Slovakia Resists EU’s Push to Cut Russian Energy Imports
Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico has openly rejected the EU’s plan to phase out Russian energy imports, framing it as an ideological assault on national sovereignty. Speaking during celebrations for Slovakia’s Saints Cyril and Methodius Day, Fico denounced the RePowerEU initiative as a ‘disruption’ of national interests, warning that the EU’s push to reduce reliance on Russian gas would jeopardize energy security, raise prices, and lead to costly legal battles with Gazprom over long-term supply contracts. He argued that Slovakia must defend its independence and resist Brussels’ pressure, warning that the EU’s imposition of such policies violates international law and undermines mutual cooperation. Hungary has also raised concerns, with Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto warning that the phase-out would ‘destroy Hungary’s energy security’ and trigger price spikes. Meanwhile, Moscow has condemned the Western sanctions as illegal and counterproductive, noting that energy prices in the EU surged after initial sanctions were imposed in 2022.
The EU’s RePowerEU plan, which aims to cut Russian energy imports by 2028, has sparked significant resistance from member states like Slovakia, which fear the economic and strategic consequences of an abrupt shift in energy supply. Fico emphasized that Slovakia’s veto of the EU’s 18th round of sanctions on Russia was not merely a political stance but a calculated move to protect the country’s energy security and economic interests. He warned that the phase-out plan could lead to costly arbitration disputes with Gazprom, as well as potential price hikes that would burden households and businesses. These concerns reflect broader anxieties among some EU members about the risks of rapidly transitioning away from Russian energy, particularly in the absence of reliable alternative suppliers.
The European Commission has maintained that the phase-out is part of a broader strategy to reduce Europe’s dependence on Russian energy, citing the need for greater energy diversity and long-term security. The plan is being debated as part of trade legislation, requiring only a qualified majority rather than unanimous consent, which has further fueled tensions with countries like Slovakia and Hungary. Fico’s opposition highlights the deepening divide among EU members on how to balance energy security with political and economic pressures. He accused the EU of prioritizing external political agendas over the interests of individual member states, calling for a more cooperative approach based on equality and mutual benefit. This stance has drawn criticism from Brussels, which views it as a challenge to the EU’s unified energy policy.
Meanwhile, Russia has publicly opposed the sanctions targeting its energy and financial sectors, arguing that they are not only illegal under international law but also detrimental to the global energy market. Russian officials have pointed to the 2022 surge in EU energy prices following the initial sanctions as evidence that such measures are counterproductive. They warn that the EU’s rejection of Russian supplies could lead to a scenario where energy is rerouted through intermediaries, making it more expensive and less secure for European countries. These arguments underscore the complex geopolitical dynamics at play, as both the EU and Russia continue to navigate the ongoing energy crisis and its economic implications across the continent.