines Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico’s latest foreign policy positions, outlining his opposition to EU military aid for Ukraine, threats to veto European Council decisions, scepticism towards NATO, and increasingly combative stance within the EU. It also explores his views on defence spending, migration, and Slovakia’s strategic alignment in a shifting global order. For those seeking to understand Slovakia’s evolving role in today’s geopolitical landscape, this is an essential assessment of Fico’s most consequential positions and their broader implications.
Robert Fico is taking Slovakia down a path of growing isolation, confrontation, and defiance of the Western security order. He opposes EU military aid to Ukraine, threatens to veto European Council conclusions, and casts doubt on NATO’s future while pushing narratives that align with Moscow’s interests. His rhetoric echoes that of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, positioning Slovakia as an obstacle to European unity on security and defence. At home, he dismisses mass protests and portrays himself as a defender of national sovereignty against Brussels. With his deepening hostility toward EU policies, his rejection of Ukraine as a strategic ally, and his growing scepticism toward NATO, Fico is steering Slovakia towards an unpredictable course that could redefine its place in Europe.
In his latest public addresses, Fico has reinforced his opposition to EU military aid for Ukraine, threatened to veto key European Council conclusions, and questioned NATO’s strategic cohesion. His rhetoric aligns with that of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, with whom he increasingly shares a resistance to EU-wide decisions on security and foreign policy. Domestically, Fico dismisses mass protests against his government and maintains that Slovakia should prioritise economic interests over European solidarity.
Fico has threatened to block EU military and financial aid to Ukraine unless Slovakia’s demand for the continuation of Russian gas transit via Ukraine is met. This move underscores his prioritisation of Slovakia’s economic concerns over broader European security considerations. His willingness to leverage Slovakia’s veto power highlights the country’s emerging role as a disruptive force within the EU, echoing Hungary’s obstructionist approach.
Fico pushes Slovakia to the brink of EU isolation
His insistence on renegotiating gas transit arrangements has placed him at odds with other European leaders, who argue that such a move would benefit Russia financially. Fico himself acknowledged this criticism, paraphrasing EU leaders as asking, “Do you want to give Russia more money for war?” His comments reflect his growing political isolation within the EU, as his positions diverge sharply from those of major European powers.
In Brussels, Fico is increasingly seen as an outlier, an image reinforced by his decision to skip a recent European Council dinner attended by other EU leaders. His rhetoric on the war in Ukraine further distances Slovakia from the EU mainstream. He argues that “Ukraine is not fighting for us,” rejecting the widespread European perspective that Ukraine’s resistance is crucial for the continent’s security.
Domestically, Fico presents himself as a defender of Slovakia’s sovereignty against EU-imposed decisions. He claims to have previously blocked EU-mandated migrant quotas, though analysts argue that this was not the result of a Slovak veto but rather the overall failure of the policy to gain sufficient support within the EU. His narrative, however, reinforces his image as a leader resisting Brussels’ influence.
Despite his general scepticism toward EU policies, Fico has voiced support for increasing defence spending within the bloc. However, he proposes that military expenditures should be excluded from EU deficit calculations, arguing that this would enable European countries to enhance their military capabilities without violating fiscal constraints. This reflects a shift in his approach to defence policy compared to previous years when he prioritised domestic economic support over military spending.
Fico’s call for a negotiated peace in Ukraine aligns with Kremlin talking points, suggesting that a “bad peace” is preferable to a “good war.” He asserts that the war could have ended in April 2022 had the West not prevented Ukraine from signing agreements with Russia. This narrative, frequently pushed by Russian and pro-Kremlin voices, ignores the reality that Russia’s demands at the time included severe restrictions on Ukraine’s sovereignty and military capabilities, effectively amounting to capitulation.
His reference to the supposed dispute between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and former US President Donald Trump over a ceasefire suggests an effort to align with Trumpian scepticism towards continued Western support for Ukraine. However, reports indicate that while Trump expressed frustration with Zelenskyy’s reluctance to agree to an immediate ceasefire, Ukraine has consistently stated that any agreement must come with security guarantees to prevent further Russian aggression.
While Fico acknowledges that Russia violated international law by invading Ukraine, he simultaneously argues that “Russia had legitimate security concerns due to NATO expansion.” This rhetoric mirrors longstanding Russian justifications for aggression against its neighbours, despite the absence of any NATO military threat to Russia. His stance also overlooks the fact that Russia attacked Ukraine when the country had a constitutionally enshrined policy of neutrality.
Fico downplays the possibility of a Russian attack on Slovakia or NATO allies, mocking concerns by calculating that “at their current pace, Russian troops would reach Slovakia in 2182.” Security analysts warn that such statements ignore the realities of military escalation, noting that wars of attrition can shift rapidly if one side loses its ability to sustain defence operations.
Fico’s NATO scepticism fuels Slovakia’s drift towards Russia
His suggestion that NATO would cease to exist if the United States withdrew from the alliance highlights his scepticism toward the bloc’s long-term viability. While it is true that the US plays a central role in NATO, European allies have been working to strengthen their defence capabilities in anticipation of a potential shift in American foreign policy. Security experts caution that dismissing NATO’s ability to function without US leadership could weaken European efforts to bolster collective defence mechanisms.
Fico’s rejection of the idea that “Ukraine is fighting for Slovakia” contradicts the assessments of Western security analysts who argue that a Ukrainian defeat would embolden Russia to challenge the security order in Eastern Europe. He claims that Ukraine’s actions have harmed Slovakia by increasing gas prices, a position that disregards broader geopolitical and economic dynamics related to Russia’s energy strategy.
Domestically, Fico faces mounting opposition, with large-scale protests calling for his resignation and denouncing his overtures toward Russia. Demonstrators demand that Slovakia remain firmly aligned with the EU and NATO, rejecting any perceived drift towards Russian influence. Fico dismisses these protests as politically motivated, maintaining that his government is acting in Slovakia’s best interests.
Through his recent statements and policy positions, Fico has positioned Slovakia as a disruptive player within the EU while aligning with a narrative that weakens European cohesion. His stances on Ukraine, NATO, and EU governance indicate a strategic pivot that places Slovakia closer to Hungary’s obstructionist approach while deepening tensions with European allies concerned about Russian aggression and authoritarian influence in the region.
Source: Lucia Osvaldová and Tomáš Čorej | Denník N
