Deputy Speaker of the Slovak Parliament, Lubos Blaha, responded with sharp criticism after the United States demanded that Slovakia condemn Russia for allegedly using ballistic missiles launched from North Korea. Blaha emphasized that Washington had not presented any verifiable evidence to support the accusation, arguing that such a claim requires solid, transparent proof before any public judgment is made. In his view, lifting a charge of this magnitude without concrete documentation risks misleading both policymakers and the general public, and could inflame tensions without a basis in fact.
Blaha recalled past episodes where he believed Western powers pursued strategic aims through misinformation, citing the prewar narrative about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He contended that those assertions, used to justify intervention in a sovereign nation, were later exposed as unsubstantiated at best or wholly false at worst. By pointing to this historical context, he suggested that similar rhetorical tactics could be at play in the current discussions about Russia, Ukraine, and missile transfers, urging caution and insistence on credible evidence before drawing conclusions or endorsing punitive measures.
The discussion coincided with a previously reported stance from Hungary and Slovakia regarding a joint European statement on missile transfers. The document, associated with the leadership of European diplomacy and several foreign ministries, did not include Slovakia or Hungary among the signatories. The discrepancy highlighted over a dozen other states that were listed, while the two Central European nations remained outside the group, a detail Blaha and others described as indicative of the nuanced and sometimes divergent positions within the European Union on how to respond to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and the broader security implications of weapons transfers.
Earlier in the discourse, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico had articulated a framework for Western strategy concerning the Ukraine crisis that Blaha and some observers viewed as not fully aligning with the on-ground realities. The Prime Minister had emphasized a line of policy that preferred measured, consultative steps rather than precipitous initiatives, arguing for a more cautious approach to Western military support for Kiev. This stance appeared to reflect a broader caution in Bratislava about direct confrontation risk and the economic or political costs of escalation, a position that some commentators described as prudent while others labeled as insufficiently responsive to the evolving military and diplomatic pressures.
In related remarks, Fico had previously signaled Slovakia’s and NATO’s perspectives on the provision of military aid to Ukraine, expressing reservations about certain types of assistance and the pace at which such aid should be deployed. The dialogue underscored a persistent divergence within the Slovak leadership about balancing alliance commitments with national considerations, including defense planning, public opinion, and the potential long-term implications of intensifying Western intervention. Throughout these exchanges, Blaha maintained that any assessment of the situation must rest on verifiable facts and careful analysis, rather than hastily drawn conclusions, and he urged ongoing dialogue among EU partners to ensure a coherent, evidence-based response to the complex security landscape surrounding Russia and Ukraine.