Bratislava: Slovakia has openly resisted mounting pressure from its European Union partners to curb or completely halt energy imports from Russia, arguing that such steps would inflict heavy economic damage and destabilize its already fragile energy security. The move underscores deep divisions within the bloc over how to balance solidarity against Moscow with the practical realities of national energy dependence.
Foreign Minister Juraj Blanár stated that Slovakia’s energy ties to Russia cannot be severed overnight, pointing to long-term contracts that extend until 2034. He warned that terminating these contracts prematurely could cost the country nearly €10 billion, an amount that would place a significant strain on the Slovak economy. “This is not a simple political choice,” Blanár said, stressing that Slovakia needs workable alternatives before it can responsibly reduce reliance on Moscow’s oil and gas.
Blanár appealed to fellow European governments to show “empathy” toward states like Slovakia that face outsized challenges in transitioning away from Russian energy. He argued that wealthier members, including France, Spain, and the Netherlands, should not pressure smaller economies while simultaneously increasing their own imports of Russian liquefied natural gas. According to data, LNG flows from Russia to these countries have risen by more than 30 percent in the past year, a fact that Bratislava views as evidence of double standards.
The Slovak foreign minister also linked the energy debate to broader questions of European security. He reiterated his government’s stance that the conflict in Ukraine cannot be resolved by military means alone. Instead, Slovakia advocates for intensified diplomacy and negotiation. In making his case, Blanár cited former U.S. President Donald Trump’s earlier outreach to Moscow as proof that dialogue remains a necessary tool, even amid hostilities.
The European Union is working toward a phased ban on Russian energy imports, with a target date set for 2027 under its forthcoming 19th sanctions package. For Brussels, reducing dependence on Russian oil and gas is both a strategic and moral imperative. Yet Slovakia, along with Hungary, continues to push for flexibility, warning that sudden energy disruption would destabilize their economies. The standoff illustrates a widening fault line within the EU between those advocating strict enforcement of sanctions and those insisting on a more gradual, pragmatic transition.
At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental dilemma: how can the EU maintain unity against Russia while accommodating the economic vulnerabilities of its smaller members? Slovakia’s position signals that while political solidarity is important, national survival remains paramount. The outcome of these debates will determine whether the EU’s energy strategy moves forward cohesively or fractures under the weight of competing national interests.