Author
Denis Mancevič, PhD
This move not only represents a total loss of strategic communication compass, but also directly endangers Slovenia’s international reputation, undermines the alliance, and risks triggering an extremely dangerous domino effect—one that plays directly into the hands of international actors intent on further destabilizing Europe, the EU, and core Euro-Atlantic structures.
Slovenia has once again appeared to its allies in full light as an unpredictable member. A country that, in pursuit of domestic political points, was willing to recklessly jeopardize its own credibility and reliability within one of the most important international security frameworks.
Instead of preventing the referendum from going forward—or at the very least explaining in a reasoned and statesmanlike manner why increased military spending is not only part of Slovenia’s NATO commitments but essential to the country's own security in the coming decade—Golob and the Freedom Movement opted for an emotional, impulsive, and populist response. The proposal of a NATO membership referendum was, at its core, nothing more than a communications explosion made with zero consideration of the consequences. Slovenia, once again, danced into view as an unpredictable ally. A country willing to gamble its credibility and reliability within one of the world’s most important security frameworks in exchange for short-term domestic political points. (And this is the fundamental difference between the two referendums: the first—on military spending—is a domestic political maneuver, non-binding, and soon forgotten. The second, however, deals with the international order and security—and far exceeds the scope of local politics or coalitions.)
In geopolitics, perceptions and symbols matter most – and this one would be priceless for the Kremlin. It could trigger a domino effect in other smaller member states, open the door to disinformation campaigns, and reveal NATO's vulnerability – not through military force, but through the internal erosion of political will.
In the Kremlin—and indeed in parts of our own neighborhood—Golob’s statement was likely met with opened bottles of champagne. If a NATO membership referendum were to truly gain traction in the political and media sphere, Moscow would receive a rare gift: a direct fracture in the internal cohesion of a NATO member state—right on the alliance’s eastern edge. We can be certain that black funds for information, propaganda, and hybrid operations would quickly be mobilized—masked under narratives of “peace” and “neutrality,” which are already visible in parts of Slovenian discourse.
A negative result (which cannot be ruled out in advance, especially given existing anti-NATO sentiment in parts of the public) would send a deeply dangerous political signal—even if a formal exit from NATO is not a realistic short- or medium-term option. In geopolitics, perception and symbolism matter most—and this would be priceless for the Kremlin. It could trigger a domino effect among smaller member states, open the gates for disinformation campaigns, and reveal NATO’s vulnerability—not through military force, but via internal erosion of political will.
The message that went out to the world (and make no mistake—our European allies noticed; phone lines on Gregorčičeva Street were very busy in recent days) clearly signaled that Slovenia is incapable of internal political consensus on core security commitments. Even more alarmingly, it suggested that the current government is willing to use NATO membership as a bargaining chip in domestic political disputes. At a time when Europe is boosting defense capacities due to the war in Ukraine and growing global instability, such a signal is not just irresponsible—it is dangerous. Extremely dangerous.
By proposing a NATO membership referendum, Prime Minister Golob trivialized one of the most significant foreign policy decisions of the state. If such matters can be decided casually—without wider public debate, without diplomatic context—we send a message that we are a state unfit for sovereign responsibility.
The Prime Minister has opened the door to the populist instrumentalization of security topics, which may serve as a precedent in the future—not only for the opposition but also for other populist actors (both domestic and foreign!) eager to exploit the foundations of state policy in pursuit of attention.
If there is one lesson to learn from this episode, it is that Slovenia urgently needs more professional and strategically sound communication in the fields of foreign and security policy.
And Prime Minister Golob must realize that his words do not merely echo in local town halls—they reverberate in foreign prime ministerial offices. This is not a domestic game (unlike the opportunistic move to call a referendum on military spending), but one with long-lasting international political and security implications. And no, it is not enough to “clarify” or “walk back” such statements after the fact—the damage is already done the moment they are spoken.
If there is anything to be learned from this episode, it is that Slovenia urgently needs more professional and strategically thought-out communication in the fields of foreign and security policy. Prime Minister Golob must realize that his words do not echo only in local town halls, but also resonate in the offices of foreign prime ministers.