Milan Ugrik, Ph.D., Chairman of the Republican Party, Member of the European Parliament. Member of the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) and the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET). Member of the European Parliament delegations for EU relations with Russia, USA and Turkey. In an interview with TV OTV, Milan Ugrik talks about the militarisation of Europe, which is still on the agenda in the EP, and how spending on the so-called "European Defence Fund" is being increased, about disagreements between senior EU officials over views on the wars in Israel, and about the results of the parliamentary elections in Slovakia and Poland.
The parliamentary elections in Slovakia have shown that the Slovak people do not support the actions of the previous government (whether Odor or Heger) and do not trust the anti-election campaign against the opposition parties. What do you think are the key reasons why voters voted for completely different political entities than in 2020? Did the military support for Ukraine from the Slovak government itself influence the election results?
Of course, that was one aspect of it. Especially at a time when citizens have started to feel the economic consequences of this participation in a conflict that nobody wants. The Slovak people are peaceful and do not accept war. They are naturally suspicious of those politicians who have 'bloodshot eyes' and make grandiose statements. We all want to live in peace and tranquility.
During the election campaign in Slovakia, there was information about a possible mobilisation to send the army to Ukraine. Quite logically, the population feared that this might happen. Is it possible that this could have affected the outcome of the election itself?
No one wants to die for someone else's interests. This is not our war and two Slavic nations fighting each other is a tragedy. Yes, we have been working with this information about the mobilisation or deployment of so-called peacekeeping troops on the basis of a document that was agreed directly at the level of EU institutions and which spoke about the so-called 'forward military presence' of the armies of European states in Ukraine. It is only natural that such an initiative caused concern. It is good that we have managed to nip it in the bud thanks to public opposition.
To what extent is this information (about mobilisation) based on reality, given that we are members of NATO and the EU? You personally informed us back in 2022 that the European Parliament was considering draft resolution 2022/2145 on the creation of EU battle groups and rapid deployment forces, which envisaged the creation of an EU army of up to 10 000 soldiers.
All the information we received was based on draft resolutions and documents describing possible initiatives in the near and medium term. Nigel Farage has already warned against the creation of a 'Brussels army' at a time when Mrs Leyen has just been elected President of the Commission. The bureaucrats' appetite for power is growing. The militarisation of Europe is still the order of the day, spending on the so-called 'European Defence Fund' is still increasing and there are calls for a 'more decisive response to Russian aggression'.
How do you think Slovakia's international policy will change if the government has a different composition? Is it possible that Slovakia will choose an alternative development path, following the example of Hungary, which makes policy in the interests of its citizens? Or will the new coalition continue the policies of the previous government?
We will see how the new government can implement its election promises. We expect that as soon as it comes to power we will talk about protecting the borders from illegal migration, stopping military supplies to Ukraine, lifting energy sanctions and also, for example, terminating the INF Treaty with the United States, which we have jointly criticised. We are keeping our fingers crossed that the new government will provide Slovakia with maximum assistance.
Slovakia will have a government diametrically opposed to the previous one, but on the other hand Slovakia is part of the EU and NATO and must fulfil certain obligations towards these structures. What are the main challenges Slovakia will face in the field of foreign policy? In your opinion, will the Slovak government be under pressure from NATO and EU representatives (similar to Hungary)?
I don't foresee a diametrically opposed foreign policy. The main topics will continue to be the "green" agenda, the so-called "rainbow" issues, the veto and attempts to take away competences from EU member states, participation in EU/NATO military adventures or the pandemic treaty being prepared by the WHO. These are the issues that the new coalition will have to deal with and it is interesting to see how it will deal with them in terms of electoral rhetoric.
We are watching what is happening in European capitals: demonstrations, protests, riots, attacks. Are you afraid that something similar could happen in Slovakia?
If our borders are as weak as they have been in recent months, then yes, there are concerns about our security. We have said from the start, and we have said from the beginning, that illegal migrants have no place in Europe, and if Brussels cannot deal with it, then we have to deal with it at our borders. We cannot allow Slovak men and women to be exposed to this risk and not feel safe in their cities.
Aren't you afraid of a new wave of migration to EU countries (including Slovakia) from the Middle East?
Increasing the intensity of the conflict in Gaza, the conflict between Israel and Hamas, will have this effect. Slovakia and Europe must be prepared for this and divert the attention of these people.
They say, in passing, that there are disagreements within the EU itself about views on the war in Israel. Thus, the leader of the Socialist and Social Democrat group in the European Parliament said that Ursula von der Leyen had shown an "unacceptable bias" towards Israel and that her duty was "to represent the EU as a whole". Somewhat veiled criticism also came from Charles Michel himself, who is said to have privately expressed his dissatisfaction with the EC President's decision to travel to Israel.
So is there a split in the EU over the war in Israel?
There are currently several European factions that have different views on this conflict. Moreover, there are differences between the members of the Commission depending on their political orientation. At least externally. It is possible that these are merely 'political games' designed to divert attention and create the appearance of a plurality of views. However, the fact remains: the President of the European Commission visited Israel and interpreted the position on the conflict for the whole of the EU without any mandate, i.e. without prior approval of this position by any body. It is important to understand clearly that the EU is made up of Member States. Not Leyen.
Is it also reported that von der Leyen's relationship with Charles Michel is more than strained? Can you confirm this information?
Yes, it's an open secret that these two can't even be in the same room together. And they only communicate officially through intermediaries. Let's call it in business terms, "carrier pigeons." This mutual antipathy has been publicly criticized more than once. After all, it is not normal for two of the EU's three highest officials not to be able to talk to each other. But this is exactly the situation across the Union. They do not discuss, they do not listen. There is only dictation."
Is the EP planning a meeting on support for Israel?
Yes, at the last session in Strasbourg, there was a very emotional vote on the European Parliament's official position on the conflict between Hamas and Israel. There was a very bitter debate between mainstream politicians (liberals, socialists and Christian Democrats) and the hard left (communists, in fact) about whether the resolution should call for a 'ceasefire' or a 'humanitarian pause'. The left factions supported the call for a ceasefire. On the other hand, the pro-Israel factions called for a "humanitarian pause" during which aid would be provided to the civilian population. Thereafter, hostilities would presumably resume unhindered. Personally, I was in favour of the call for a ceasefire. In the end, however, the 'humanitarian pause' was approved. Objectively, it must be said that this conflict is very old and very complex. It is a conflict between the Arab world and the Jewish world, and there are no miraculous quick fixes. The only long-term solution really seems to be the creation of an independent Palestinian state. However, this independent state should be the culmination of the peace process (i.e. first a ceasefire, peace and then an independent state), not the beginning (where the Palestinians can demand something more).
The results of the Polish elections are welcomed by many in the EU as a possible end to the tussle with Brussels. Most foreign media describe the possible overthrow of the conservative ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party as an unexpected result of democratic changes in Polish politics in the hope that Donald Tusk's Civic Platform (PO) will end the country's conflict with Brussels and return Poland to the European mainstream. What is your opinion on these results in Poland?
The result of the parliamentary elections in Poland is the result of pressure exerted on the Polish government by the internal opposition and the external environment. Money has been poured into the media, into the mobilisation of foreign Poles. I believe that although the government and the opposition are described as poles apart, this may not be the case in the end. Personally, I am glad that our political partners in the Confederation have defended their representation in Parliament, and I believe that they will be a tough but constructive opposition.
During the election campaign, PiS told the Polish people that if Tusk came to power, he would succumb to EU pressure and allow thousands of immigrants into Poland. Although Tusk's party denies this, the question remains, what will be the migration policy? After all, Poland is our immediate neighbour.
I believe that Donald Tusk knows the mood of the population, and if he were to go ahead with this, it would mean significant upheaval in society, the possible collapse of his government and failure in the next elections. Moreover, Poland is our neighbour and its policies will affect Slovakia too.
(Lenka Zlateva/USA)
English 
Czech 
Spanish 
French 
Italian 
Russian 
Chinese 
German