Slovakia Blocks EU's 18th Russia Sanctions Package Again, Demanding Fossil Fuel Compensation

Slovakia's Strategic Veto: The Energy Security Gambit

Slovakia has once again wielded its veto power to block the European Union's 18th sanctions package against Russia, creating a significant diplomatic impasse that has frustrated EU leaders and delayed crucial measures aimed at weakening Moscow's war machine. On July 15, 2025, EU foreign ministers gathered in Brussels with high hopes of finalizing the sanctions package, only to be thwarted by Slovakia's continued resistance.

The situation has reached a critical juncture where Slovakia's Prime Minister Robert Fico is strategically leveraging his country's veto power on sanctions—which require unanimous approval from all 27 EU member states—to extract concessions on an entirely separate issue: the EU's plan to phase out Russian fossil fuel imports by 2027. This clever political maneuvering has put the small Central European nation at the center of a major EU policy crisis.

The Core Issue: Fossil Fuel Phase-Out vs. Sanctions

The heart of Slovakia's obstruction lies in its opposition to the EU's REPowerEU plan, which mandates the complete elimination of Russian gas, oil, and nuclear fuel imports by the end of 2027. Unlike the sanctions package, this fossil fuel phase-out plan doesn't require unanimous approval—it can be implemented with a majority vote. However, Slovakia has found a way to leverage its veto power on sanctions to force the EU to address its concerns about energy security.

Slovakia's position is uniquely vulnerable because it has a long-term gas contract with Russia's Gazprom that runs until 2034. The country receives Russian gas via the TurkStream pipeline through Hungary, and this dependency makes Slovakia one of the most exposed EU members to potential energy disruptions. Fico has been explicit about his country's demands: either grant Slovakia an exemption from the 2027 deadline or provide substantial financial compensation for the economic damage that would result from breaking the Gazprom contract.

EU's Diplomatic Efforts and Ursula von der Leyen's Letter

In an attempt to break the deadlock, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen sent a letter to Prime Minister Fico on July 15, outlining measures the EU would take to address Slovakia's concerns. The letter promised to clarify how an emergency brake mechanism would work if gas prices spike during the Russian gas phase-out, and pledged to find ways to reduce cross-border transit costs for oil and gas deliveries.

The Commission also offered legal support should Slovakia face arbitration from Gazprom over contract cancellations, and suggested a review of the situation in 2027 or after a potential peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. However, Fico quickly dismissed these assurances as insufficient, stating that the guarantees provided were not enough to lift Slovakia's veto. The Slovak leader has been particularly vocal about his belief that the EU's approach is unrealistic and economically damaging.

The 18th Sanctions Package: What's at Stake

The blocked sanctions package represents some of the EU's most significant measures against Russia to date. The 18th package includes a ban on transactions with Russia's Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines, blacklisting of 77 oil tankers that transport Russian petroleum despite price cap restrictions, and a reduction in the oil price cap from $60 to $45 per barrel.

Additionally, the package targets 22 Russian banks with complete transaction bans within the EU and introduces new restrictions on dual-use technology exports to Russia. These measures are designed to further squeeze Russia's energy revenues and limit its ability to finance the war in Ukraine. EU Foreign Affairs Chief Kaja Kallas expressed hope that these sanctions would significantly impact Russia's financial capacity by the end of 2025.

Political Dynamics and Regional Implications

The situation has revealed important political dynamics within the EU, particularly regarding energy-dependent Eastern European countries. While Hungary had initially joined Slovakia in opposing the sanctions package, recent developments suggest that Viktor Orbán's government may have withdrawn its objections, leaving Slovakia as the sole holdout.

Slovakia's parliament passed a non-binding resolution in early June 2025 urging the government to oppose new sanctions against Russia, citing concerns about their negative impact on the national economy. This domestic political pressure has strengthened Fico's position in negotiations with Brussels, as he can point to parliamentary support for his stance. The resolution reflects broader concerns in Slovakia about the economic costs of sanctions and the country's vulnerability to energy supply disruptions.

International Reactions and Community Response

The international community has watched Slovakia's actions with growing concern, particularly as the country's position appears to be strengthening Russia's hand in the ongoing conflict. EU officials have expressed frustration with Slovakia's tactics, with some describing the linking of sanctions to the fossil fuel phase-out as inappropriate leverage.

Online discussions across European platforms have been particularly critical of Slovakia's approach, with many users arguing that the country is prioritizing short-term economic interests over long-term European security. However, some voices have defended Slovakia's position, noting that the country faces genuine economic challenges and that the EU's energy transition plans may not adequately account for the specific vulnerabilities of landlocked, energy-dependent nations.

Looking Ahead: Next Steps and Potential Outcomes

As the EU prepares for another attempt at reaching consensus on July 16, 2025, the stakes continue to rise. The European Commission has indicated its willingness to continue negotiations with Slovakia, but the fundamental disagreement over energy policy remains unresolved. The situation has highlighted the challenges of maintaining EU unity on major policy issues when member states have dramatically different economic interests and energy security concerns.

The outcome of this diplomatic crisis will likely have significant implications for future EU decision-making processes, particularly regarding the balance between unanimous voting requirements and the ability of individual member states to obstruct collective action. Whether Slovakia's gambit will ultimately succeed in securing the concessions it seeks, or whether EU pressure will eventually force Bratislava to back down, remains to be seen. What is clear is that this crisis has exposed fundamental tensions within the EU about energy policy, economic sovereignty, and the costs of confronting Russian aggression.