European Commission Accused of Cutting off Vital Oil Supplies to Punish Hungary and Slovakia

On July 17, Ukraine abruptly stopped the transit of Russian oil via the Druzba pipeline, which connects to Eastern Europe, effectively cutting off the supply to Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. In the case of the Hungarian and Slovak economies, that affects up to 40% of their national needs. The three countries instantly protested against the Ukrainian move, which interferes with an EU decree explicitly exempting them from the general EU ban on Russian oil supplies. The European Commission was urged to intervene to get Kyiv to restore the supply, but Brussels claimed the need to “continue to gather information”.

This “we know nothing” attitude infuriated the Hungarians in particular, especially because the Commission warned Budapest to refrain from any unilateral retaliatory measures, such as cutting off electricity supplies to Ukraine. Indeed, up to 40% of the country’ electricity supply enters through Hungary.

In a harsh response more than a week later, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto wrote on his X account on July 30: “There are only two options. The European Commission is either too weak to force the candidate country (Ukraine) to respect the fundamental interests of the two EU member states, or this whole thing was invented not in Kyiv, but in Brussels, and not the Ukrainian government, but the European Commission wants to blackmail two pro-peace countries.”

He further demanded that the Commission and Ursula von der Leyen personally immediately clarify whether they are the ones who instructed Kyiv to block the oil supplies. And if not, why no action was taken. He added that the suspension of the transit of Russian oil undermined the energy security of the two EU member states and was a direct violation of Kyiv’s association agreement with the EU.

Rather than responding constructively to Szijjarto’s remarks, EU Trade Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis told Hungary and Slovakia there was no “immediate risk” to their security of supply. He recommended they use an existing pipeline to bring shipborne crude oil from Croatia, adding that “diversification away from Russian fossil fuels should be actively pursued”. That statement alone confirms that Ukraine’s actions are part of the Commission strategy to halt Russian oil supplies.

Indeed, Slovakia and Hungary are “red flags” for the geopolitics-dominated Commission, as they are the only EU/NATO member countries that have refused to support the bloc’s policy of supplying military aid to the Kyiv regime. Both countries, which border Ukraine and have been immediately affected by the war, have repeatedly called for a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

On Aug. 2, Foreign Minister Szijjarto posted another harsh statement on Facebook: “The letter from the Vice President [Dombrovskis] proves that Ukrainians can do whatever they want against EU member states, particularly those that are pro-peace and do not send weapons.” As for the alternative of receiving oil through Croatia, he noted that it “is simply not a reliable transit country. Since the war broke out, transit fees were raised to five times the average market fee”.