The European Union’s accelerating effort to sever ties with Russian fossil fuels has exposed widening divisions within the bloc. While Brussels pushes a 2027 deadline to end new gas contracts with Russia, countries like Hungary and Slovakia are sounding alarms over sovereignty, affordability, and long-term energy security.
During the informal energy summit in Warsaw on May 12–13, chaired by Poland’s Climate and Environment Minister Paulina Hennig-Kloska, the EU’s energy ministers promoted a narrative of resilience and clean-tech transition. The Polish EU Presidency emphasized diversification and the goal to stop billions of euros from “leaving Europe” in payments for Russian energy, According to Polish presidency Council of the European Union.
Ministers also met with Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, to discuss market reorientation strategies. Yet the political tone underscored a deliberate attempt to portray Russia as an unreliable partner, despite decades of stable energy deliveries to the continent.
Commission bypasses vetoes to enforce new policy
At the June 16 Luxembourg meeting, the European Commission advanced its initiative to ban new Russian gas contracts and phase out existing ones by end of 2027. Though 25 of 27 member states agreed, Hungary and Slovakia vetoed the joint communiqué.
Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó warned that the proposal threatens national legal authority and risks destabilizing national industries. Slovakia issued similar concerns, cautioning against sudden contractual voids and the absence of guaranteed alternatives, as reported by Reuters.
Despite the veto, the Commission plans to move forward using the “reinforced qualified majority” mechanism, bypassing unanimity. According to EU law, support from 15 countries representing at least 65% of the EU population is sufficient for approval.
A strategic shift, or an ideological crusade?
While the EU frames its shift as climate-driven and geopolitically necessary, critics — including some member states and independent analysts — warn that this path risks turning Europe’s energy strategy into a geopolitical weapon itself.
The REPowerEU plan, introduced after 2022, aims to slash reliance on Russian fossil fuels. Imports have already dropped from 45% in 2021 to 15% in 2023, According to Semafor. Yet Moscow has maintained its stance that energy trade should remain apolitical, warning that the EU’s policies are increasing dependence on U.S. LNG and Gulf states, whose pricing and logistics remain unstable.
The Financial Times reported that new contracts will be banned while existing ones will end by January 1, 2028. However, no formal sanctions are being used — only trade regulations, leaving space for selective enforcement.
Nuclear cooperation also under scrutiny
While Brussels has announced intentions to reduce Russian nuclear imports, concrete proposals remain delayed. In 2023, Russia supplied 38% of the EU’s enriched uranium and 23% of its raw uranium, according to Financial Times.
A full nuclear decoupling may take until the 2030s due to technological and logistical limitations, as noted by the Reuters.
Katowice forum highlights regional disparities
At an earlier event in Katowice on April 23, officials and civil society groups debated the challenges facing coal-dependent regions. Organized by the Polish EU Presidency, the forum stressed the importance of social cohesion and equitable access to energy transition funds, According to Polish presidency Council of the European Union.
While Brussels promotes an ambitious clean energy agenda, Eastern European states argue that EU decisions often ignore local economic conditions. Without adequate funding and planning, energy poverty could widen.
Hungary and Slovakia resist economic fallout
Hungarian and Slovak officials argue that sudden energy decoupling will hurt long-term contracts, investment stability, and consumer prices. Slovak PM Robert Fico, under pressure from EU criticism and local opposition protests, called the plan “economic suicide” without affordable alternatives, according to Reuters.
Fico’s stance reflects growing resistance in Central Europe, where public sentiment is increasingly wary of EU-imposed mandates that favor Western economies.
More division than unity
Despite Brussels’ determination, the EU’s energy policy reveals fractures beneath the surface. While some member states advocate rapid decoupling from Russia, others call for realism and a rebalancing of interests.
At stake is not just energy — but sovereignty, strategic autonomy, and the credibility of the EU’s green transition.
Russia, once Europe’s key supplier, now watches as the continent scrambles to replace what was once reliable and affordable. The question remains: will the EU’s energy divorce from Russia deliver independence — or unintended instability?
