In May, I published an interview with Slovenian opposition leader and former prime minister Janez Janša. I have maintained a good relationship with the Slovenian politician since 2021, when I first interviewed him, and subsequently translated into Spanish his book We Got Up and Survived, in which he tells the story of how Slovenia achieved independence. However, I did not meet him personally until recently, when I went to the headquarters of his party, the Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS), in Ljubljana.
Janša speaks very clearly and is not, like so many politicians, a straw man. He stood up to the Yugoslav government and suffered persecution under the communist regime. He later became Slovenia’s defence minister and was the commander of its army in the 1991 war of independence. His life experience, and his three terms as prime minister, make him a down-to-earth politician who is very aware of the world around him. In this interview, held on June 20th, we discuss the results of the European elections, the role of the EPP and the need for change in Europe.
What is your assessment of the results of the European elections?
It is clear that there has been a change of direction in Europe and that the time has come to stop disastrous policies such as the green transition or migration. The question is whether there is enough power to change what has been done. Of course, it is not possible to continue on this path; it must be reversed.
It seems that Von der Leyen wants to repeat the coalition with the socialists. Might it not be counterproductive for the European People’s Party (EPP), by causing it to lose the confidence of its voters?
For us it is clear: we said before the elections that we would not support the same coalition as in the previous stage. The EPP was, and is, the biggest force and occupies the centre. The problem is that the Left has formed a bloc that will not come to any agreement with the EPP if Von der Leyen talks to the conservatives. And the problem is that the EPP did not stand firm enough, and it allowed the Left to gain an advantageous position from which to tell us what we can and cannot do. I think this was a mistake.
Now, the situation is more complex than it seemed right after the elections. The numbers are tight and it is very likely that there will be important changes in the Council because there are elections in France and in Austria; and, in the Netherlands, a new government has been formed. It is not going to be like in the previous stage, when socialists and liberals had a quarter of the Council. That is why it is important that the European Parliament reflects this situation, this change. The EPP is fundamental for that. Moreover, we are stronger now, and many of the more pro-Left MEPs in our ranks have not been elected.
So we are not talking about the same EPP as five years ago?
Recently, there was a vote to elect new vice-presidents, and all of us who voted at the EPP congress against Ursula von der Leyen were elected. Manfred Weber has already said that the EPP will not allow the liberal and leftist losers to tell us who we can talk to.
The biggest mistake that has been made after the elections is that no proposals are being made; everyone is taking positions. At the EPP meeting, I proposed to draw up a 10-point programme on the main European issues, and then to see with whom we can form a coalition, but nobody is concerned about this. I can say the same about the meeting of the European prime ministers: the only one who wanted to put forward proposals was Giorgia Meloni. This is a bad message for Europeans because, instead of making proposals, the winners and losers of the elections are taking positions—all the more so at a time when Europe is in such a delicate situation.
When do you think this political game will end?
I hope that we will start talking about the issues that matter to Europeans during the Council meeting, despite António Costa’s likely European Council presidency.
Yes, in Portugal they are very surprised by this situation.
This is also a message, and it is the wrong message. There was a big discussion in the EPP about whether to support Costa, especially because our criterion is the rule of law. But it was argued that Europe is a compromise and that the socialists are responsible. However, I am very doubtful that Costa’s presidency will last five years, because the composition of the Council will change, and in the middle of the mandate there are formal procedures to alter the situation. It is a mathematical question.
It seems that some people still believe in the existence of a “responsible” social democracy. Don’t you think this is a serious mistake when we are seeing that the differences between socialists and the far Left are becoming increasingly blurred?
Social democracy has disappeared in Europe. What we have is the radical Left, because cultural Marxism has taken over what was the “normal” Left during the Cold War. The entire European Left is like this, perhaps with the exception of Denmark. The problem is that we have been blind—some of us still are—for twenty years.
What do you think of the candidacy of Kaja Kallas, the prime minister of Estonia, as the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Policy?
I think it is a good decision. Her family suffered a lot under communism and was deported to Siberia, and she knows what we mean when we talk about transition. However, she was defeated in the elections, as was Macron. There is no liberal leader in the winning camp.
In Spain, the party aligned with Macron, Ciudadanos, has lost all its representation.
Yes, and they have also had bad results in Germany. But despite that, they are going to get foreign relations, the head of NATO, or Christine Lagarde to remain at the head of the European central bank.
What would they have achieved if they had been in the winning camp?
It’s hard to say. The reality is that they have now only got 6% of the chamber, but a disproportionate number of representatives.
And Ursula von der Leyen?
His situation is more complicated than it was five years ago with the alliance between the EPP and the Left, especially in the secret ballot in the European Parliament where she is far from having a comfortable majority. Even within the EPP, some of us voted against and many others abstained.
In my opinion, since the Lisbon Treaty, the big countries do not want strong personalities in the presidency of the Commission in order to dominate it. So, if Ursula is not elected, they will choose another figure like her to head the Commission. The times when experienced candidates and former prime ministers were required are long gone.
But now Europe needs strong leadership.
They will never support a strong leader. What they are looking for are civil servants.
Civil servants who apply the rule of law in countries governed by conservatives, but ignore such scandalous cases as the one we have in Spain.
In Slovenia, we know very well what is happening in Spain because we are experiencing exactly the same thing. And our government, like the Spanish one, has recognised the Palestinian state three days before the elections, bypassing all the established rules.
However, unlike Spain, in the European elections the voters have punished the Slovenian government, and the SDS has come out very strong.
Yes, we won four MEPs out of nine, including one from a younger partner party. This is our best result in a European election. The three parties in the governing coalition won only three MEPs.
Prime Minister Golob’s Freedom Movement, which has nothing to do with freedom, has lost 12 points since the general election, despite calling four consultative referendums on the same day as the European elections—one of them on the legalisation of marijuana in order to encourage young people to vote, and another on euthanasia.
What was the result of the referendum on euthanasia?
A draw. We published a Nazi-era pamphlet defending euthanasia: “people are suffering,” “we are doing it for your own good,” and so on. It’s exactly the same as what the Left’s proposal said; and no, I’m not joking.
Earlier, you mentioned Macron’s political woes in France. What do you think of his decision to bring forward the elections?
He has made a mistake and the only thing he has achieved is that the whole Left is united, but not with him. In the end, his party will disappear, as will the Republicans—the party of the EPP in France. Macron has miscalculated the ability of the Left to unite its forces, from the far Left to the antisemitic Left, from communists to socialists. In the second round, Macron will support the Left, but his party will disappear.
Macron is very much given to theatre, as when he published photos of his phone call to Putin to stop the invasion.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, Morawiecki called for preparing a response from a European perspective. Macron’s reply was: “What European perspective are you talking about for a country that is going to cease to exist in a week or two?” Again, Macron made the wrong calculations and the French intelligence services did not understand that the invading forces were not sufficient to take over the country.
Perhaps they thought the same as the Russians, that the Ukrainians would surrender and accept Moscow’s control.
The question is where the Russian intelligence services have been since the fall of Crimea. Poroshenko reorganised the Ukrainian army and it was obvious that the situation was not the same, but the Russian experts did not see it.
How do you see the war evolving?
Ukraine needs modern weapons. If we had delivered them in the summer of 2022, the war would be over. There was a big window of opportunity for six months and we fought to give them the weapons. Zelensky said at the NATO summit in April 2022 that they didn’t need NATO soldiers to die for Ukraine, just 1% of their military reserves. 1% would have been enough, but it was not done. There were endless debates about what were “offensive weapons” or “defensive weapons.” People who had never seen a battlefield became weapons experts. It was embarrassing.
In my opinion, this was a strategy, a calculated interest in which Ukraine was going to suffer, of course, but in which Russia was going to lose its strength—one less problem and leading, perhaps, to internal changes in Russia. The problem is that this is not the Cold War; it is a new situation in which there are also other actors, such as China. There is also India, the world’s largest democratic country, which refused to sign the document adopted at the Swiss summit, and which is a country to be won over. And all this without forgetting that the current U.S. leadership is a joke. That is why it is so important for Europe to really change direction.
