DISINFORMATION

Slovakia outside of NATO? Fair enough, provided there are only two sexes

The Adapt Institute provides an overview of disinformation trends that have been on the rise in the last two weeks. The demand for increased defence spending led to the spread of manipulative narratives in Slovakia that sought to question the need for NATO member states to arm themselves. In addition to hackneyed references to an aggressive West that is supposedly responsible for global tensions, accusations of dictates from Washington or Brussels also entered the discourse.

• Several actors echoed PM Robert Fico's words that neutrality would suit Slovakia. They jointly proclaimed the conspiratorial interests of the arms industry and contrasted defence spending with the social security of the population. Narratives that war is unlikely and that a neutral Slovakia would have a bright and sovereign future sound paradoxical coming from those who were scaring people about Slovakia being dragged into World War III.
• The issue of enshrining the two sex categories in the Slovak constitution was also raised. The approaching vote, which was ultimately postponed to September due to a lack of coalition votes, forced part of the political spectrum to convince its audience about males, females and “abnormalities”. This abnormal civilisational struggle in Slovakia was, of course, also marked by the protection of traditions against the so-called decadent European Union (EU).
• MEPs from the far right lived up to their reputation. Members of the Republika movement excelled in demonising Brussels and creating external enemies – from the violent imposition of so-called rainbow ideologies to accusations of EU blackmailing member states.

Two sexes in the constitution

A draft constitutional law that would have enshrined two sex categories, male and female, and Slovakia's sovereign decision-making on cultural and ethical issues in the country's constitution was adopted by the government in March. The constitutional amendment was ultimately postponed, as the governing coalition was one vote short of securing parliamentary approval. Critics of the change questioned the need to codify this issue, arguing that it was more an attempt to appease more conservative voters. The controversial change will be voted on again in September. Nevertheless, the issue had a significant impact on the Slovak information space in June. The approaching vote led to an increase in dubious communication.

PM Robert Fico (SMER-SSD) presented the proposed constitutional amendment as part of a broader package of his vision for reforming the political system in Slovakia. Lately, he's been thinking mainly about how to “radically reduce the number of political entities in Slovakia”. If this sounds like a move away from democracy, it's no coincidence. In connection with the two sexes in the constitution, he speaks of a move to regulate ”issues of national identity and fundamental cultural and ethical issues”. These efforts are supposed to elicit recognition abroad.

Fico refers to traditional family values and Christianity, mentioning the legacy of Cyril and Methodius (9th-century missionaries who brought Christianity to the territory of present-day Slovakia). He presents the constitutional amendments to his audience as part of a civilisational struggle: “This country has its history, it has its traditions, and we will not go against these traditions and our history because of Brussels.” For Fico, this is one of the issues that is, so to speak, a dividing line – as a national populist, he knows how to play on the conflict between West and East, progressivism and conservatism, EU membership and so-called national sovereignty.

Other politicians took a somewhat more direct and perhaps vulgar approach to explaining the issue of two sexes. Michal Bartek, an MP for the Hlas-SD party, tried to apply the idea that everyone with “common sense” would vote for two sexes in the constitution. Bartek tried to create a false dilemma – either two sexes, male and female, or “helicopters” or “someone in Western Europe [who] walks on all fours and barks”. Chairman of Slovak National Party (SNS) Andrej Danko also attempted to discredit the discussion on sexual identities by saying in the Slovak parliament that as humans, ‘we are not earthworms’.

For Richard Glück, anything outside the framework of “male, female” is simply “abnormal”. And for György Gyimesi (Magyar Szövetség – Hungarian Alliance), it is a matter of principle in the conflict between the sovereignty of member states and Brussels – he sees a European effort to rewrite traditions “through rigid Brussels templates”, which Slovakia and other sovereign states should oppose.

Once again, the same template is being used – anything that is different from tradition is questioned or presented as something alien that is ultimately intended to harm Slovakia. The reality is different, but a black-and-white view is effective not only in spreading hatred and toxicity, but also in mobilising voters. At a time of consolidation measures, this is an important part of the political apparatus.

Withdrawal from NATO?

In recent months, the world has been facing growing international tensions, which naturally lead to concerns about national security. Whether it is the war in Ukraine or conflicts in the Middle East, NATO and its member states recognise the need to support armament and increase their own defence capabilities against potential aggressors.

At the beginning of June, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte put forward a proposal that member states should increase their defence spending to 5% of GDP, with 3.5% going to the armed forces and another 1.5% to other defence-related expenditure. US President Donald Trump also called for five per cent defence spending.

Slovakia should support the increase in spending, President Peter Pellegrini announced during the summit of eastern flank NATO leaders in Vilnius, Lithuania. The new alliance commitments were also approved by the defence ministers of the member states. On 22 June 2025, NATO member states subsequently agreed on the text of a joint statement by leaders, which should be approved at the summit in Hague.

Despite the objectively deteriorating situation in the international environment, there have been many objections to increased defence spending in the Slovak information environment. Often, this was not constructive criticism, but a barrage of manipulative narratives questioning the need for armament. This is hardly surprising, as NATO has long been a favourite target of the disinformation scene in Slovakia, which plays on anti-American sentiment and claims of Western aggression and warmongering.

The waters were stirred up in particular by Robert Fico's statement endorsing the idea of a neutral Slovakia. This reaction to the sharp increase in spending would effectively mean Slovakia's withdrawal from NATO. President Pellegrini described the statement as provocative and a matter that could “threaten the security of the Slovak Republic”. On the contrary, Andrej Danko (SNS) stood behind Robert Fico. He questioned, among other things, that neutrality would be more expensive than the new defence spending requested.

This is probably just a weak attempt by the ruling coalition to win or retain votes with vague rhetoric, which may suffer from consolidation measures. Nevertheless, these are highly risky statements, especially when they come from the mouth of the prime minister of a NATO member state. It is no secret that destabilising and disrupting the internal unity of the alliance is one of Russia's key objectives. Let us not forget that the neutrality advocated by part of the governing coalition and the disinformation scene is essentially what we are seeing live in Ukraine. Regardless of various myths and nonsense, NATO membership is in Slovakia's supreme interest for ensuring its security and sovereignty.

This is one of the reasons why we have looked at the issue of Slovakia's neutrality over the past two weeks using the Gerulata Juno analytical tool. We used it to analyse the most popular posts on Slovak Facebook that contained the keywords ‘neutrality’ or ‘NATO’. We excluded posts that did not contain problematic narratives from the list. We then evaluated the posts based on the total number of interactions (the sum of all reactions, comments and shares).

The post with the most interactions belongs to Robert Fico, who brought the topic of Slovakia's neutrality into the information environment out of nowhere, so to speak, and on his own initiative. It is a recording of a press conference at which this topic was communicated publicly for the first time. The Slovak PM openly asks whether neutrality would suit Slovakia. He questions the threat of war and discredits the EU's efforts to build arms and defence capabilities. Fico talks about today as “senseless times of armament, where various arms companies are rubbing their hands together, just as pharmaceutical companies did during Covid.” Coming from a man who, together with his party colleagues, has been continuously scaremongering about Slovakia being dragged into a third world war, this is, at the very least, an amusing contradiction. However, we must not forget the seriousness and significance of such statements – they play into the hands of Russian propaganda, which has long been actively fuelling narratives in Slovakia that undermine trust in NATO and question Slovakia's membership in the alliance.

In a second post, published by Robert Fico, the Slovak PM attempts to reinforce his words on Slovak neutrality. He does so in response to the wave of criticism that followed his initial statement. According to Fico, Slovakia must “be a staunch advocate of peace and should not be part of any military adventures”. This is, of course, fine, but Fico does not answer the question of what Slovakia will do if someone attacks it. On the contrary, he compares NATO to a golf club: “If you want to play, you have to pay a membership fee”. He attributes the decision to increase defence spending solely to the US – Fico also fails to mention that it was also adopted by the defence ministers of individual member states (including Slovakia), who recognise this need in relation to growing tensions. He prefers to talk about the possibilities of Slovakia's neutrality, which he compares to the situation in Austria or Switzerland. These are two countries which, incidentally, are surrounded by NATO states, which indirectly guarantee them a certain degree of security.

The third post was published by Judita Laššáková and Monika Beňová (both from SMER-SSD), who took part in a television debate with MEPs from the opposition Progressive Slovakia party. Both Laššáková and Beňová tried to defend Fico's words on neutrality on the TA3 television channel as a natural reaction to the tough decisions facing Slovakia. Of course, they mentioned the idea that neutrality would not mean “that much money”. This is an example of one of the long-standing key arguments of those who are in some way flirting with the idea of Slovakia leaving NATO. They often contrast defence spending with social security for the population. They exploit the fact that it is difficult to demonstrate security to citizens until it is essentially too late. Beňová also confirmed that neutrality really does mean Slovakia's withdrawal from NATO.

Another post was published by György Gyimesi from the Hungarian minority party Magyar Szövetség – Hungarian Alliance. In the video, he claimed that a few weeks ago, he was “the first to publicly say that neutrality would suit Slovakia”. According to Gyimesi, there is no need to spend billions on weapons and fighter jets. “If defence today means only armament, while schools, hospitals, the police and the fire brigade are underfunded, then something is seriously wrong.” Despite being a small country, Slovakia, according to Gyimesi, can “choose a different path if people want to live in peace. One without war rhetoric. Not in the sense of orders dictated from Washington or Moscow.” The post thus follows a similar narrative to those above – investment in defence is manipulatively contrasted with an underfunded public sector, and the audience is presented with a healthy dose of naive ideas about a neutral Slovakia that will never be attacked and will remain sovereign despite having almost no resources to ensure its own security. Either this is a sincere misunderstanding of the logic of international relations or a deliberate attempt to manipulate one's own fans.

The last post in the list was published by Ľuboš Blaha. The MEP for SMER-SSD, following the example of his colleagues, naturally rushed into the information environment in an effort to defend the words of his party leader. Fico's statement was supposedly intended to stroke the “hearts of the majority of Slovaks who believe in peaceful values and are fed up with armament”. Blaha completely ignores the fact that, according to the latest survey by Globsec Trends 2025, up to 72% of respondents want Slovakia to remain in NATO. He prefers to work with proven fabrications about how the West is “driving us into war against Russia”. Russia's only crime is apparently that it “did not want the West to expand militarily to its borders”. Blaha thus lives up to his reputation, continuing to serve up Russian propaganda on a silver platter while accusing the current opposition of being willing to “grovel unconditionally before Brussels and the Western powers”. In this way, the MEP actually descends to the level of the pro-Russian views and manipulatively presents to his audience the commitments that Slovakia has to fulfil due to the current geopolitical situation and its membership in NATO.

Extortionate Brussels and the ideological threat to children

Narratives aimed at demonising the EU were also present. Unsurprisingly, MEPs from the far-right Republika movement were particularly vocal. Milan Mazurek's post, in which he accuses the EU of defrauding its own member states, was the most popular across the entire Slovak information space in the last two weeks, receiving more than 71,000 interactions. He accuses the EU authorities of pretending to be “saviours bringing a bag full of money” and giving it to countries under “extortionate conditions”.

This is how Mazurek describes the criteria and requirements relating to the protection of democracy and the rule of law, which EU members agreed to when they joined. Mazurek goes on to say that if countries dare to resist the EU (citing Hungary and Slovakia as examples), Brussels will start dictating ‘how much money must go to various sexual or religious minorities, how much money must go to the so-called green transformation’. The MEP is therefore essentially saying nothing new – he is simply bandying about labels for public enemies (minorities) whom he has long sought to demonise as part of his far-right agenda.

This is also the case in Mazurek's next post, in which the MEP claims that the EU is actively involved in spreading “perversion”. Apparently, if you want to protect your children from this, the EU will punish you. What does Mazurek mean by perversity? Well, “promoting rainbow ideologies to children” or “marches of naked men dressed as women or dogs”. According to Mazurek, Western leaders are wrongly punishing countries like Hungary, even though in France and Germany, he says, “whole cities are regularly burned down and people are murdered and raped every day”.

Mazurek's party leader, Milan Uhrík, tried to strike another sensitive chord with Slovaks – finances and energy. In his post, the chairman of the Republika party accused the EU of wanting to “disconnect Slovaks from cheap energy”. This time, he was referring to the European Commission's plan to phase out Russian gas and oil imports by the end of 2027. As a messenger of Russian propaganda, Uhrík naturally ignores the reason behind these European efforts – Russia, as an aggressor, is simply not a stable partner or energy supplier. According to Uhrík, it is “high time to say ENOUGH!” Unfortunately, not to Russia, but to Brussels.

Ľuboš Blaha continued in a similar vein. The SMER-SSD MEP argued in the European Parliament debate that by stopping Russian gas supplies, the EU authorities “are not punishing the Russians, but us, the Slovaks and Hungarians”. According to Blaha, these steps are turning the EU into a “war institution” and its only goal is to “arm itself and hate Russia”. Among other things, he is trying to manipulate the fact that if the EU cannot condemn Israel's actions in Gaza and Iran (here he is essentially linking two incomparable and complex conflicts), then it cannot sanction Russia either. Even if Blaha relies on this, two minuses do not make a plus.

We have outlined above the significantly growing tensions in international relations. We have also outlined that part of the disinformation scene chooses to ignore these developments completely and create its own reality. This is also the case with Milan Uhrík, mentioned above. He rejects “the intention of Eurofanatics to radically increase spending on weapons” and manipulates this by linking it to efforts to “squeeze more money out of consolidation”. Uhrík relies on the popular conflict between building security capacities and ensuring social and economic security for citizens. It is natural that these two levels are in opposition. If you add to one pocket, you have to take from another. However, this is not the result of the whims of European authorities – they are ‘only’ responsibly perceiving the growing tension in their neighbourhood and trying to prepare for potential threats. Incidentally, the growing tension, whose source (the Russian Federation) Uhrík responsibly ignores, is also worsening the economic situation.

Project is organized by Adapt Institute and supported by the Prague office of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom. It continuously monitors the activities of both Slovak and foreign disinformation actors, but focuses mainly on the former. The project activities are built upon daily monitoring of emerging disinformation, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories in the online information space. This approach allows the analysts to identify disinformation posts and narratives that resonated with the public the most, as well as to find out where they originated, and how they spread and evolved on social media. The report takes the form of a bi-weekly summary of arising trends in the spread of malicious information content online. Based on that, Adapt Institute can inform the public about emerging and current trends in the field of disinformation, manipulation, and propaganda.