The September 30th Slovakian election saw Smer emerge as the largest party in Bratislava’s parliament, well ahead of liberal, pro-Western Progressive Slovakia (PS). Its leader Robert Fico has been formally invited by President Zuzana Caputova to form a coalition, but even before a new coalition has been formed and its agenda agreed upon, Western governments, pundits, and journalists are gripped by hysteria at the prospect of Fico, who previously served as Prime Minister 2006 - 2010 and 2012 - 2018, taking power again.

Variously condemned by detractors as “pro-Putin”, “populist”, “nationalist”, and “alt-right”, among other dog whistle sobriquets, Fico has in fact historically been regarded as on the left or centre-left. His real crime is criticism of NATO, and running on an explicit platform of ending aid to Ukraine, and sanctions on Russia.

Fico’s positions are backed by significant numbers of Slovaks - in some cases, an absolute majority. Polling by local think tank GLOBSEC indicates that just 40% of the population blame Moscow for the war, and half consider the US to be a threat to Bratislava’s security. Meanwhile, 69% - the highest number in Central Europe - believe that by continuing to arm Ukraine, the West is “provoking Russia and bringing itself closer to the war.”

Popular as Fico’s platform may be with many Slovaks, his re-election comes at the worst possible time for NATO. Western unity on the war is ever-fragile, and Europeans are increasingly fatigued. In the US, a majority of the public already opposes further support. Hungary’s EU veto has since May blocked the transfer of €500 million in military aid from Brussels, and shows no sign of being reversed. Meanwhile, even arch-ally Poland is pivoting away from Kiev.

Fico’s victory runs the risk of popularizing and legitimizing public and political opposition to maintaining the proxy war’s ghastly, lethal grind, and raises the prospect of further anti-NATO leaders and governments being elected in Europe. As such, a revolution may be impending in Slovakia, to restore the established, US-dominated order, and ensure peace in Ukraine remains a far-off fantasy.

‘Deep Distrust’

The National Endowment for Democracy was founded in 1983, after the US intelligence community became embroiled in a number of embarrassing, highly public scandals. Then-CIA chief William Casey was central to its creation. He sought to construct a public mechanism for funding opposition groups, media outlets, and other anti-government agitates overseas that could be weaponized to destabilize and depose enemy governments, previously his Agency’s clandestine preserve.

Upon launch, the Endowment set about killing off Communism in Eastern Europe, supporting activist movements such as Poland’s Solidarity. Fast forward to 2000, and NED was instrumental in the downfall of Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic. The revolutionary template minted during this effort has subsequently exported the world over, in the form of colour revolutions. That template was in turn heavily informed by techniques first honed in Slovakia, during the 1990s. 

Following the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe, Czechoslovakia was peacefully split into two, in what’s known as the “Velvet Divorce”. The Czech Republic - now Czechia - painfully converted to market capitalism, transformed itself into a popular destination for Western tourists, and began pursuing EU and NATO membership. By contrast, Slovakia remained stubbornly opposed to such reforms. Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar openly mourned the death of the Soviet Union and Moscow’s retreat from the region.

Come 1997, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright described Bratislava as “a black hole in the heart of Europe,” effectively signing Meciar’s political death warrant. In December that year, NED arranged a secret meeting in Vienna Airport between Ivan Krastev, an Endowment-endorsed Bulgarian expert in non-violent regime change, and Pavol Demes, formerly Czechoslovakia’s foreign affairs minister. They discussed how to get rid of the troublesome premier and make Slovakia safe for neoliberalism.

Demes, as a member of the Cold War-era Czechoslovakian dissident group Charter 77, had been in indirect receipt of NED funding for a decade by that point. He returned to Slovakia with almost $1 million in Endowment funding to establish Civic Campaign 98 (better known as OK’98), a coalition of 11 anti-government NGOs. It was modelled on an earlier NED-funded effort in Bulgaria, concerned with “creating chaos” after the Socialist Party won the 1990 election freely and fairly.

OK’98 also received financing from the US Information Service, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the German Marshall Fund, and the British and Dutch governments. Presented as a get-out-the-vote campaign, its vast resources bankrolled 13 rock concerts, two short films, a series of TV commercials in which Slovak celebrities urged young people to vote, and more.

OK’98’s leaders claimed to be non-partisan, merely concerned with preserving the election’s integrity. Hundreds of thousands of leaflets the organisation distributed across Slovakia told a very different story. One declared:

“Like the majority of our fellow citizens, we feel a deep distrust in our government.”

The effort was stunningly successful, with a turnout of 84.3 percent in Bratislava’s 1998 election. Furthermore, almost 70 percent of first-time voters backed the opposition. While Meciar’s Movement for a Democratic Slovakia won the largest share of the votes, the opposition had enough seats to form a majority in Parliament, led by the pro-Western Mikulas Dzurinda. To the surprise of many, the result wasn’t challenged by the ousted Prime Minister.

‘External Funding’

On election day, NED dispatched monitors from MEMO 98, an NGO aligned with OK’98, to conduct a “parallel vote tabulation” (PVT), project the election’s outcome in advance, and publicize that data before results were officially announced. In theory, this was to prevent rigging, and Slovak authorities from tinkering with figures. 

However, the scope for abuse is obvious. Public suspicion and anger would inevitably be raised should a formal result differ from a publicized forecast, granting any opposition actors ample insurrectionary ammunition. Such controversy was precisely what kickstarted Georgia’s 2003 NED-sponsored “Rose Revolution”, which unseated longtime leader Eduard Shevardnadze.

After Meciar’s ouster, Demes became a key figure in NED regime change operations the world over, providing in-person training to a number of individuals and groups nominated by the Endowment to overthrow leaders and governments which had fallen foul of Washington in some way or another. In 2000, he was appointed director of the German Marshall Fund’s Slovakian office, in effect charged with distributing money to NGOs attempting to replicate what he and OK’98 achieved on their home turf in 1998.

To his partial credit, Demes never claimed Western backing was a trivial, let alone irrelevant, factor in the genesis and outcome of colour revolutions. In discussions with Canadian journalist Mark Mackinnon, he openly admitted:

“External funding for these civic campaigns is critical. Without external support, they wouldn’t happen.”

One group that benefited enormously from Demes’ funding and practical guidance - along with financing from NED - was Ukraine’s Pora, which led Kiev’s 2004 “Orange Revolution”. Using techniques perfected in Slovakia, Pora challenged the results of the second round of that year’s October Presidential election, which saw incumbent Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych comfortably prevail over opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko. This produced a rerun in December, won by pro-Western Yushchenko.

Before that vote even happened, The Guardian published a detailed investigation exposing the role of NED, and Soros’ Open Society Foundations, in orchestrating the “Orange Revolution”. This included giving scores of young Ukrainians wide-ranging education in civil disobedience, and busing in protesters from all over the country - and neighbouring states - to demonstrate in public spaces and occupy government buildings. 

For many years, US officials were eager to boast of Washington’s intimate involvement in fomenting colour revolutions. NED doing openly what the CIA did clandestinely was originally the Endowment’s unique selling point. As a 1991 Washington Post article noted, covert funding for anti-Communist opposition groups “would have been the kiss of death, if discovered,” while overt funding “has been a kiss of life.” 

Yet, extremely overt US backing for the Belarusian opposition sabotaged another colour revolution attempt in Minsk, in 2005. Authorities plausibly portrayed the leaders of NED-funded revolutionary group Zubr - modelled on Pora, and other Endowment-supported youth movements, such as Serbia’s Otpor and Georgia’s Kmara - as Western puppets, and jailed their most high-profile activists. Many citizens rejected the group as a result, or were afraid of throwing in their lot.

Lessons have clearly been learned from that failure. Ever since, the media has either actively ignored or outright denied the role of NED in whipping up unrest overseas. Nonetheless, leaked documents indicate the Endowment’s modus operandi and raison d’être hasn’t changed. Official NED grant records likewise show vast sums continue to be funneled to Slovakian opposition groups today. There can be little doubt Washington will now be keeping an extremely close eye on developments in Bratislava now, waiting for Fico to step out of line.