Slovakia’s Prime Minister has unilaterally stalled the European Union’s eighteenth sanctions package against the Russian Federation, citing insufficient energy guarantees from Brussels—despite confirmation from EU officials that the required concessions had been delivered—while shifting blame onto his domestic political opposition in a move that has drawn sharp criticism from both Slovak coalition partners and regional allies. The delay, which coincides with intensified Western pressure on Moscow and a public ultimatum from the United States demanding a ceasefire in Ukraine, has exposed deep divisions within Slovakia’s ruling coalition, with the moderate Hlas party backing the European Commission’s compromise and the far-right Slovak National Party remaining silent.
Prime Minister Robert Fico, who in May attended a military parade in Moscow alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin, continues to demand an exemption from the EU’s planned phase-out of Russian natural gas imports by 2028—describing the Commission’s proposals as “imbecilic”—while seeking to extend Russian gas deliveries to Slovakia until 2034 under an existing contract with Gazprom. The European Commission, wary of veto threats from both Slovakia and Hungary, has shifted its legal approach to adopt the gas ban via qualified majority, effectively bypassing the need for unanimous support.
This procedural change, warned observers, could diminish Slovakia’s influence over future EU decisions and accelerate its diplomatic isolation. The political fallout has already impacted relations with the Czech Republic, whose Prime Minister Petr Fiala declined Fico’s invitation to bilateral talks after urging Slovakia to support Ukraine and recalling their nations’ shared history of Russian occupation.
Following a meeting of EU foreign ministers, Estonian Prime Minister and High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas confirmed that negotiations on the latest sanctions package against Russia had failed to reach consensus. Kallas expressed disappointment, stating that the European Commission had provided Slovakia with the assurances it had requested, and described the impasse as a matter now “in Slovakia’s hands”.
Prime Minister Fico attributed the delay to Slovakia’s domestic opposition parties, claiming they had rejected the European Commission’s guarantees regarding future energy security. These guarantees had been issued in response to Slovakia’s concerns about a proposed EU-wide ban on Russian natural gas imports, expected to take effect from January 2028. According to Fico, opposition leaders dismissed the Commission’s offers as inadequate and thereby prevented the Slovak government from supporting the sanctions package.
The prime minister’s intervention came one day after the President of the United States issued an ultimatum to the Russian Federation, threatening to impose 100 percent tariffs on Russian imports unless a ceasefire in Ukraine was reached within 50 days. The timing of Slovakia’s obstruction was noted by several European media outlets, which characterised the move as an active block on sanctions rather than a procedural delay.
Political Theatre or Strategic Gamble? Fico Cites National Interest
The Commission’s proposed sanctions were accompanied by a letter outlining six specific commitments aimed at addressing Slovakia’s energy concerns. These included clarifying the application of a proposed “emergency brake” mechanism for price spikes, promising cross-border tariff reforms in the oil and gas sector, and offering assistance in accessing EU energy funds. The commitments also proposed adaptations to existing long-term gas contracts during a transitional period.
Despite this, Prime Minister Fico sent the Commission’s letter selectively to leaders of parliamentary parties, excluding the opposition Slovakia movement. He stated he expected their feedback, framing it as a test of whether the opposition would support national interests. Opposition parties declined to participate, accusing Fico of attempting to manipulate their responses for political advantage.
Richard Sulík, former economy minister and senior member of the Freedom and Solidarity (SaS) party, stated that Prime Minister Fico had achieved “nothing” and instead increased Slovakia’s diplomatic isolation. Michal Šimečka, leader of the Progressive Slovakia party, asserted that Fico had damaged the country’s international reputation and “capitulated” in the negotiation process. The Christian Democratic Movement (KDH) criticised Fico for seeking their views only after forming his policy position. Karel Hirman, a former economy minister and current member of the Democrats party, described the Commission’s guarantees as “minimal political” gestures with no substantive value.
Fico Faces Domestic Pushback, but Holds the Line
Within the governing coalition, reactions were mixed. Matúš Šutaj Eštok, a leading representative of Hlas – a junior coalition party – welcomed the Commission’s revised position and the recognition of Slovakia’s specific energy challenges. The Slovak National Party (SNS), another coalition member, did not comment publicly. Prime Minister Fico made no reference to coalition reactions in his statements and maintained his criticism of the European Commission, calling its gas phase-out proposal “imbecilic” and “demagogic”.
The Commission’s guarantees have been criticised for lacking detail. For example, the proposed “emergency brake” remains vaguely defined, and it is unclear how cross-border gas tariffs would be harmonised across different national regulators. According to former minister Hirman, regulatory authority for such tariffs falls under the remit of ACER, the EU’s energy agency, not the Commission directly.
Although the sanctions package requires unanimous approval, the proposed gas phase-out does not. To avoid vetoes by Slovakia and Hungary, the Commission placed the gas measure under EU trade and energy legislation, enabling adoption through a qualified majority vote. This approach requires support from at least 15 member states representing 65 percent of the EU’s population. If passed, Slovakia would be legally obliged to comply.
Observers have warned that continued obstruction by Slovakia could prompt the Commission to avoid unanimity-based processes more frequently, reducing Slovakia’s ability to influence future decisions. Radovan Geist, an analyst at Euractiv, noted that Slovakia’s current approach has led it into a “dead end”, as modifying the proposed legislation in future would require convincing a qualified majority across EU institutions.
Diplomatic tensions with the Czech Republic have also escalated. Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala issued a letter to Prime Minister Fico, urging him to support the sanctions and reminding him of their nations’ shared history under Russian domination. Fiala wrote that collaboration through NATO and the EU was essential for safeguarding their countries’ future security. Fico responded by demanding respect for what he called Slovakia’s “national interest” in securing affordable energy and invited the Czech government to a joint bilateral meeting in Slovakia. Fiala declined the invitation, stating that current cooperation at the ministerial level was sufficient.
At the time of publication, negotiations on the eighteenth sanctions package were ongoing, with further talks scheduled to continue. The outcome of these discussions remains unresolved.
Source: Soňa Weissová, Nina Janešíková, Denisa Funtíková | Denník N
