In recent years, few voices in European politics have resonated as sharply with the rising tide of national conservatism as that of Slovak MEP Milan Mazurek. As one of the youngest and most outspoken members of the European Parliament, Mazurek has become a prominent defender of national sovereignty, traditional values, and democratic freedoms—both in Slovakia and on the broader European stage. In this wide-ranging interview, he shares his vision for a free and sovereign Slovakia, critiques the prevailing ideological trends in Brussels, and offers candid insights into the challenges facing patriotic movements across Europe. At a moment when many citizens are questioning the future direction of the European Union, Mazurek’s perspective speaks to a growing movement determined to reclaim Europe’s democratic foundations.
Mr. Mazurek, as a leading voice of the younger generation of patriotic leaders, you’ve consistently challenged the dominant liberal narratives in both Slovakia and the European Parliament, always standing in defense of national interests. What drives your political mission today? And what vision of Slovakia are you fighting to build—both at home and in Brussels?”
Thank you very much for this excellent question. First and foremost, I am fighting for my country, my nation, and our national interests. As a young man, a husband, and a father, it is deeply important to me that I leave my country in the best possible condition for my son. I want him to grow up in a free Slovakia — a country where he can express his views without fear of punishment simply because his opinions may not align with those of those in power.
I also want him to have the opportunity for a good life — access to quality education, meaningful work, and a standard of living that gives him pride and dignity. And above all, I want him to be proud to be Slovak, just as I am, and just as my father was. This is why I fight to defend our national interests, our traditional values, and the constitutional freedoms and rights of our people.
Unfortunately, I believe all of this is under serious threat. We are facing an aggressive push from political forces who call themselves ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive.’ In reality, these forces seek to impose a single acceptable viewpoint on society. They speak of freedom of choice and freedom of speech, but their actions betray the opposite — they silence dissent and punish those who think differently. I have personally been a target of this kind of persecution simply for expressing my beliefs.
This is what motivates me every day — to fight for a free and sovereign Slovakia. And I am hopeful. We are witnessing an incredible cultural shift around the world. In the United States, we saw the election of Donald Trump, who began bringing about changes that were unthinkable just a few years ago. Across Europe, too, we see patriotic movements rising. In Germany, for example, patriotic forces are now leading the polls. Across many European countries, the momentum is building.
I believe this trend will continue. And my hope is that soon, these patriotic voices will become the strongest force, not only in our nations but also within the European Parliament. This is our mission — and it is a mission we must win for the future of our children and our countries.”
In your response, you’ve already touched on several key points we’d like to explore further. As a member of the Republic Party and a strong advocate for sovereignty and traditional values in the European Parliament, how would you assess your work so far? What have been your biggest challenges and successes?
Thank you. From my perspective, the biggest challenge has been trying to block or vote against many of the extreme progressive, green, or leftist legislative proposals coming from those groups. These proposals often aim to restrict personal freedoms, impose new taxes on ordinary families, and make daily life more difficult and expensive.
This has been my primary goal. The main reason such proposals are currently successful is because these groups hold a majority in the European Parliament. In that sense, the math is quite simple. However, there have been instances this term where we achieved important victories.
For example, we successfully blocked parts of the deforestation legislation. In my view, it included several unreasonable measures that would have harmed rural and countryside communities in my country by increasing costs and complicating life for local people. We were able to vote against and ultimately block those aspects of the legislation.
We also managed to prevent new genetically modified foods and products from entering the market by building a majority on that issue. Achieving this was almost unimaginable just two years ago when patriotic MEPs numbered around 100. Now, that number has nearly doubled to almost 200, and I hope it will grow even further after the next election.
In my work as an MEP, beyond proposing amendments in plenary and committee sessions, I also try to speak out frequently — always focusing on issues that directly affect ordinary people’s lives.
I believe the European Parliament often makes a serious mistake by spending hours debating issues in countries around the world — condemning Russia, China, the United States, and various countries in South America or Africa. Every session, we pass numerous resolutions aimed at criticizing political regimes or entire nations. I do not participate in this. In my view, this is a completely misguided way to work in the European Parliament. Our focus should be on improving life for people in Europe.
On that note, I frequently speak about topics such as the Green Deal, illegal migration, the defense of traditional values, and the protection of personal freedoms. For example, in my recent speech on rising food prices across the European Union, I highlighted how these price increases are a direct consequence of current policies — especially those tied to the Green Deal.
This message resonated strongly in Slovakia. Many people are starting to understand the real consequences of the EU’s current political agenda and legislative proposals.
Yes, of course. There is clearly an ideology behind these practical policy proposals, and you have been revealing the methods of this green ideology. Am I correct?
Yes, of course. Much of what has been accepted or voted for here in the European Parliament was not based on scientific facts — it was driven purely by ideology. They promote this ideological concept as if it were reality, because they believe in it. They’ve taken something that is completely natural in the history of our planet — climate change — and turned it into a political tool. Climate change has existed since the beginning of time: the climate has always been changing. We’ve had ice ages, we’ve had warm periods, we’ve seen extreme shifts in weather and climate, because the planet is constantly evolving.
But they have built a grand ideological narrative around this, using it to justify new taxes, new regulations, and new ways to restrict people’s freedoms and livelihoods — all based on their ideology. They believe that if we simply follow their measures, we will ‘save the planet,’ but this is a false promise.
What is even more troubling from a European perspective is that we are almost the only ones still fully committed to this ideology. The rest of the world — including the United States — is moving away from it. We’ve seen major shifts in the U.S.: they withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, abandoned large-scale windmill projects, and stopped investing heavily in what the EU calls the ‘green transition.’ They’ve even restarted coal mining and reopened coal plants. We see similar trends in China.
Meanwhile, this ideological agenda in the European Union is falling apart, but the EU leadership continues to cling to it. And the consequences are clear: we now have electricity prices that are three times higher for consumers and households in the EU, and gas prices that are five times higher. This is harming European citizens.
This is clearly a troubling situation. One policy seems to follow another down this path. You’ve already mentioned freedom of speech, but there is also the broader issue of democratic freedoms — the right to vote freely and to choose one’s government without interference.
We’ve seen recent events in Romania. We’re witnessing concerning trends in Germany and in France as well. In your view, what is the current state of freedom — and in particular, freedom of speech — within the European Union? How do you assess this situation, and what steps, in your opinion, could be taken to overcome these challenges?”
Yes, as I mentioned before, there is a significant cultural and political shift happening across the entire Western world, from my perspective. These major changes are leading people to vote more for patriotic and conservative political parties. The current establishment, particularly within the European Commission, is very afraid of these developments, as their entire “empire” could begin to collapse. In response, they are doing everything they can—sometimes even resorting to outright totalitarian practices—to prevent these shifts from taking hold.
We saw a clear example of this in Romania, as you mentioned. The authorities simply canceled the results of the elections without presenting any logical evidence. They openly claimed that the people were too stupid and had been manipulated by cheap propaganda, supposedly coming from Russia—campaigns that cost only a few hundred thousand euros on TikTok, according to them. The idea that this could decisively alter an election is, from my perspective, completely absurd. Moreover, they provided no concrete proof that such manipulation even occurred.
But even if there had been some paid advertisements on TikTok, these would not have been enough to sway the results if people were truly satisfied with their government and trusted the politicians in power. Despite this, they made the unthinkable decision to cancel the election results and even began criminal charges and political persecution against the candidate who won the first round—an action that is utterly outrageous. In any normal democratic society, Romania and its Supreme Court would be widely condemned for such actions. But within the European Union, they were instead applauded, with officials claiming they had “protected democracy” by rejecting a democratic election. This is pure Orwellian doublespeak—a systematic method of undermining democracy while claiming to defend it.
We are seeing similar tactics in France. Marine Le Pen, who is currently leading in the presidential polls, was recently sentenced for something that is, frankly, inconceivable. The accusations stem from an alleged scandal involving assistants in the European Parliament—a situation where there could easily be hundreds of similar cases across the Parliament. Yet they are now trying to prevent her from even being a candidate in the election based on this unprecedented action. It is a deliberate witch hunt against anyone who opposes the current system.
Therefore, it is more important than ever for us to speak out loudly and clearly and to resist these trends. The European Union is rapidly transforming from something that once resembled a democracy into a very authoritarian regime.
Could it be that you are clearly stating this is all connected to the war and the war policies currently being prepared in Brussels? What is your position? Are you in favor of a peaceful solution through the negotiations taking place now in Istanbul and elsewhere? And what is your stance on this new pro-war wave being promoted by the increasingly totalitarian system in Brussels?
I can openly say that after three years of the European Union’s support for Ukraine—military support, financial aid, and assistance for millions of refugees from Ukraine—we now see that every EU policy regarding Ukraine has been a complete failure. These policies have only led to destruction and the tragic loss of countless young lives. The result is that we are now seeing the start of peace negotiations, which I fully support in every possible way. Achieving peace and stopping this unimaginable, unnecessary killing is my highest priority, and I hope a peaceful solution will be reached as soon as possible.
However, this is a conclusion we could have arrived at three years ago. There were efforts to begin peace negotiations back then, but it was the West—the European Union and leaders of Western countries—who blocked those proposals. They convinced Ukraine to continue fighting a war it could never win. In my view, they sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives for their own interests—for their businesses and military spending. And now, from my perspective, they are looking to buy up as much of Ukraine as possible.
There is no real effort from the European Union to give Ukrainians true freedom or a better life. That’s why I strongly support the current peace negotiations and sincerely hope they succeed. The EU’s policies have been an utter disaster, and I have never supported them. I have always been on the side of peace. Regardless of anyone’s views on the war itself, the primary goal should have always been to stop it first and pursue a political solution—without the needless loss of so many lives. Unfortunately, there has been no interest in such an approach within the European Commission or the European Council.
And yes, you mentioned several times in this conversation the role of the United States, particularly under President Trump’s administration.
Could we delve a bit deeper into this emerging new paradigm? Clearly, we are witnessing a kind of new conservative revolution taking shape. It is evident that this movement will inevitably have implications for Europe as well, even though the current European Union elites are not yet prepared to acknowledge or embrace it. However, in time, this may change.
How would you evaluate the political trajectory since President Trump assumed office? Additionally, we recently witnessed an important and highly programmatic speech by the Vice President at the Munich conference—particularly significant in its emphasis on the theme of freedom. Could this serve as a powerful impetus for national conservative parties and movements across Europe?
Thank you. I would also like to mention JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, as it represented a significant shift in the relationship between the European Union and the United States. He spoke openly and truthfully—yes, he was highly critical, but everything he said was accurate. I fully support his remarks because he addressed the reality directly, speaking to the very people responsible for the current state of the European Union and for the challenges facing Europe. It was essential that they heard this message. Frankly, I never imagined I would one day hear such words coming from a U.S. Vice President—that alone signals how much things have changed.
This marks a profound shift. We are entering a new era of conservative politics in the United States, and this is having an impact on Europe as well. We are now witnessing decisions and possibilities that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. For example, it is now clear that securing borders against mass illegal migration is possible. The United States has shown that this issue can be addressed effectively in a short period of time. Similarly, we see that it is possible to combat the drug epidemic on our streets—again, the U.S. has demonstrated that with genuine political will and honest effort, these problems can be tackled.
We are also learning that there are alternative approaches to dealing with inflation, interest rates, broader economic challenges, and even environmental policies like the Green Deal. The United States is offering valuable examples in this regard.
Now, I am not claiming that everything the U.S. is doing is perfect, nor do I blindly support all of its actions. My position has always been that the interests of my own nation and my own people come first. But if others—whether in the United States, Russia, China, Africa, or anywhere—implement good policies, we should be willing to learn from them. Likewise, we must study poor decisions as well, so we can understand their consequences and avoid repeating them.
There is much to learn, for example, from the failures of the European Commission and the hypocrisy of leaders such as Ursula von der Leyen and her colleagues. At the same time, there are important lessons—both positive and negative—that we can take from the leadership of Donald Trump.
The impact of this changing paradigm in the United States is immense—especially in today’s interconnected, globalized world, where people are linked through social media. We are seeing how many young people, disillusioned with the liberal, progressive political narrative, are beginning to embrace more patriotic and conservative values. They are rediscovering the hope of building a modern state, one that is rooted in traditional values.
So, in Europe, although the Brussels elites still hold power—maintaining their left-liberal dominance—we can also see a new wave of change beginning to sweep across the continent. From Hungary, Slovakia, and Austria to Germany, and in fact across much of Europe, this wind of change is gaining momentum. As you mentioned, support for national conservative parties has doubled in the European Parliament.
And yet, it seems that something is still missing. What is it that national conservative forces need in order to finally achieve victory?
I think there are still many differences—many issues—that distinguish these parties from one another. For example, their positions on relations with Russia can vary greatly. Some may support normalizing relations with Russia, while others are strongly opposed. Much of this depends on the unique political and cultural contexts of each nation and region. People in Poland may view certain issues very differently than those in Germany. Similarly, public opinion in Slovakia can diverge significantly from that in France.
Take, for example, the debate over banning Russian gas imports. In France, many may not view this as a major problem, whereas in Slovakia, many see it as a terrible decision, since it would lead to dramatically higher energy prices. These kinds of differences naturally create distinctions between patriotic parties across Europe.
However, what we are seeing is that, in every country, these parties are gaining more and more public support. Over time, I believe we will see more issues that unite these movements than those that divide them.
To be honest, I also see deliberate efforts being made to emphasize and exaggerate the divisions between these parties. Much of this is driven by the media and by corrupt politicians within the European Union—particularly in the European Commission—because they understand very well that a united, cooperative bloc of conservative and patriotic forces in the European Parliament would pose a serious threat to their power in the future.
Yes, thank you. Perhaps for the final question, we should speak a bit more about Slovakia. Of course, you have mentioned your country several times during this interview, but let’s explore it in more detail.
How would you assess Slovakia’s current foreign policy? It seems that Slovakia is now adopting a more neutral stance. We recently saw Slovakia’s leadership, along with that of Serbia, represented in Moscow at the May 9th Victory Day parade—an appearance that was not particularly well-received in Brussels.
That is one side of the picture. On the other side, how would you evaluate Slovakia’s domestic policies and its relationships with neighboring countries—Hungary, Serbia, and perhaps other nations in Central Europe?
Yes, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico was the only leader of a European Union country to attend the military parade marking the anniversary of the victory in the Second World War. I even saw some Members of the European Parliament proposing sanctions against him—simply because, as the sovereign Prime Minister of a sovereign country, he chose to travel to Moscow to commemorate Victory Day. From my perspective, this is absurd. War and global politics are one thing; history is another. If someone cannot distinguish between the two, what we are witnessing is pure fanaticism. People may hold different opinions, but they should respect the democratic will of Slovak voters who elected him, and they should respect the sovereignty of the Slovak Republic. Unfortunately, this respect is clearly lacking.
Even worse, there was the incident where several Baltic countries denied the Slovak Prime Minister permission to fly through their airspace on his way to Moscow. Slovakia is not only a member of the European Union but also a NATO ally—yet these countries blocked the flight of an allied nation’s leader. I cannot recall anything like this happening before in history. It was a completely open and hostile act, something unimaginable between allies. Actions like this should never occur, especially over differences of opinion. It was deeply disturbing to witness.
Now, while I personally hold different views from the current Prime Minister on many domestic and political issues, this kind of behavior—such blatant disrespect for democratic processes and national sovereignty—should concern everyone. Such acts are not expressions of freedom, democracy, or respect for the opinions of the Slovak people. They are quite the opposite.
I also believe this will likely provoke even more aggressive responses from certain countries that simply refuse to accept the political choices of the people of Slovakia, Hungary, Serbia, and others. We must confront this reality and find ways to communicate and cooperate in a normal, respectful manner.
At the same time, I must be honest: my party and I will continue to put pressure on Robert Fico and his government. On one hand, he speaks openly about the need for good relations with Russia, about the ineffectiveness of sanctions, and about the harmful consequences of those sanctions on Slovakia. Yet when it comes time to act, he continues to vote in favor of these sanctions at the European Council. This is not a principled or effective position. If he truly believes these sanctions are harmful, then he should act accordingly. It is not enough to speak out while taking no action when it counts.
Therefore, we will continue to criticize this inconsistency and push for a stronger, more assertive stance toward the European Union. We see clearly that many Western leaders and EU institutions have no hesitation in disregarding democratic values and the will of the people in sovereign countries like Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and others. We must stand firm in defending our sovereignty and our democratic rights.
Mr. Mazura, as a final question: What message would you like to share with your supporters, and with national conservatives across Europe, as we look ahead to the coming period? Could you offer a message of hope — and perhaps outline a real, practical plan for achieving victory?
Thank you very much for this opportunity. I truly appreciate every chance to speak about my ideas and the vision of my party. I sincerely hope that the times ahead will bring greater freedom to the European Union and its member states.
We may hold different opinions and see many things from different perspectives—but if genuine democracy and freedom of speech are lost, then even open discussion becomes impossible. This is the real threat we are now facing, and we must stand firmly against all the totalitarian tendencies we see emerging today.
