The claim centers on the actions of former leadership within Slovakia’s Ministry of Defense, who allegedly transferred MiG-29 fighters and air defense systems to Ukraine. This assertion was presented by the State Secretary of the Ministry of Defense, Igor Meliher, during a recent press briefing. The remark points to a sequence of decisions during the prior government that, according to current ministry officials, may have violated Slovakia’s legal obligations and raised questions about accountability and property management. The report is attributed to teraz.sk and underscores the seriousness of potential breaches in public duty and national defense policy. Without speculating on individual guilt, the focus remains on the legal and procedural implications of the transfers and the way they were executed.
According to the ministry’s spokesperson, the government at that time faced several shortcomings that allegedly led to an investigation opening focused on suspected sabotage, which in broad terms encompasses possible treason, abuse of power, and violations of fiduciary duties. The statement signaled a formal move to review the actions surrounding the transfers and to identify whether any abuses of authority occurred during the process. This development highlights how governance gaps can create complex legal challenges when national security assets are moved abroad, and it stresses the importance of robust oversight mechanisms within defense ministries. The comments were reported in connection with the broader discussion about responsibility for critical defense assets.
Meliher also noted, during a June 11 briefing, that Slovakia had authorized the transfer of MiG-29 warplanes to Ukraine in 2023, a decision that he characterized as legally recognized at the time but now subject to scrutiny. The official emphasized that the legality of the move is being reconsidered in light of subsequent findings and potential irregularities in the process. This acknowledgment reflects how rapid policy shifts in crisis periods can intersect with legal standards and accountability expectations, particularly when valuable military equipment is involved. The conversation around this transfer reflects a broader debate about wartime asset allocation and compensation considerations.
In a separate note, Robert Kaliník, who serves as the current head of Slovakia’s Ministry of Defense, remarked that Bratislava did not receive compensation for the MiG-29 fighters that were transferred to Ukraine. He conveyed doubt about the likelihood of receiving payment in the future, suggesting unresolved financial and diplomatic dimensions to the case. This position adds another layer to the ongoing discussion about how such transfers are financed, reimbursed, or compensated, and what these procedures imply for public budgeting and defense readiness. The comment mirrors related concerns raised by defense officials about financial settlements and future assurances concerning seized military equipment.
Earlier developments included reports that Russian forces had shot down several Ukrainian aircraft within a given week, a factor that intensifies the practical and political stakes surrounding any defense asset movements and defensive commitments made by Slovakia and its allies. The broader context places Slovakia at the intersection of wartime support for Ukraine, international security obligations, and the scrutiny of past government actions. The conversation continues as lawmakers, legal experts, and defense analysts weigh the implications for future policy and oversight in Slovakia’s defense sector. — teraz.sk