Slovak President Peter Pellegrini has warned that Slovakia must not suggest it would stand aside if a NATO ally came under attack, responding to remarks by Prime Minister Robert Fico about the risks of a wider European war.

Speaking on JOJ 24 on 20 September, Pellegrini said alliance membership carried responsibilities as well as benefits. Slovakia, he argued, would expect support if it were attacked and should communicate the same readiness to its partners.

The president also sought to interpret Fico’s comments as an appeal to avoid escalation between NATO and Russia. He said he had not discussed the remarks directly with the prime minister and cautioned against using the prospect of war as a political weapon.

His intervention reflected an effort to combine opposition to escalation with an explicit defence of Slovakia’s alliance commitments. Pellegrini also pointed to the presence of allied soldiers on Slovak territory. JOJ 24’s interview with Pellegrini.

The dispute drew a response from Czech President Petr Pavel. Speaking before travelling to the United States on 20 September, Pavel described Fico’s remarks as serious and said collective defence depended on reciprocal solidarity.

Fico had expressed concern that the war in Ukraine could expand into a broader conflict, including through a drone incident in a NATO country. According to ČTK, he said he would work to prevent Slovakia from being drawn into fighting while also referring to cooperation and the fulfilment of commitments. ČTK’s account of the Czech response.

The debate turns partly on what Article 5 requires. NATO’s explanation states that an armed attack on one member creates an obligation for the others to assist. Each ally determines the action it considers necessary, which may include military force but does not automatically require an identical military response from every country.

Whether a particular incident constitutes an armed attack must also be assessed individually. A security incident and the activation of collective defence are therefore distinct questions.

That distinction leaves room for debate over how an ally would respond while preserving the underlying obligation to help. The political stakes concern the credibility of that commitment: assurances offered before a crisis help shape whether potential adversaries believe the alliance would act together.