Welcome to the press conference meeting with the Secretary of State. Thank you. Dear Secretary of State, dear Mark, please allow me to welcome you once again, you and your whole delegation, to Bratislava, to the Office of the Government of the Slovak Republic. Dear ladies, dear gentlemen, we have had a short meeting with the Secretary of State, and then we had a delegation discussion where we went into details, where we discussed topics that were the point of our today's meeting. I'll try to briefly sum up the conclusions of our discussions, be it for our eyes or, let's say, in our meeting of delegations. First of all, I deeply appreciate the fact that this visit comes quickly after our meeting in Florida, where I had a chance to speak with the President of the United States, Donald Trump, with Mr. Rubio being present. So it's a great follow-up, a great continuation, and after a short one, we discussed...
Under his presidency, we expect every country in the world to act in their national interest. That is what countries are supposed to do. That is what the leaders of the countries do. I don't know why that is like a strange consideration. The fact of the matter is we view policy the exact same way. Now, when our national interests are aligned, when the national interest of the United States, for example, and the national interests of Slovakia are aligned, this is an extraordinary opportunity for cooperation and for partnership. Where there might be some misalignment, well, that's where the relationship comes in. That's where the partnership comes in. That's where we try to accommodate one another and find a way forward. There's nothing controversial about that, at least not as long as President Trump is in the White House. And we believe that within the area of common alignment, there are so many things we can work on together that are good for your country, good for our country, but frankly, good for Europe, and good for the world. I also appreciate your input with regards to the war in Ukraine. It is important that we take as many viewpoints. Your viewpoint and the viewpoint that you've expressed both to me and publicly as well is one that's informed by both your geography and by your history, and it's a very important point of view to take into account in the broader context. As I said yesterday in response to some questions in Munich, we view the United States' role as one of trying to facilitate an end to a very deadly, very bloody, very costly war with horrible suffering. What's happening right now is horrifying. People in the coldest part of the year, not going without electricity and energy. There is nothing positive about that. The death, regardless of what the numbers are on both sides, is way too high. And the president has spent a year at the highest levels of our government trying to find whether we can be facilitators of a negotiated end to this terrible conflict. And it is something that we care about, but it is something you live next door to. You're on the border. You're right there. And not only do you have to face the consequences of the war, but you also have to face the benefits or the consequences of the peace. So we appreciate your input in that regard. We talked about a lot of things we have an opportunity to work together on. Energy is one of them. I think you have an opportunity as a nation, not just because you can generate energy, to also be in a very advantageous role when it comes to new technologies like artificial intelligence, as an example. It's an opportunity there. It is a very energy-dependent industry, and so it's something we can work together on. We're always talking about military sales, and this is important. We're very happy that the F-16 program is your program of choice. We hope you'll consider some others as well that we can work together on, because apart from one of the key components of any country's national interest is the ability to protect their people. There is no more important obligation of any government than the ability to protect your own people and your own nation. This is why, by the way, we talk about the importance of our partners having capabilities in NATO. Every time we say this, people, you know, they go crazy. They think, 'Oh, that means you're going to abandon NATO. You're going to abandon your allies.' I think the point we're making is that the stronger our allies are, the stronger we are collectively. And so we want to play a positive role in that regard. And you're doing many good things in that space. And we want to thank you and want to continue to work with you on that. So there are many things that we have an opportunity to work together on. But let me first thank you for receiving me here on a Sunday, and I try never to burden people on Sundays. It's an important day for me because of my faith, and I know for many of you as well. But I thank you for opening this space to us on this day, because we wanted to show, and we are showing, and we are going to show in the weeks and months and years to come, that under President Trump, this administration is going to make not just Slovakia but Central Europe a key component of how we engage the continent and the world, and that we are not just going to engage in meetings and pleasantries, but in concrete actions that we will take together in ways that are beneficial to your people and our people, and ways that are beneficial to your country and our country. I'm very excited about this opportunity. I know the president is as well. That's why I'm here. When did we meet? It wasn't too long ago. It was just a few weeks ago. A few weeks. And here we are. And we'll be back, and we'll be sending others back. And I think some members of your team are going to be coming to Washington this week to have a conversation. So you're going to get used to seeing us, and you're going to get used to dealing with us, because we're very happy to be here, and we look forward to working with you very closely. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Now there's some space for questions. Please, first question. Slovak TV. Katrina, the Slovak television and radio. Dear Secretary of State, the US last week gave the command of NATO to European countries. And there are some words about American soldiers leaving Europe. Some say that NATO is dead. What is the stance of US NATO regarding cooperation of the US and Slovakia? Dear Prime Minister, did you also mention the defense cooperation agreement? Prime Minister, you criticized this. You wanted to cancel it, then you allowed for some changes. Did you mention this topic?
Go first. Okay. On NATO, I don't understand. The United States has thousands and thousands of troops deployed to the NATO mission, and we've made very, I think it was made very clear at the summit just a few days ago at the meeting of the defense minister level. We're not leaving NATO. We're not leaving. I mean, we may move a couple thousand troops from one country to another, but this has always been the case. This has always happened. By the way, we are not threatened or feel that it's hostile to see NATO grow in its own capabilities, not independent of the United States, in conjunction with the United States. We don't think it's a negative thing that other countries have more influence in NATO, that other partner nations have more influence in NATO, or that other countries within NATO have more capability. We view that as a positive. I see it reported yesterday in some places. Oh, the Europeans are very upset. They're going to be less dependent on America. Now, we never, we don't want Europe to be dependent on us. We're not asking Europe to be a vassal of the United States. We want to be your partner. We want to work with Europe. We want to work with our allies. We want to work in cooperation with you. And our point has been and continues to be: the stronger you are, both on an individual basis in terms of countries and collectively as an alliance. The stronger the members of NATO are, the stronger NATO is. That's not minus the United States. That's just common sense. Okay? If you have an alliance made up of countries, the stronger all those members are, the stronger the alliance is. And we want the alliance to be so strong that no one will ever dare test it. No one will ever dare challenge it. So we welcome any measures that are taken to strengthen the alliance by the individual members, and we see that as a very positive thing.
I would just like to mention the question you're asking, or the agenda was not on our schedule, but nonetheless the Minister of Defense and Vice Prime Minister will tell you more about those discussions. But today it was not part of our discussion. Thank you very much. Now the second question, Washington Post.
Thanks very much. Mr. Secretary, will the Trump administration consult and inform Congress in advance if it decides to attack Iran or remove the Supreme Leader? It's a question on the minds of many, given the major potential consequences of a new war in the Middle East. And also, five European countries issued a joint statement saying Alexei Navalny was most likely poisoned by a toxin found in South America, of a South American frog. How come the United States didn't join the statement? Any response to it?
Then Mr. Prime Minister, sorry to interrupt. Thank you for your hospitality. On Venezuela, you strongly opposed America's removal of Maduro by force, saying it demonstrates a deepening breakdown of the international order. Do you still feel that way, given where we're at now? And also, you've denied saying that you were worried about President Trump's psychological state following your meeting with him in Mar-a-Lago. Can you explain how this was potentially misinterpreted?
Let me go first on your... I'm not going to talk about attacks on Iran or anything of that nature, because the president's made clear he prefers diplomacy and an outcome of a negotiated settlement. Now we're dealing with radical Shia clerics. Okay. We're dealing with people who make geopolitical decisions on the basis of pure theology. And it's a complicated thing. No one's ever been able to do a successful deal with Iran, but we're going to try. Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner will be traveling, I think they're traveling right now, to have important meetings, and we'll see how that turns out. And we'll always comply with the applicable laws of the United States in terms of involving Congress in any decisions. But right now, we're not talking about any of that. We are postured in the region for one simple reason, and that is that we understand that there could be threats to our forces in the region. We've seen them be threatened in the past, and we want to make sure that we have sufficient capacity to defend them if, God forbid, that were to happen. We'll follow whatever the law is on it, and it depends on the circumstances that lead to it. But right now, we're talking about negotiations. We are focused on negotiations. That's what we're... the president's made that clear. If that changes, it'll be obvious to everyone, and obviously whatever the law requires us to do, we'll do. With regards to your question about the frog toxin, no, it's a very serious thing. Look, those countries came to that conclusion. They coordinated that. We chose... doesn't mean we disagree with the outcome. We just... it wasn't, you know, our endeavor. Sometimes countries go out and do their thing based on the intelligence they've gathered. We obviously are aware of the report. It's a troubling report. We're aware of that case of Mr. Navalny, and certainly, you know, we don't have any reason to question it, or we're not disputing or getting into a fight with these countries over it. But it was their report, and they put that out there. And let me just make one more point, because I think you asked him a question in order to, like, see if you can get him against us with something about, oh, you criticize. A lot of countries didn't like what we did in Venezuela. That's okay. That was in our national interest. I'm sure there's something he'll do one day that we don't like, and we'll say, hey, we didn't like you did this. So what? That doesn't mean we're not going to be friends. We're not going to be partners. We're not going to be able to cooperate with one another. Countries express their opinion all the time. We have very close allies that didn't like what we did in that regard. I can tell you what, it was successful. We're proud of it. It was necessary because the guy was a narco-terrorist, and we made him a bunch of offers, and he chose to refuse them. And look what's happened in Venezuela in the six weeks since he's been gone. Okay, it is a... now it's got a long way to go. There's still much work that needs to be done, but I can tell you Venezuela is much better off today than it was six weeks ago. So, you know, we're very proud of that project, and, you know, I know some will disagree and didn't like it, but irrespective, I think everyone can now agree that Venezuela has an opportunity and a new future that wasn't there six weeks ago.
Thank you very much for your questions. And I have no reason to avoid answering our questions, you know. When someone doesn't like the sovereign, independent behavior of Slovakia, they always automatically try to create obstacles to this sovereign, independent behavior. Don't be afraid. I will not avoid your question. I'm just going to use another example. I decided independently, sovereignly, in the name of our sovereign policy, to participate in the celebration of the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War and the victory against fascism in Moscow. I have thousands of good reasons for that, because it was the Red Army that liberated Slovakia in...
My first question is for Mr. Secretary.
Member of NATO, or that member of NATO in terms of what they're doing or not doing with regards to the alliance. I was giving a speech about our relationship, the transatlantic alliance as they call it, which on the military front is largely built on NATO, and on the commercial and economic front is built through the European Union, and obviously to non-members of the European Union then through bilateral agreements with them. And the core point of my speech yesterday remains that our relationship to Europe as a continent, the transatlantic relationship, is not just a military alliance, it is not just a commercial alliance or trade alliance. If it was just built on commerce and military, then this is very transactional, and it's only going to be an alliance as long as it's mutually beneficial in that regard. The point of my argument yesterday was that our transatlantic alliance, as it's been called, is built on something even more important and more enduring, and that is the ties we have as people: cultural ties, historical ties, religious ties, you know, direct descendants in many cases, or language, etc., shared experience. And that's the point of it. And as far as if you want to talk about NATO specifically, yeah, I mean, I don't think this is a mystery. This has been something the president's talked about since his first administration as 45th president of the United States. And that is that he wants NATO to be stronger. And in order for NATO to be stronger, the member states have to be stronger. But that's the point. I think we're headed in a good path in that regard. I think we've seen a tremendous amount of progress, and we'll continue to see progress in that direction. I hope, because it makes the alliance stronger. And asking member states of NATO to be stronger, it's not a threat to say, well, if you're not stronger, then we're going to... you know, it's to point out to everybody that it is a stronger alliance. We are collectively stronger when we are individually stronger on what our capabilities we bring. And every nation has a unique situation. Every nation that's a member of the coalition of NATO has, in some cases, some strategic advantages, special things that they can bring to the table that perhaps another member state cannot. That has to be taken into account as well.
Thank you for the answer, dear colleague. We have this huge benefit...
Thank you. Secretary, I just did an interview with you guys. This guy's... [laughter] Go ahead. I'm sorry. Thank you for more of your time, Secretary Rubio. Thank you. That's why I'm here. I wanted to ask you, you met in the last several days with the leaders of Greenland and Denmark in Munich. Is there agreement or acceptance from the US side that the issue of ceding sovereignty of Greenland to the US is no longer on the table, or that Greenland will not ultimately become part of the US? And on Syria, you also met with the foreign minister in Munich. Several Republican congressional leaders have talked about serious concerns over al-Sharaa's ability to fulfill the conditions that you had laid out in May of 2025, and saying he's moving backwards on some of those regarding treatment of minorities, the role of foreign fighters. Do you share that assessment? And was that something you conveyed to the foreign minister? And then Prime Minister Fico, can you clarify the situation regarding oil supplies via the Druzhba pipeline? And do you have any information on why the flows have not resumed, or can you confirm Hungary's claim that Ukraine has indeed repaired the damaged section of the pipeline, but that there is no political will from the Ukrainian side to restart that flow? And lastly, on energy, Prime Minister...
That's like four questions. [laughter] Get four questions. Just in terms of the... You guys did a pool or something. The energy reduction, the energy reliance, dependence of Slovakia on Russia. Is that something that you're willing, that Slovakia is willing to reduce or end the oil and gas imports, or to increase imports of fuels like LNG from the US? Thank you both so much. I don't even remember your first question. I think it was about Greenland and Denmark, right? Okay. Yeah, we met with them. We're meeting with them. I'm not going to talk about it. I told you guys we're not going to have this thing back and forth in media and press conferences. We have a good process in place. We're engaging with them. I feel very positive and optimistic that we're on a good trajectory. In the case of Syria, actually, let me point something out. Number one, and we met with the foreign minister of Syria. You know who else was there? General Mazloum. They came together. The Kurdish leader was there. We put that out. I don't know why that wasn't reported. Interestingly, by the way, I read, and I knew this was going to happen. I told my people to tell you this because I knew this was going to happen. We had to... we couldn't go to a Ukraine meeting that they were having, one of the, you know, multiple Ukraine meetings that we attend. We couldn't go to one of them. And the reason why we couldn't go to that one with four other European countries is because we were meeting with Syria and the Kurds. I just... I couldn't figure out a way how to be in two places at the same time. It's a problem many people face. You can't be in two places at the same time. So we met with the Syrian foreign minister and with General Mazloum on behalf of the Kurds, a historic meeting. Okay. Together in the same meeting. Now let me say that no one here has ever disputed that the challenge of Syria was going to be a very significant one. Very significant one. Okay. We are dealing with elements that, as we've said in the past, you know, we have concerns about things that they have done in the past. But the bottom line was we had two choices in Syria. Choice number one was to let the place fall apart into 18 different pieces. Long-term civil war, instability, mass migration, playground for terrorists, ISIS running all over the place, Iran getting back in. That was choice number one. Choice number two is to try to see if it was possible to work with these interim authorities and president, with al-Sharaa and with his team. Guess what? We chose number two because it made sense. Now, is it going to be easy? No. Is it going to be difficult? Absolutely. Is it going to have ups and downs and good days and bad days? No doubt about it. Here's the fact, okay? And I'm not saying that this tells you that we should claim victory and start a parade, but here's the fact. The fact is that when this situation erupted in the northeast of Syria, we went... the president engaged personally not once but twice with al-Sharaa, and he said, 'Stop the fighting so that we can move the ISIS prisoners that are there.' Thousands of ISIS prisoners who, by the way, could have broken out and created havoc and chaos. Stop the fighting so that we can move these ISIS prisoners, and so that we have more time to work on this reintegration, the integration of the Kurds into the national Syrian forces. And you know what? al-Sharaa did it. Now, he's kept his word up to this point. Obviously, he has to keep doing that, but that's what we've been able to achieve. We've been able to at least get him to agree to do that. And that's been important because we've been able to move those prisoners into Iraq and out of harm's way, so that we don't have a massive jailbreak and four or five thousand ISIS killers running crazy all over the place and threatening us in the future. And it's given us time to work on this integration agreement which they have agreed to between the Kurds and the Syrian authorities in Damascus. Now you have to implement that agreement. That's not going to be easy. And there are other such agreements that they need to reach with the Druze, with the Bedouins, with the Alawites, with all the elements of a very diverse society in Syria. But we think the alternative, we think that outcome, as difficult as it's been, is far better than a Syria that would have been broken up into eight pieces with all kinds of fighting going on, all kinds of mass migration. So we're very positive about that. And as far as members of Congress are concerned, we've worked with them on this. We've kept them informed. We've invited them to many of the meetings. In fact, Ambassador Barrack was in Washington last week briefing the congressional committees, always very blunt and very honest about the challenges involved in executing on this very difficult situation. But we think it's headed in a positive direction. Even though it's been tested, there's been some difficult days. Frankly, there's been some days that have been, you know, very concerning, but we like the trajectory. We have to keep it on that trajectory. We've got good agreements in place. The key now is implementation, and we'll be very involved in that regard. Those are my two questions, right? Okay.
Everybody...
Electricity system. Transit. Transit. Minister. Ukraine. Absolutely. Ukraine. Ukraine. Foreign speech. Foreign speech.
