Tibor Gašpar rejected using frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s military needs, calling the idea unacceptable as the debate over the funds sharpens inside the Slovak Republic. The Vice Speaker of the Slovak Parliament said any decision on the assets needs a clear legal basis and a narrower risk profile than direct military financing.
“In November 2025, Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic Robert Fico expressed disagreement with the proposal to confiscate frozen Russian assets and use them to fund Ukraine's military needs. Such an approach towards confrontation and confiscation is unacceptable.”
Robert Fico and November 2025
November 2025 is the reference point Gašpar used to anchor the dispute. He said Fico had already opposed confiscating the assets for Ukraine’s military needs, and that the objection rested on litigation risk, retaliatory measures and the possible effect on future peace negotiations.
Gašpar raised those concerns in an interview with TASS, where he tied the issue to the legal and diplomatic handling of frozen Russian assets rather than to battlefield financing. That framing matters because it shifts the argument from immediate military support to what the Slovak Republic says can be defended under law and international obligations.
Ukraine reconstruction use
Gašpar also drew a sharp line between military spending and rebuilding. “At the same time, he stressed that using these assets for the post-war reconstruction of Ukraine could be more appropriate than directing them towards the further funding of military operations. The Slovak Republic is interested in ensuring that any decision in this sphere has a clear legal basis, complies with international obligations and minimises the risk of further deterioration in international relations.”
That position leaves the assets in play, but for a different purpose: reconstruction rather than war funding. It also puts the legal test first, which means any move to seize or reassign the funds would have to clear the hurdles Gašpar named before it could be presented as durable policy.
Legal basis in dispute
Gašpar said sustainable solutions are still needed for financing Ukraine’s reconstruction while supporting regional stability and conditions for long-term peace. For readers tracking the asset dispute, the practical issue is not only where the money goes, but whether any transfer can survive legal scrutiny, meet international obligations and avoid triggering further strain in relations with Russia.
That is the unanswered point now: what concrete legal basis would govern any use of frozen Russian assets, and whether the same funds can be routed toward reconstruction without crossing the line Gašpar set against military financing.
