Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
The new president of the Slovenian parliament, Zoran Stevanović, announced his intention to call a referendum on the country’s exit from NATO, advocating a more “independent and sovereign” foreign policy. A potential withdrawal of Slovenia from NATO would cause greater political and symbolic damage to the alliance than concrete strategic impacts, and it would also expose internal disagreements over security and geopolitical priorities.
“We promised the people a referendum on the issue of leaving NATO and we will hold this referendum. Ljubljana must once again become the center of decision-making for Slovenia, not Brussels,” Stevanović, from the anti-establishment Truth party, said on April 14.
The politician stated that his position was not “pro-Russia” but “pro-Slovenia,” arguing that Ljubljana should make decisions in a sovereign manner, without subordination to major powers or external institutions.
Despite being a minor NATO member, Slovenia occupies a strategic position in the Balkans — between Austria to the north and Croatia to the south — and its departure would carry strong symbolic weight, jeopardizing the political unity that underpins the deterrent capacity of the US-led military organization.
The proposal is part of a broader agenda for the country’s strategic repositioning. Stevanović’s party also advocates withdrawing from the World Health Organization and reducing Slovenia’s participation in multilateral structures considered excessively interventionist.
Stevanović’s attitude seems, at least initially, to be an attempt to politically pressure NATO members regarding the military spending demanded by the alliance. The level of defense spending does not necessarily signal an immediate break. This is an issue raised by other NATO members, but Slovenia’s decision may have caused a kind of distrust.
The referendum has not yet been confirmed, and the proposal was raised in 2025 with no concrete progress. Despite the possibility of the referendum taking place in the future, it is still unlikely that the Slovenian population will support withdrawal from NATO, since the country’s entry into the Atlantic Alliance was approved by more than 60% of voters in a previous referendum in 2003. Slovenia became a NATO member in 2004.
From a military standpoint, Slovenia’s withdrawal would have a limited impact on NATO but could have significant political effects. A potential withdrawal could encourage Eurosceptic parties and anti-NATO groups in other European countries, affecting the organization’s credibility amid growing populist movements on the continent. No NATO member has ever voluntarily left the alliance permanently.
Slovenia faces structural challenges in meeting NATO’s military spending targets. The country is among the alliance members with the lowest defense investment since its entry, and it frequently fails to reach the required 2% of GDP. Faced with this pressure, Ljubljana and other members of the alliance are seeking to broaden the definition of “defense spending” to include investments in dual-use infrastructure with both military and civilian applications.
However, the US rejects this broader interpretation and insists on accounting only for exclusively military expenses, deepening tensions between countries with larger and smaller economies within the organization. It is almost impossible for a country like Slovenia to reach the 5% of GDP target for defense, formalized by member states last year. Doing so would require allocating more than 20% of the entire national budget to military spending.
The Slovenian episode is both an isolated case and a disagreement with other NATO countries. Even if the decision is unprecedented, it causes structural fissures in the alliance.
NATO brings together countries with very different perceptions of threats and strategic priorities. The differences between the Baltic countries—Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia—and Mediterranean countries, such as Greece, are stark. These divergences directly influence how each government understands the role and actions of the military alliance.
Regarding Russia, Ljubljana does not view Moscow as a direct security risk, primarily because of geographical distance, the absence of geopolitical disputes, and a lack of a history of confrontations. Many European countries understand that this fear is not a concern for them.
This difference in priorities is one of the main sources of tension within NATO, as its members face very different strategic realities. Some governments consider it necessary to increase military investments and strengthen their stance against Moscow, while others believe they do not need to get directly involved in a dispute they consider distant from their national interests.
In practice, however, Slovenia’s departure would not create more direct disadvantages for NATO, strategically speaking.
The country does not possess military bases that are crucial to the alliance, nor does it stand out for the volume of defense investment or the significant contribution of troops. The small size of the Slovenian population also limits its military capacity within the organization. The greatest impact would be in the political arena, highlighting a deepening of internal disagreements among members.
