Wlachovský, Kollár, Mišík: how the decisions whose consequences we live with are made — what came out of the Brno discussion

Three first-hand perspectives came from Miroslav Wlachovský (GLOBSEC, former Minister of Foreign and European Affairs), Miroslav Kollár (KOM, former mayor of Hlohovec) and Matej Mišík (HEPII MUNI, former Director General of the Health Analysis Institute at the Slovak Ministry of Health) — diplomacy and security, local government, healthcare. What the three share: each stood inside the decision-making process and now speaks about it as an outside expert. The event was held within the Budúcnosť Slovenska študuje v ČR project.

When and where Wednesday 6 May 2026 · 17:00 – 19:00 · Kavárna Trojka · Dům pánů z Kunštátu · Dominikánská 9 · Brno

Speakers Miroslav Wlachovský — Distinguished Fellow at GLOBSEC. Former Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic (2023, Ódor government). Career diplomat with more than 25 years in public service — Ambassador in London (2011 – 2015) and Copenhagen (2018 – 2022), advisor to Prime Ministers Dzurinda, Heger, and Ódor. Since 2024 at GLOBSEC, working on hybrid threats, strategic communication, and Slovakia's position in a shifting international environment.

Miroslav Kollár — Director of the Local Government Research and Consulting Centre (KOM), member of the FSF Advisory Board. Former mayor of Hlohovec (2014 – 2022), Member of the National Council (2020 – 2023), former Chair of the RTVS Council, Vice President of the Union of Slovak Cities. He left politics in 2023, saying local government had been the most productive period of his life.

Matej Mišík — health economist, PhD researcher at the Health Economics, Policy and Innovation Institute (HEPII), Masaryk University. WHO consultant on capital investments in Ukrainian healthcare. From 2020 – 2024 Director General of the Health Analysis Institute at the Slovak Ministry of Health — led the design and implementation of the COVID Automat. Graduate of Tilburg University (MSc, Health Economics).

What was discussed

Miroslav Wlachovský opened the discussion by framing the shifted international situation. He started with an aphoristic observation that Prime Minister Fico is again heading to Moscow — and while that might suggest little has changed, in reality much has changed fundamentally. On the 22nd anniversary of Slovakia's EU accession, he argued that EU membership today may be even more important for us than at the time when we worked so hard to join — precisely because of the deteriorated international situation. He reminded the audience that Russia is the only country in the 21st century to have expanded its territory, that the largest war on the European continent since World War II is now in its fifth year, and that the Putin regime makes no secret of its ambition to restore at least the Soviet Union. According to him, Slovakia is among the countries most vulnerable to Russian hybrid operations — precisely because we have long neglected building overall resilience, not just the army. He identified a second vector of pressure on the EU paradoxically from the West: the second Trump administration with its transactional something for something approach, the demand for Greenland to leave the Kingdom of Denmark as an episode previously unthinkable among allies, and Vance's Munich speech, whose main message according to Wlachovský was don't touch our tech giants. As the most effective model of a middle power response he pointed to Mark Carney's Canada — including his Davos speech citing Václav Havel and Canada's reorientation of trade away from the US. He also mentioned the recent European Political Community meeting in Yerevan as a significant diplomatic signal vis-à-vis Russia. His closing warning targeted the EU has failed narrative — he explicitly mentioned Tibor Gašpar's statements after returning from Moscow that we should be ready for a possible end of the Union. Wlachovský wrapped it in an image: we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Miroslav Kollár addressed the myth of indebted Slovak local governments under the title A debt brake for local governments — decisions about us without us. The data showed the opposite picture: total municipal debt is around 2.0 – 2.5 bn € (≈ 1.7 – 2.0% of GDP), while Slovak public debt stands at roughly 84 bn €. Municipalities therefore represent a marginal share. Local government — cities and towns — carry debt of 1.3 – 1.7 bn € (1.1 – 1.4% of GDP), average debt around 20 – 25% of current income, with financial health that is stable rather than critical. Regional government (VÚC) is even lower — 0.6 – 0.9 bn €. By international comparison, Slovak municipalities are among the least indebted in the EU: Czechia 3 – 4% of GDP, Poland 6 – 8%, Germany 7 – 9%, EU average around 6%. Slovak debt limits (max. 60% of current income, repayment limit 25%) are among the strictest in the EU and effectively prevent debt from spiralling. Kollár's conclusion was counter-intuitive but data-grounded: lower debt does not mean a better state. Countries like Germany show higher municipal debt but also higher revenues, broader competences, and larger investment. Slovakia has low debt — and a low investment capacity to match. The key problem today, he argued, is not the level of debt but the mismatch between rising expenditure and insufficient revenue. And when a debt brake is decided without municipalities, those are decisions about us without us.

Matej Mišík presented Slovak healthcare through three numbers that, in his view, define the coming decade: roughly 8% of GDP goes into healthcare annually (about 9 bn € — roughly equal to defence, police, digitization, culture, sport and foreign affairs combined); by 2036 the number of people over 65 will grow by 23%, while the working-age population will fall by 6% (–200 thousand); life expectancy is 3.1 years shorter than the EU average and avoidable mortality is 40 – 60% higher. He named three traps the system keeps cycling through: political instability (25 ministers in 36 years, median tenure 353 days — about 11.6 months; for comparison, the Czech median since 2000 is 481 days), fragmentation (health, social affairs and finance don't talk to each other — a long-term care patient falls through ministerial cracks), and short-term thinking (no multi-year budget — we plan for 12 months for a system with a 30-year horizon). From personal experience he added his own statistic: in six years leading the Health Analysis Institute he served under seven ministers of health. The core argument: reform is not about a better minister — reform is the intersection of problem, policy, and political willingness to take a risk, and systemic problems require infrastructure that outlives the minister. And the most important thesis: "reform doesn't fail on technique, it fails on communication". Estonians don't have eHealth because they have better code — they have it because they understand it and trust the institutions. Mišík also presented the strategic framework for healthcare reform that FSF is developing, and closed with three calls to the audience: be informed clients (ask which specific hospital? what data?), help FSF think through the future, and seriously consider a career in public administration and analytical units. "Reform doesn't begin at the ministry. It begins the moment enough people stop accepting that's just how things are here."

The three perspectives converged on a single motif: decisions whose consequences we later live with are made without us — without the public, without the expert community, without local governments. And without the continuity that would outlast one minister and create space for the next.

A full recording of the discussion is available on our YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/@FutureSlovakiaForum

Event page → https://healthy-future.sk/brno/