Robert Fico’s refusal to confront Russia over sabotage targeting Nato infrastructure is putting Slovakia’s security at risk, a Slovak opposition MP has warned.
Juraj Krúpa, an MP for the liberal SaS party, said Russia was already waging a full-scale hybrid war against Europe through sabotage of energy, transport and defence infrastructure. In a personal column published by Denník N on 8 September 2026, he linked incidents in Lithuania, Poland and Denmark with an attack on the Skyeton defence company near Prešov and an attempted act of sabotage at a military facility in Leipzig.
Krúpa said the incidents formed part of a Russian effort to destabilise Europe and undermine collective security. He accused Fico’s government of minimising the threat from Moscow and repeating Kremlin narratives instead of responding firmly to attacks on infrastructure in Nato countries. The criticism places the Slovak prime minister’s policy towards Russia at the centre of a wider argument about whether Bratislava is meeting its responsibilities as an EU and Nato member.
A campaign that reaches beyond Slovakia
The incidents cited by Krúpa span several parts of Europe and affect infrastructure with direct importance for national security: energy networks, transport links, defence production and military facilities. His argument is that they should not be treated as isolated events, but as elements of a coordinated campaign designed to test the resilience of European states.
That assessment gives particular significance to the incident at Skyeton, a defence company near Prešov. A sabotage operation on Slovak territory would mean that Russian hybrid aggression is not an abstract external danger for Bratislava. It would represent a direct security challenge inside Slovakia itself, exposing the gap between the government’s public restraint towards Moscow and the risks faced by the country.
Krúpa said the objective was not limited to physical damage. By creating disruption and uncertainty around infrastructure on which European countries depend, Russia could seek to weaken public confidence, strain cooperation between allies and make governments hesitate before responding. The central concern is therefore collective: an attack on one country’s infrastructure can become a test of the wider alliance’s willingness to defend its members.
Fico accused of putting politics before security
The MP’s criticism focuses not only on what Russia is doing, but on what Slovakia’s government is refusing to say. Fico has avoided condemning or commenting on Russian-organised sabotage, a position Krúpa portrays as deliberate rather than accidental. The prime minister, he argues, is avoiding a confrontation with the Kremlin even when the conduct in question affects the security of European allies.
That approach is politically irresponsible, according to Krúpa, because the head of a European government should put the safety of his own country first and fulfil its obligations to its allies. Silence, in this reading, does not protect Slovakia from the consequences of the conflict between Russia and Europe. It leaves the country less prepared to recognise threats and less willing to respond when they occur.
Krúpa also said Fico’s policy was damaging Slovakia’s standing in the EU and Nato by making it appear an unreliable partner. He argued that repeating Kremlin narratives and declining to confront Russian operations helped Moscow weaken its international isolation. The accusation is especially serious because it connects domestic political messaging with the practical security of alliance members.
Silence may invite further testing
The immediate consequence of the government’s position, in Krúpa’s assessment, is greater Slovak vulnerability. If sabotage on Slovak territory produces no clear political response, the Kremlin may conclude that the limits of acceptable behaviour have not been reached. The absence of a reaction could therefore encourage further operations and more probing of European defences.
The dispute now extends beyond whether individual incidents should be described as isolated acts or as part of a wider Russian campaign. It concerns the standard expected of an EU and Nato government when hostile activity reaches its own territory. For Slovakia, the unresolved issue is whether Fico’s restraint will preserve room for manoeuvre or instead signal that Russian hybrid operations can be conducted without a serious political cost.
Should Slovakia respond to Russian sabotage with stronger public condemnation and closer alliance coordination, or continue Fico’s policy of avoiding direct confrontation with Moscow?
