In a controversial interview on 17 December 2024 with Infovojna—a disinformation platform notorious for propagating Kremlin-aligned narratives—Slovak Foreign Minister Juraj Blanár laid bare his troubling stance on issues ranging from the war in Ukraine to migration and EU foreign policy. Blanár’s rhetoric, which includes critiques of Western military support for Ukraine and calls for a more “sovereign” EU foreign policy, mirrors Russian propaganda narratives and undermines Slovakia’s commitments as a NATO and EU member. Adding to the controversy are his clandestine meetings with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the replacement of seasoned Slovak diplomats with Russian-educated recruits, raising allegations of ideological alignment with the Kremlin. While portraying himself as a proponent of diplomacy and national interest, Blanár’s statements reveal selective omissions and a willingness to distort critical issues, risking Slovakia’s security, foreign policy credibility, and standing within Western alliances. The Slovak Media Monitor offers a detailed analysis of his remarks.
In an interview on 17 December 2024 with Infovojna (a Slovak disinformation platform known for publishing conspiracy theories and extremist content), Slovak Foreign Minister Juraj Blanár presented his views on several pressing issues, ranging from the war in Ukraine and migration to the European Union’s foreign policy direction.
On the surface, his comments may seem to reflect reasoned critiques or appeals for diplomacy. However, Blanár’s recent controversial decisions as foreign minister cast a shadow over his statements. These include numerous meetings with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov—actions criticised for lacking transparency—and the replacement of experienced diplomats with Russian-educated recruits, sparking allegations of ideological alignment with Kremlin foreign policy interests.
A closer examination of the interview also reveals a troubling alignment with Russian wartime propaganda narratives and significant omissions of crucial facts. Without these missing elements, his statements appear manipulative, framing key international and domestic issues in a distorted light. Below, we analyse the minister’s positions and the deeper implications of his rhetoric.
Infovojna (InfoWars)
Konšpirátori.sk, an independent Slovak initiative dedicated to identifying and categorising disinformation websites, has issued a stark warning to advertisers about the reputational and financial risks of partnering with unethical media outlets. The project is guided by a panel of experts who assess websites against stringent criteria, including breaches of journalistic ethics, the dissemination of propaganda, and the promotion of conspiracy theories. Beyond evaluating media credibility, Konšpirátori.sk seeks to safeguard public discourse and foster transparency within Slovakia.
One of the most prominent examples of the media outlets flagged by the initiative is Infovojna, a platform notorious for propagating conspiracy theories, inflammatory rhetoric, and extremist content. Ranked among Slovakia’s most profitable disinformation sites, Infovojna faced a temporary ban in 2022 amid cybersecurity concerns following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. According to Konšpirátori.sk, the platform’s operations represent a troubling departure from journalistic standards, with repeated instances of unauthorised content reproduction, alongside aggressive and divisive messaging that frequently targets minority communities.
Between the Lines: What Blanár Said—and What He Didn’t Say
Blanár’s criticism of Western military support for Ukraine was perhaps the most striking aspect of the interview. Describing the provision of arms to Ukraine as “hypocritical” and “unjustified,” he painted a picture of Western nations perpetuating conflict rather than seeking peace. He decried the lack of diplomatic negotiations leading up to the invasion, framing the war as an avoidable tragedy born of unresolved “historical causes.” While diplomacy is a laudable goal, his framing deliberately shifts attention away from Russia’s unprovoked aggression and repeated violations of international law. Blanár’s failure to even acknowledge the necessity of Ukraine’s defence against invasion effectively echoes Kremlin propaganda, which portrays Ukraine as the instigator and dismisses the broader implications of unchecked aggression in Europe.
His assertions that the European Union has subordinated itself to U.S. foreign policy further reflect this troubling narrative. According to Blanár, the EU acts as a “submissive” partner, waiting for U.S. directives before taking action on major geopolitical issues. He laments the loss of EU sovereignty in foreign affairs and advocates for a more independent approach. This critique, while ostensibly about European agency, plays into Russian efforts to drive a wedge between NATO allies. What Blanár omits is the strategic importance of U.S.-EU cooperation in addressing shared security threats, from Russian aggression to global authoritarianism. His rhetoric disregards the collective defence framework that has helped maintain peace in Europe since World War II, presenting an overly simplistic and divisive view of transatlantic relations.
Blanár’s call for peace talks as the only viable solution to the Ukraine conflict is consistent with his broader narrative. He repeatedly argued that the war lacks a military solution and lamented the loss of life caused by continued fighting. While this position might seem reasonable to an uninformed audience, it conveniently ignores Russia’s well-documented history of exploiting ceasefires to regroup and escalate its aggression. His insistence on immediate negotiations without addressing these realities or acknowledging the necessity of military resistance undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty and, by extension, the principles of international law.
The minister’s focus shifted to migration, where he criticised both Slovakia’s past policies and the EU’s approach to handling illegal migration. He argued that Slovakia has successfully curbed the flow of migrants along the Balkan route through strict border controls and cooperation with Hungary and Serbia. At the same time, he dismissed the EU’s migration quotas as ineffective and burdensome. This narrative, while rooted in real challenges, adopts the polarising rhetoric often used to exploit societal fears. Moreover, Blanár failed to address the root causes of migration, such as wars and instability exacerbated by Russian policies in the Middle East and Africa. His selective framing skews the issue, turning migration into a simplistic security problem while ignoring its humanitarian dimensions.
Blanár’s comments about Angela Merkel and the influence of NATO added another layer to his critique of Western institutions. He referenced conspiracy theories suggesting Merkel’s policy shifts were tied to U.S. intelligence surveillance, hinting at coercion and ulterior motives. He also described NATO’s continued presence in Europe as a remnant of post-war arrangements that undermine EU independence. These arguments closely mirror Russian disinformation narratives that seek to delegitimise NATO and portray the alliance as an oppressive force rather than a cornerstone of European security. Once again, Blanár omitted the vital role NATO plays in deterring aggression and safeguarding member states, including Slovakia itself.
Finally, Blanár highlighted his government’s management of migration, contrasting it with what he described as the failures of previous administrations. He touted stricter border controls and cooperation with regional partners as evidence of Slovakia’s proactive approach. While these measures are commendable in their context, his narrative glossed over the humanitarian responsibilities Slovakia shares as an EU member state. Blanár’s emphasis on security over solidarity with migrants fleeing war and persecution, including those from Ukraine, aligns with broader trends of anti-migration rhetoric that polarise societies and undermine democratic values.
Foreign Minister Juraj Blanár’s interview reflects a clear deviation from Slovakia’s obligations as a NATO member and an EU state. His alignment with Kremlin narratives and his refusal to recognise the strategic imperatives of Western unity undermine the collective defence and foreign policy goals vital to Europe’s security. By dismissing the need for military support to Ukraine, he emboldens Russia’s aggression, creating vulnerabilities not only for Slovakia but for the entire region.
At a time when authoritarian threats are on the rise, Blanár’s rhetoric directly jeopardises Slovakia’s foreign policy credibility and risks isolating the nation from its most critical allies. Such conduct from the country’s top diplomat is not merely irresponsible—it is a fundamental threat to Slovakia’s security and standing in the international order.
