‘An invitation to Moscow’
Yet Fico’s comments could still have damaging effects in the real world and have been criticised both from within the governing camp in Slovakia as well as from the opposition and figures elsewhere in the region.
President Pellegrini, who was once the leader of the coalition Hlas party, said he accepted only one interpretation of the prime minister’s remarks: NATO members should avoid provoking Russia and risking an attack on an alliance country. “I do not accept any other interpretation and would reject it,” Pellegrini said, adding that Slovakia could not suggest it might stand aside during a conflict.
Parliamentary speaker Richard Rasi, from Pellegrini’s Hlas party, warned against treating collective-defence commitments as merely formal. “If we were to describe this commitment as merely formal or unenforceable, we would also have to accept that our allies might one day take the same position towards us,” he said.
Opposition politicians also inevitably criticised Fico. Progressive Slovakia leader Michal Simecka accused him of questioning the basic pillar of the country’s defence. Ivan Korcok, a former foreign minister, warned that publicly undermining confidence in NATO amounted to sending Moscow “an invitation”.
“If someone wanted to attack Slovakia, they know that they would not be facing a country of 5 million, but the strongest alliance in the world,” Korcok said.
Christian Democrat deputy leader Viliam Karas rejected neutrality as a realistic alternative, arguing that Slovakia lacked both the military strength and financial resources to defend itself independently.
“Whoever questions our readiness to help our allies also weakens their willingness to help us,” Karas said. “One day we may be the ones who need Article 5.”
The controversy also reached Prague. Czech President Petr Pavel, a former chairman of NATO’s Military Committee, called them “extremely serious” and warned against questioning solidarity between allies. It was not their first clash: the two have previously disagreed publicly over Russia’s war against Ukraine and how the conflict should be described.
Fico responded that Pavel, a former NATO general, “would like to fight”, while he preferred peace. Pavel said he had heard the same argument before, that a general wants war while others want peace, during the 2023 Czech presidential campaign.
Former Czech foreign minister Jan Lipavsky pointed to what Czech forces are already doing for Slovakia. Czech soldiers are serving in the country, while Czech aircraft have helped protect Slovak airspace. If Fico questions military assistance between allies, Lipavsky asked, why should the Czechs help defend Slovakia?
Prime Minister Andrej Babis said the Czech Republic was preparing to deploy two mechanised brigades if Russia attacked a Baltic NATO member. He had previously said Prague would respect Article 5, while declining to comment on Fico’s remarks.
Germany added its voice on September 29, when Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul visited Bratislava for talks with his Slovak counterpart, Juraj Blanar.
“The greatest threat to freedom on our continent comes from Moscow. The greatest danger to Europe is Putin’s belligerent imperialism,” Wadephul said. “Questioning these facts is not only lacking in solidarity, but it would also be irresponsible.”
Wadephul warned that countries casting doubt on NATO’s collective deterrence put themselves at risk and weakened security guarantees for other alliance members.
Security analyst Radovan Branik says Fico is technically correct about Article 5’s obligations: the clause does not automatically require every NATO member to deploy combat troops when another member is attacked and governments can provide different forms of assistance according to capabilities and circumstances. “On the facts, he is right,” Branik says.
His concern is how Fico’s statements affect deterrence. A potential aggressor cannot know in advance precisely how NATO members would respond to an attack. Branik argues that publicly discussing limits on Slovakia’s possible involvement could weaken that uncertainty.
Retired Slovak general Pavel Macko also questions how Slovakia could defend itself without allied guarantees. With roughly 16,000 soldiers, he argues, the country could not defend even one major city alone against a large-scale attack.
Macko rejects neutrality as a guarantee of security, citing Belgium, whose neutral status failed to prevent German invasions during the world wars.
“Not every country has the same capabilities,” he says, pointing to Iceland, which has no standing army, and Luxembourg, whose armed forces are small. “It is still one for all and all for one, but everyone within their capabilities.”
Macko says Slovakia could restrict how its troops are deployed under NATO command, but limiting them to Slovak territory would be deeply at odds with allied solidarity.
Practical constraints remain, too: Slovakia still lacks the fully capable heavy mechanised brigade NATO expects under its force requirements. According to Macko, it may not be ready until 2035 or later.
Pavel Havlicek of the Prague-based Association for International Affairs (AMO) argues that Slovakia lacks the military capacity to repel a major Russian attack independently. Even a war that did not reach Slovak territory would bring refugees, inflation and economic disruption, he says.
Branik also questions who would determine whether a NATO member had “provoked” Russia, as Fico suggests. He noted that Moscow has already characterised Slovak arms production as provocative.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk also recently raised concerns about the credibility of Article 5. Citing intelligence assessments, he warned that Russia could launch drone or missile strikes against NATO countries on its eastern flank, cause damage and then portray the incidents as accidents rather than deliberate attacks.
He argued that such incidents could weaken NATO’s willingness to respond collectively and undermine confidence in its defence commitments. The aim would be to convince alliance members that Article 5 is “more theoretical than practical”, while giving politicians an excuse to argue that their countries should not have to fight for allies such as Latvia or Lithuania.
That confidence in Western hesitation was on display in a recent BBC interview with Sergei Karaganov, honorary chairman of Russia’s Council for Foreign and Defence Policy. Asked whether Europe would retaliate against a Russian nuclear strike, Karaganov dismissed the possibility. “No, there will be no response from Europe,” he said, expressing confidence that neither the UK nor the US would risk nuclear retaliation.
Fico may have his own political reasons for questioning NATO solidarity, but his remarks give Moscow further reason to believe its strategy is working.