By: Sara Kovač / Nova24tv
On Wednesday, we witnessed the first pre-election confrontation, where there was no trace of the president of the LMŠ party Marjan Šarec and the president of the Svoboda Movement Robert Golob. At the forefront of the show, which featured Foreign Minister Anže Logar, Defence Minister Matej Tonin, President of the National Council and Vice President of the Konkretno party Alojz Kovšca, SD party president Tanja Fajon, and SAB party president Alenka Bratušek, was Russian aggression against Ukraine. All sides have condemned the aggression of President Vladimir Putin, but it is simply not possible that the tragedy should not be used for domestic political gain. Namely, elections are just getting closer.
Regarding Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, Minister Anže Logar said in the introduction that the US security services had already warned in October that the Russian president was seriously preparing for an attack and occupation of Ukraine. “The Western world is accustomed to rational thinking, replaying all possible scenarios that the Russian president could have regarding Ukraine, and it found that any total attack on Ukraine would be completely irrational. For this reason, it was concluded that there would probably be no complete attack. But as we can see, the Russian president was counting on that and did what the Western powers did not expect.” He emphasised that Vladimir Putin did not expect the West to react so unanimously.
Defence Minister Matej Tonin said that Putin apparently thought that deterrence tactics were no longer working in Europe and NATO. “He was convinced that something similar would happen to what had happened in Crimea, that is, that he would enter Ukraine, take it, that sanctions would be mild, and that life would go on. But it turned out differently. Today, Europe is completely different than it was a week ago. Determined to defend freedom and democracy at all costs,” he said.
The government representatives refrained from ideological topics until they were challenged
Logar and Tonin did not open ideological topics until they were challenged by the opposition, especially by Alenka Bratušek. Namely, the Ministers did not take advantage of the Ukrainian tragedy for domestic political gain, which cannot be said for their opponents. Tanja Fajon strongly condemned Russia’s attack on Ukraine. “This Russian-Ukrainian conflict has been going on for some time. Putin is constantly stopping the tendency of Ukrainians to join other values. This is what worries this autocrat, a war criminal, as Putin’s colleagues have called him, for ten years and longer he has been creating the overthrow of democracy, encroaching on institutions, the media, restricting freedom, and that is the consequence we are seeing today.” In her expression, she used the words autocrat and criminal, about which there was no trace 2-3 days ago. However, it should be added that she said here that Putin’s colleagues had described him as a war criminal.
Alojz Kovšca explained that Ukraine is Putin’s first major obstacle in his path. According to him, he certainly made a bad decision regarding the strength of the response of the international community and how successfully the Ukrainians will defend themselves. “The security services around the world have contributed a lot to this, and the US security services have revealed his plans. He had to provide additional forces, this cost him a lot of time and warming is near, tanks can get stuck in the mud. Putin will also be stuck there,” he is convinced.
Of course, Bratušek is set in her ways. She was the only one in the first round of questions who was without gloves. She concluded that what the government is doing is not helping to resolve the situation. “It does not help to solve the situation if we compare Putin with Hitler. We know how the story ended then. According to the SAB party, we must do everything we can to resolve things, to sit at a common table. In the end, all the wars ended at the table and in the end with an agreement.” To this, Logar told Bratušek that the wars ended when one side surrendered and was ready to sign a peace agreement. “It is different here what kind of world we want to live in. Will we defend democratic values, or will we submit to the one who is most powerful in his trampling on human rights?” he was critical.
In a special show after the confrontation regarding Bratušek’s position, Boris Tomašič and Aleksander Rant emphasised that Bratušek clearly does not understand that there are comparisons that would end in this way. Namely, parallels between Putin’s and Hitler’s actions are visible. In Hitler’s time, the West thought the same – Hitler does not think seriously, he will stop. Under Putin, there was little escapade in Georgia, and let’s remember the events in Crimea, Abkhazia, Chechnya, North Ossetia. For years, Putin has been pushing Russia’s borders a little here and there, building his new Soviet Union. They pointed out that it is necessary to be aware that Putin has economically subjugated countries such as Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. Also politically, of course, and an example of this is Belarus. When the West condemned Lukashenko, he approached Putin.
Asked whether Putin should be allowed to occupy any country because he has nuclear weapons, Fajon deftly avoided answering. She first indicated that she did not agree with the closure of airspace over Ukraine, but also recalled that the NATO chief had rejected the possibility. “The rattling of nuclear weapons is what is most dangerous after World War II. It is a country that has nuclear weapons, is in nuclear readiness, and on the other hand is a smaller country, a weak country,” she said, adding that if the unpredictability of the Russian president occurs, World War III could break out. Nevertheless, the fact is that Putin not long ago demanded that nuclear warheads be prepared. Janša said that they were not the only ones to have nuclear weapons. Fajon commented that this is an unnecessary challenge!? The question, of course, was whether Putin could do that.
Logar responded to Fajon’s allegations and pointed out that the argument that someone was against this proposal is not an argument at all. This is also evidenced by the last week of developments in the EU. “Everyone was against the exclusion of banks from SWIFT, against Ukraine applying for EU membership. A few days have passed, and opinions have changed.” Logar is convinced that the closure of the airspace is the most effective measure, because it would significantly enable a better performance of the Ukrainian forces, so that they are not attacked from everywhere.
Tonin pointed out that we can call on Putin to sit down at the negotiating table and negotiate, but he does not hear the voice of dialogue and calls, the only thing he hears is power. “That is why I say that peace will happen, and it will be closer every day when the Ukrainians stick together. Every day they endure, every day is closer to peace.” According to Tonin, the Western world, which is fighting for democracy, is obliged to help Ukraine in various ways: from humanitarian, material and even military.
Janša did not go to take pictures with Putin, he was always a pro-Western politician
Bratušek also commented on Janša’s tweet, when he responded to Putin’s rattling with nuclear weapons: “you are not the only one, NATO also has it”. “The Prime Minister has written down what the whole world knows. It is not just Russia that has nuclear weapons, so he really did not have to tweet that. Janša’s critique of Putin may be a little ironic. First, Janez Janša’s best friend is Viktor Orban. Orban is a very good friend, not to say that Putin is his role model. By the way, Hungary does not allow weapons to be transported through its territory. Janša can condemn Putin for this invasion, but in all other respects he considers him a great role model,” said Bratušek. With her comment, she proved that she clearly does not understand that what it was communicated, was do not joke, we are not afraid, do not bluff. Namely, Putin knows that starting a nuclear war means suicide. Regarding the positions of Orban and Janša, Tomašič reminded that they do not have the same position regarding the transport of weapons. “Do leftists support Orban? The award of the Russian Federation goes to Zoran Janković, Milan Kučan, Anja Kopač Mrak (fn. she returned the award after the aggression), Karl Erjavec. Janša did not go to take pictures with Putin, he was always a pro-Western politician. Bratušek cannot say that Putin is Janša’s role model,” Tomašič was critical.
Like Bratušek, Fajon also said that Janša was hypocritical. She mentioned Orban and Putin. Regarding Orban, she said that he likes to draw maps that, according to her, extend beyond the borders of Hungary. “An attempt to limit democracy, an autocratic approach has led us today to a war 1,500 kilometres away.” According to Tomašič, this is a dirty game that is constantly played by the left in the sense: “Janša is friends with Orban, Orban is friends with Putin. Now we see where autocratic approaches lead. Since Putin is an autocrat there was a war, so we can conclude that Janša will do the same. Notorious stupidity and insult,” he was clear.
On the accusations that Slovenia is acting badly, Logar said that the fact is that Slovenia has the initiative, Slovenia is helping Ukraine, it is doing everything in its power, it is even making suggestions, which are then accepted by others. “Do not make equations, talk about the past. It is about the fate of the world. I think we need to cooperate,” the Minister was clear. Nevertheless, Bratušek again had to criticise the government’s performance in relation to Ukraine. “We in the SAB support all these things that the government has done so far in connection with the crisis in Ukraine. What is happening today does not erase all the bad and evil things that have been done in the last two years.” Apparently, the former Prime Minister is very set in her ways. When she said that evil things were supposedly done, she did not add anything concrete.
At the confrontation, Kovšca explained that the fact that Putin has nuclear weapons in his hands is now being absolutized. “It is not about the same thing, invading Ukraine or causing a nuclear war. Putin, too, has some rational goals, in his view the rational ones he wants to achieve through aggression. He wants to benefit from that aggression. But he will certainly not reap any benefits from nuclear war. Letting him achieve his goals to prevent a quasi-nuclear war seems to me a bit of a frivolous debate,” he was clear.
If Fajon was specific in answering the question at the very beginning, this was certainly not the case when the leader Luka Svetina asked her what she thought about Kučan’s statement, saying that it would be necessary to stop sending weapons to Ukraine and make more efforts in negotiations on the Prime Minister. “I did not hear his statement. I was in Brussels dealing with how the EU is responding to the crisis in Ukraine.” She avoided answering as if she did not want to express her disagreement with Kučan, but it is necessary to be aware that public opinion is in favour of helping Ukraine. Rant and Tomašič commented on this, among other things, that it was interesting that Kučan apparently agreed with Orban on weapons. “Does Kučan support Orban?”
Again, refugees and migrants were equated
Logar explained that we know refugees and migrants. “There is a war in Ukraine, a conflict. We have a duty to help the Ukrainians. But there are countries where there is no war, from which people travel because they want a better or different life,” he was clear. Fajon, of course, equated all migrations and criticised the way other refugees were viewed in the past (fn. mostly migrants). She apparently forgets that a refugee is someone who flees the country because he is saving his life. In the case of Ukraine, it should be remembered that Ukrainians (except men) represent our neighbours. Hungary and Poland are the first safe countries. But when you enter Schengen, it means that you are in Europe and there are no more borders.
Bratušek accused the government of one of the tweets about how the government is dividing refugees into first-class and second-class. It is, of course, international law that determines who are migrants and who are refugees. This needs to be distinguished. According to Tomašič, the tweet criticised by Bratušek only said that we were different from each other. “You are a racist when you think someone is less valuable. Pretending that we are all the same is stupid,” he is convinced.
In the debate on migrants, Kovšca got Bratušek’s and Fajon’s appalling, as he stated that he would flatly reject young men. As is otherwise known Ukrainians do not let men aged 18-60 out of the country. “I was struck by the statement; we are happy to reject men at the borders. That is an impatient statement. If this is someone’s rhetoric, in politics that is responsible today, we should be concerned. Rhetoric that we will be impatient nationalist, separation based on gender, religion,” said Fajon as a sign of criticism. Tomašič explained that the statement that able-bodied men should defend their homeland was not about racism, religious, and gender differences. “When there is aggression, not everyone can be a pacifist and defend the country with flowers. Ukrainian men are not fleeing, they are going to Ukraine,” he added.
One of the best replicas of the evening was undoubtedly that of Kovšca, who said: “I would like to remind you of the war in the Republic of Slovenia. Many then took the opportunity to flee across the border. When they returned, they taught us how to defend our homeland. It is not honourable, it is not appropriate for any man able to fight to leave his comrades, compatriots in the most difficult conditions, to invoke human rights elsewhere, human rights must be secured in their homes.”
As we can see, the differences between the opposition and the coalition exist and will always be so. However, Bratušek and Fajon at least dare to come and defend their positions, unlike Šarec and Golob. Maybe next time they will pluck up courage?