Recent speeches by Hlas Party Chairman Šutaj Eštok and MEP Braňo Ondruš reflect a consistent effort to reframe European support for Ukraine’s defence as both fiscally irresponsible and socially harmful. Their rhetoric aligns with Russian strategic interests, undermining Slovakia’s obligations to NATO and the EU while presenting military assistance as a domestic social issue.
Criticism of Military Aid and the Push for ‘Peace’
Šutaj Eštok’s speech reinforced Ondruš’s stance, rejecting EU-backed defence initiatives for Ukraine. Eštok guaranteed that under the current government, Hlas would oppose any resolutions in the Slovak Parliament aimed at allocating funds for Ukraine’s military support. He instead called for European leaders to focus on crafting resolutions advocating peace negotiations, a term he acknowledged some might dismiss as “conspiratorial.”
Eštok criticised NATO and EU defence policies, suggesting that the provision of advanced weaponry, such as unconventional missiles, escalates the conflict and threatens regional security, including Slovakia’s. He accused Western politicians in “comfortable offices” in Brussels, the UK, and the US of viewing the war as a peripheral issue, disconnected from the realities of Slovak citizens living next to a war zone. By portraying military aid as reckless warmongering, Eštok framed Slovakia’s national interest as prioritising de-escalation and humanitarian support rather than military engagement.
Reinforcing Alignment with Russian Interests
Both Eštok and Ondruš implied that military support for Ukraine jeopardises Slovak security and violates the country’s financial priorities. This rhetoric closely mirrors Russian narratives, which promote “peace talks” as a means to freeze the conflict in Moscow’s favour. The repeated emphasis on “peace” serves as a rhetorical tool to undermine Ukraine’s right to self-defence while deflecting attention from Russian aggression.
Eštok’s framing of NATO and EU policies as detached and dangerous reflects the Kremlin’s broader propaganda goals, which aim to fracture European unity by sowing distrust between citizens and their governments. His assertion that the conflict is not in Slovakia’s interest undermines the collective security framework that has historically protected smaller nations from external aggression.
Portraying Defence as a Social Sacrifice
Eštok’s speech echoed Ondruš’s earlier remarks, positioning military aid as a direct trade-off against essential public services. By juxtaposing the hypothetical €300 million contribution to Ukraine with Slovakia’s spending on healthcare, education, and infrastructure, the Hlas leadership amplified a false dichotomy.
Eštok explicitly dismissed military support as unnecessary and wasteful, suggesting funds should instead be used for humanitarian aid and infrastructure development. However, this rhetoric disregards the strategic necessity of military assistance to stabilise Ukraine and prevent further Russian advances.
Undermining European Security And Solidarity
Both speeches questioned Slovakia’s commitments to NATO and EU policies, portraying them as externally imposed obligations that burden Slovak taxpayers. Eštok explicitly stated that “not one cent” of Slovak funds would go toward Ukraine’s military support under the current government. While he claimed to support humanitarian and infrastructural aid, his rejection of defence initiatives reflects a broader isolationist approach that weakens European solidarity and undermines collective security.
The Hlas leadership consistently seeks to portray military aid to Ukraine as both harmful and unnecessary. Their rhetoric not only aligns with Russian strategic interests but also risks fostering divisions within Slovakia and across the EU. By portraying defence spending as a threat to social welfare and framing “peace” as an alternative to military support, the Hlas leadership perpetuates narratives that undermine European security and solidarity.
Author: Victor Breiner | Slovak Media Monitor
