Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

International

Is the attempted assassination of anti-globalist Slovakian prime minister a warning of things to come?

Published

11 months ago

15 minute read

Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico

From LifeSiteNews

By Angeline Tan

On April 10 of this year, Fico ominously predicted that assassination attempts like the one on his life could very well happen in his country: 

And I’m just waiting for this frustration, intensified by Dennik N, SME or Aktuality (Slovak news), to turn into the murder of some of the leading government politicians. 

On May 15, Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico was shot in what the country’s Interior Minister Matúš Šutaj Eštok described as a “politically motivated” assassination attempt, according to reports from Euractiv.   

Based on eyewitnesses cited by Euractiv, Fico was greeting people at the House of Culture in the Slovak city of Handlová when he was shot. 

Eštok cautioned that Slovakia was “on the edge of a civil war” owing to political disagreements with the Fico government, also declaring that Juraj Cintula, the 71-year-old man who fired five bullets at Fico, may have “acted as part of a group of people that had been encouraging each other to carry out an assassination,” as per Reuters reports. 

According to local reports, just two hours after Cintula’s attempted killing of Fico, the suspect’s “communication history” online was deleted.

While Slovak authorities found that Cintula had no prior criminal record, he had been outspokein in his opposition to Fico’s government. Materials uploaded on social media depicted Cintula participating in an anti-Fico protest, chanting, “Long live Ukraine!”  

Based on reports by Slovak media, Cintula told police that he had planned the attack a few days prior, but that he did not plan on killing Fico.  

The CNN news outlet quoted Eštok as saying: 

The reasons (the suspect gave) were the decision to abolish the special prosecutor’s office, the decision to stop supplying military assistance to Ukraine, the reform of the public service broadcaster and the dismissal of the judicial council head.   

Interestingly, the reactions of mainstream media outlets to Fico’s attack belie their bias against the bullet-ridden Slovak leader, whose Smer-Social Democracy Party won last year’s elections on a campaign that resisted mass migration, guarded national sovereignty against centralized European Union control, and lambasted NATO’s military aid to Ukraine.  

For instance, the BBC news outlet had this to say: 

Fico has been accused of cosying up to figures like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, which has led some analysts to speculate that he might be trying to steal a page from the regime of a leader described by the European Parliament as running a ‘hybrid regime of electoral autocracy.’  

Critics argue that he has abandoned Slovakia’s pro-Western course..he is fiercely opposed to immigration and has criticized same-sex marriages. He became the country’s most prominent voice against masks, lockdowns and vaccinations during the Covid pandemic. He is also an admirer of Vladimir Putin and has vowed not to support Ukraine.

Furthermore, Sky News claimed that “Fico has long been a divisive figure,” characterizing the Slovak leader as “pro-Russian, anti-American.” Responding to mainstream media outlets’ “palpable coldness” to Fico’s shooting, particularly that of Sky News, Brendan O’Neill wrote in The Spectator:  

A guest commentator said Fico’s views are ‘very divisive in Slovakia’ and ‘very divisive in the EU’. And therefore – wait for it – ‘it’s not surprising that this sort of event might take place’. Got that? Because Fico is a controversial figure, according to the EU anyway, it shouldn’t be a great shock that someone decided to shoot him. It is hands down the most disturbing thing I’ve heard on a mainstream news channel in some time. A democratically elected leader is riddled with bullets, Slovakian democracy itself is horrifically assaulted, and you’re not surprised?

O’Neill added: 

The commentator on Sky listed Fico’s supposedly problematic views. He’s a populist and a nationalist, we were informed. Worse, he opposes military aid for Ukraine. What are we saying here? That it is ‘not surprising’ if public figures who hold such views – that nationhood is important, that the EU can be a pain in the backside, that aid to Ukraine should stop – are set upon by maniacs? This strikes me as a very dangerous message.  

Fico’s supporters have blamed the onslaught of media villainization of the leader as one of the causes that prompted Cintula to shoot him. Eštok also decried the unfavorable media coverage of Fico:  

It was information that you have recently presented. The way you presented them, I think each of you can reflect. 

As Conor Gallagher wrote in Naked Capitalism:   

… it’s the questioning of the NATO line and opposition to digging the Project Ukraine hole even deeper that got Fico and Smer in hot water with the Atlanticists that run Europe nowadays. Fico and Smer are relentlessly labeled pro-Russia for nothing more than their belief that Project Ukraine is not good for Slovakia. Not that there’s anything wrong with being pro-Russia, but since when does not wanting to go to war with Russia make one ‘pro-Russia’?

In comments about mainstream media portrayals of the Eurosceptic Fico as “pro-Russian,” Sputnik columnist Dmitry Babich said: 

Such clichés became commonplace in mainstream European press against any non-systemic political leader who stands for his or her country’s sovereignty or veers from the EU’s ‘common foreign policy,’ not necessarily in unison with Russia.

On the same note, senior research fellow at the Global Policy Institute George Szamuely remarked: 

[The alleged shooter is] basically on the same side as all of the EU media, the EU apparat, all the EU political figures who have been denouncing Fico and Slovakia for their supposed pro-Putin, for his supposed pro-Putin agenda, for his being in the service of the Kremlin. {The media has] come up with another story, which is that, somehow, Fico brought this on himself… because he’s such a polarizing figure. He’s so divisive and the political atmosphere in Slovakia is very, very toxic. A lot of hatred, a lot of hate speech. And, who’s behind it all? Robert Fico.  

“There is social polarization and political antagonism in all of Europe, but usually nobody is shooting at prime ministers. [This happened] only in Slovakia,” Dimitris Konstantakopoulos, a former security and foreign policy advisor to late former Greek Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou, declared in statements to Sputnik, commenting on the dangerous situation which has developed in the heart of Europe in the wake of the attempt on Fico’s life.  

“What people will think all around Europe is that this is a signal to any politician who would like to disagree with the main NATO and the European Union policies – that he has to be careful not to be assassinated,” Konstantakopoulos elaborated.  

“I will remind you that they have already blown up the Nord Stream pipeline, and we’ve also had the assassination or attempted assassination of Russian journalists and politicians inside Russia. So it seems that [going back] long ago there was a ‘war party’ in the West which has decided not to permit a Russian victory in Ukraine. And that means using all possible means,” Konstantakopoulos highlighted.  

Pro-Ukraine forces hoping to “discipline” leaders who do not support Ukraine in its conflict against Russia can use violence or other ways to push their agenda forward,  Konstantakopoulos told Sputnik.  

In context, Brussels has previously threatened to undermine the economy of Viktor Orbán’s Hungary if he vetoes Ukraine’s attempt to become an EU member. Also, in May this year, the Verden regional court in Lower Saxony, Germany, ruled that the Rotenburg Eurosceptic Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) leader Marie-Thérèse Kaiser was guilty of “incitement to hatred” for posting crime statistics showing that Afghanistan refugees committed a disproportionate number of sex offenses in the country.

The German court’s ruling caught the attention of billionaire Elon Musk, with Musk posting: 

Are you saying the fine was for repeating accurate government statistics? Was there anything inaccurate in what she said? 

Last year, AfD co-leader Tino Chrupalla was reportedly attacked with a syringe, causing him to go into anaphylactic shock, during an election campaign event in Ingolstadt, Bavaria. Nevertheless, the Associated Press (AP), citing German prosecutors and police, stated that “there were no indications yet that Chrupalla was attacked.”

Days earlier, Alice Weidel, another AfD co-leader, along with her family, had been scurried away to an undisclosed location for safety following intelligence reports of an upcoming attack on the nationalist politician. Rather than keeping silent or denouncing violence, leftist German Green Party MP Renate Künast, in an X post, questioned if Weidel had staged the “security problem to suit the election” in Bavaria at that time. 

On April 10 of this year, Fico ominously predicted that assassination attempts like the one on his life could very well happen in his country: 

And I’m just waiting for this frustration, intensified by Dennik N, SME or Aktuality (Slovak news), to turn into the murder of some of the leading government politicians. 

Fico’s ominous predictions are not entirely unfounded, given the history of covert operations (that were sometimes violent) in Europe.

Following Fico’s shooting, India-based news outlet Firstpost ran an article citing U.S. journalist Nebojsa Malic and Habertürk reporter Ozcan Tikit stating that a continuation of “Operation Gladio” was linked to the attempt on Fico’s life.

The same article described Operation Gladio as “a clandestine operation involving a network of ‘stay-behind’ armies established in Europe during the Cold War,” backed “by NATO and the CIA with the cooperation of European intelligence agencies,” to gear up for a possible invasion by the then-Soviet Union.

Notably, the article reported that “NATO played a central role in coordinating these secret armies aiming to ensure that resistance would continue even if the official military forces were defeated or occupied,” ensuring “violent incidents including bombings and assassinations to destabilize the political situation.”

Firstpost added: 

While initially intended as a defensive measure against a Soviet invasion, some of these groups became involved in internal political activities including influencing elections, engaging in acts of terrorism and manipulating political processes to counteract left-wing movements and parties.

Strikingly, while Fico has been labeled as “pro-Russia” by many mainstream media outlets, these same media outlets were quick to point out his attacker’s apparent links to pro-Russia paramilitaries and anti-immigrant forces, rather than highlight the attacker’s sympathies for the Kyiv regime under anti-Christian leader Volodymyr Zelensky. Ironically, Sky News reported the fact that Cintula, the would-be assassin, had commemorated the birthday of Marxist terrorist Che Guevara, a key figure in the Cuban revolution.   

Evidently, the EU globalists, as echoed by their sycophants in establishment media outlets, have revealed their true colors once again via their reactions to Fico’s shooting. In view of the impending European Parliament elections from June 6 to 9, during which conservative and Eurosceptic politicians are set to win many votes, it is very likely that the globalist brahmins in Brussels and their coterie are panicking to retain power, even as their legitimacy to lead is declining.

In desperation, it would not be surprising if more assassinations (both physical and character) aimed at dissident leaders or public figures take place in the future. 

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Agriculture / 27 mins ago

Liberal win puts Canada’s farmers and food supply at risk

International / 2 hours ago

Nigeria, 3 other African countries are deadliest for Christians: report

Alberta / 2 hours ago

Alberta’s future in Canada depends on Carney’s greatest fear: Trump or Climate Change

International

Nigeria, 3 other African countries are deadliest for Christians: report

Published on May 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Angeline Tan

The 2025 Global Christian Relief Red List report has found that the deadliest region for Christians is Africa, with Nigeria taking the top spot with 10,000 deaths in 2 years.

The 2025 Global Christian Relief (GCR) Red List report, which highlighted “the 25 worst countries for Christian persecution across five categories of concern” including killings, building attacks, arrests, displacements, abductions and assaults, has found that Africa, in particular Nigeria, is the most dangerous region for Christians.

Released in January, the GCR report, which relied on data from the Violent Incidents Database, a project founded by the International Institute for Religious Freedom (IIRF), summarized:

Africa remains the deadliest region for Christians, with Nigeria consistently being the most dangerous country for followers of Jesus. Between November 2022 and November 2024, nearly 10,000 Christians were killed, primarily by Islamic extremist groups such as Boko Haram, Armed Fulani Herdsmen, and the Islamic State’s West Africa Province (ISWAP). Similar patterns emerge in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Mozambique, and Ethiopia, where numerous armed militant groups target Christians.

The GCR report detailed how “most of the killings” in Nigeria happened in the country’s northern “sharia” states, where Christians “often live in remote villages in semi-arid landscapes, making them particularly vulnerable to attacks.” Notably, the same report highlighted the failure of the Nigerian government in stopping these anti-Christian attacks, stating that “despite government assurances that they will defeat the extremists, the violence continues to escalate.”

Ranking second to Nigeria as the next “deadliest country for Christians” was the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where “390 Christians were recorded as killed” during the reporting period of November 2022 to 2024. The GRC report singled out “Islamic militant groups like the Allied Democratic Forces” as the “main killers.”

Coming in third was Mozambique, with “262 recorded deaths.” The report declared that although Mozambique was “once a relatively peaceful Christian-majority country,” “a swarm of militants led by the Islamic State Mozambique (ISM)” has disrupted the peace of the country.

Strikingly, Ethiopia emerged as the fourth deadliest country for Christians, “with at least 181 Christians killed.” The GCR report detailed how “believers — particularly converts — faced high risks of violence in regions dominated by Islamic militants”.

Apart from killings, African Christians have to contend with the risk of displacements, assaults, and kidnappings.

“Despite the intense challenges in places like Nigeria, China, and India, we continue to see remarkable resilience in these communities,” Brian Orme, acting chief executive of Global Christian Relief, declared. “Even in the darkest circumstances, the Church not only survives but grows stronger — millions are choosing to follow Jesus despite knowing the risks they face.”

“Working closely with our partners on the ground in these high-risk areas, we provide emergency aid, safe houses, and trauma counseling to Christians facing violent persecution,” Orme said.

According to the report, “much of the violence occurred in Manipur, where unrest erupted in May 2024. Rioters, driven by Hindu extremists from the Meitei tribe, attacked predominantly Christian Kukis, systematically burning churches and setting fire to the homes of believers.”

Meanwhile, China led the world in arrests of Christians, with more than 1,500 believers detained under the communist government’s religious prohibitions. The report stated:

It is no surprise that China tops the 2025 GCR Red List for Arrests, given that the communist nation has the world’s most sophisticated surveillance mechanisms.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump’s bizarre 51st state comments and implied support for Carney were simply a ploy to blow up trilateral trade pact

Published on May 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Conservative Treehouse

Trump’s position on the Canadian election outcome had nothing to do with geopolitical friendships and everything to do with America First economics.

Note from LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac: This article, disturbing as it is, appears to explain Trump’s bizarre threats to Canada and irrational support for Carney. We present it as a possible explanation for why Trump’s interference in the Canadian election seems to have played a large role in the Liberals’ exploitation of the Trump threat and their ultimate, unexpected success.

To understand President Trump’s position on Canada, you have to go back to the 2016 election and President Trump’s position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) renegotiation. If you did not follow the subsequent USMCA process, this might be the ah-ha moment you need to understand Trump’s strategy.

During the 2016 election President Trump repeatedly said he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA. Both Canada and Mexico were reluctant to open the trade agreement to revision, but ultimately President Trump had the authority and support from an election victory to do exactly that.

In order to understand the issue, you must remember President Trump, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer each agreed that NAFTA was fraught with problems and was best addressed by scrapping it and creating two separate bilateral trade agreements. One between the U.S. and Mexico, and one between the U.S. and Canada.

In the decades that preceded the 2017 push to redo the trade pact, Canada had restructured their economy to: (1) align with progressive climate change; and (2) take advantage of the NAFTA loophole. The Canadian government did not want to reengage in a new trade agreement.

Canada has deindustrialized much of their manufacturing base to support the “environmental” aspirations of their progressive politicians. Instead, Canada became an importer of component goods where companies then assembled those imports into finished products to enter the U.S. market without tariffs. Working with Chinese manufacturing companies, Canada exploited the NAFTA loophole.

Justin Trudeau was strongly against renegotiating NAFTA, and stated he and Chrystia Freeland would not support reopening the trade agreement. President Trump didn’t care about the position of Canada and was going forward. Trudeau said he would not support it. Trump focused on the first bilateral trade agreement with Mexico.

When the U.S. and Mexico had agreed to terms of the new trade deal and 80 percent of the agreement was finished, representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce informed Trudeau that his position was weak and if the U.S. and Mexico inked their deal, Canada would be shut out.

When they went to talk to the Canadians the CoC was warning them about what was likely to happen. NAFTA would end, the U.S. and Mexico would have a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA), and then Trump was likely to turn to Trudeau and say NAFTA is dead, now we need to negotiate a separate deal for U.S.-Canada.

Trudeau was told a direct bilateral trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada was the worst possible scenario for the Canadian government. Canada would lose access to the NAFTA loophole and Canada’s entire economy was no longer in a position to negotiate against the size of the U.S. Trump would win every demand.

Following the warning, Trudeau went to visit Nancy Pelosi to find out if Congress was likely to ratify a new bilateral trade agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. Pelosi warned Trudeau there was enough political support for the NAFTA elimination from both parties. Yes, the bilateral trade agreement was likely to find support.

Realizing what was about to happen, Prime Minister Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland quickly changed approach and began to request discussions and meetings with USTR Robert Lighthizer. Keep in mind more than 80 to 90 percent of the agreement was already done by the U.S. and Mexico teams. Both President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and President Trump were now openly talking about when it would be finalized and signed.

Nancy Pelosi stepped in to help Canada get back into the agreement by leveraging her Democrats. Trump agreed to let Canada engage, and Lighthizer agreed to hold discussions with Chrystia Freeland on a tri-lateral trade agreement that ultimately became the USMCA.

The key points to remember are: (1) Trump, Ross, and Lighthizer would prefer two separate bilateral trade agreements because the U.S. import/export dynamic was entirely different between Mexico and Canada. And because of the loophole issue, (2) a five-year review was put into the finished USMCA trade agreement. The USMCA was signed on November 30, 2018, and came into effect on July 1, 2020.

TIMELINE: The USMCA is now up for review (2025) and renegotiation in 2026!

This timeline is the key to understanding where President Donald Trump stands today. The review and renegotiation is his goal.

President Trump said openly he was going to renegotiate the USMCA, leveraging border security (Mexico) and reciprocity (Canada) within it.

Following the 2024 presidential election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau traveled to Mar-a-Lago and said if President Trump was to make the Canadian government face reciprocal tariffs, open the USMCA trade agreements to force reciprocity, and/or balance economic relations on non-tariff issues, then Canada would collapse upon itself economically and cease to exist.

In essence, Canada cannot survive as a free and independent north American nation, without receiving all the one-way benefits from the U.S. economy.

To wit, President Trump then said that if Canada cannot survive in a balanced rules environment, including putting together their own military and defenses (which it cannot), then Canada should become the 51st U.S. state. It was following this meeting that President Trump started emphasizing this point and shocking everyone in the process.

However, what everyone missed was the strategy Trump began outlining when contrast against the USMCA review and renegotiation window.

Again, Trump doesn’t like the tri-lateral trade agreement. President Trump would rather have two separate bilateral agreements; one for Mexico and one for Canada. Multilateral trade agreements are difficult to manage and police.

How was President Trump going to get Canada to (a) willingly exit the USMCA; and (b) enter a bilateral trade agreement?

The answer was through trade and tariff provocations, while simultaneously hitting Canada with the shock and awe aspect of the 51st state.

The Canadian government and the Canadian people fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Trump’s position on the Canadian election outcome had nothing to do with geopolitical friendships and everything to do with America First economics. When asked about the election in Canada, President Trump said, “I don’t care. I think it’s easier to deal, actually, with a liberal and maybe they’re going to win, but I don’t really care.”

By voting emotionally, the Canadian electorate have fallen into President Trump’s USMCA exit trap. Prime Minister Mark Carney will make the exit much easier. Carney now becomes the target of increased punitive coercion until such a time as the USMCA review is begun, and Canada is forced to a position of renegotiation.

Trump never wanted Canada as a 51st state.

Trump always wanted a U.S.-Canada bilateral trade agreement.

Mark Carney said the era of U.S.-Canadian economic ties “are officially declared severed.”

Canada has willingly exited the USMCA trade agreement at the perfect time for President Trump.

Continue Reading

Trending

X