Ukraine and Hungary demonstrate two opposite ways of reacting to Russia's energy blackmail.
Ukraine’s decision to end Russian gas transits through its territory continues to cause drama.
As a reminder, as of January 1, 2025 (after five decades), the Russian gas supplied directly to Europe via pipelines is no longer a thing.
(side note: there is still an indirect pipeline route via Turkey/Turkstream pipelines to southern Europe.)
That the Ukrainian government was going to put an end to Russian gas transits was telegraphed for some time now - for months, Kyiv refused to renegotiate an extension of the deal.
(side note: yet in spite of this ample notice, some countries have been caught off guard - more on that later below.)
For Ukraine, the rationale is clear - depriving the Kremlin of an additional $6.5bn a year from gas exports that transit through Ukraine.
Repercussions in Europe and how not to respond to withdrawals from Russian gas.
But Ukraine’s decision didn’t stop its European neighbors most dependent on the Russian gas (Austria, Slovakia, and Hungary) from speaking out against Kyiv.
We have previously discussed the EU and NATO member Slovakia’s despicable reaction to Ukraine’s measures.
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico highlighted the severe consequences of the transit halt, noting that Slovakia faced a loss of approximately €500 million in transit fees.
And in response to these financial losses and energy supply concerns, Fico threatened to reduce support for Ukrainian refugees in Slovakia and to halt the delivery of electricity to Ukraine unless the gas transit was resumed.
And now we have Hungary (another EU and NATO member) joining the festival of backstabbing with ludicrous threats that cause self-harm above all else.
(side note: on the other hand, Austria, which had previously relied heavily on Russian gas transiting through Ukraine, anticipated the potential disruption and secured alternative energy sources.)
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban threatened to veto the renewal of European Union sanctions against Russia unless Ukraine reopened the gas transit routes.
(side note: he later dropped the threat.)
Let us be crystal clear here: what Orban was trying to do here is not only damaging to Ukraine - but to the entire EU and NATO security.
If Orban successfully followed through on his threats, the immediate practical effects on Russia would only be one of the issues to deal with.
Orban’s actions would also signal European disunity and shift the Overton window on acceptable retaliation against Ukraine’s policies at the time of Russia’s invasion.
It would also add to Putin’s confirmation bias that Europeans are lacking in staying power, and if he could just handle Trump (and influence his inaction in Europe/Ukraine) the rest of the would be an easy ride for him.
In short, the conduct from Slovakia and Hungary embolden the adversary and cause internal discord and division.
The leaders in Washington and Brussels must act to cut out such conduct.
There must be stern talks and diplomatic costs for such blatant blackmail against Ukraine.
And yet, we didn’t see much in the way of an appropriate reprimand from the highest echelons of the EU and/or NATO leadership.
We also didn’t see any signal/threat of restrictive measures on Hungary.
And yet, the EU has plenty of good mechanisms to do just that.
In 2018, the European Parliament initiated Article 7 proceedings against Hungary, citing breaches of the EU's core values, including threats to judicial independence, freedom of expression, and the rights of minorities.
Furthermore, Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union allows the EU to suspend certain rights of a member state, including voting rights, if it is found to be in serious breach of EU values.
(side note: And in 2022, the European Commission proposed suspending approximately €7.5 billion in funds allocated to Hungary due to rule of law violations. This decision was based on concerns about systemic issues such as judicial independence, academic freedom, and corruption.)
One could make a similar argument that threatening to suspend sanctions on Russia - the very country that is the number one security threat to the EU, goes against the core values of this union.
At the end of the day, if there are no disincentives to such conduct, then smaller EU states (like Hungary and Slovakia) will be willing to continue this transactional approach - undermining EU’s foreign policy power as a bloc.
The crisis in Moldova/Transnistria: Ukraine shows that every crisis is a diplomatic opportunity.
Another country and region that suffers from dependence on Russian gas is Moldova, and in particular, its special region, Transnistria.
Transnistria, a breakaway region in Moldova, has been mired in an energy crisis primarily due to its geopolitical isolation and dependence on Russian gas supplies.
Transnistria relies almost entirely on subsidized Russian gas for its energy needs.
However, since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Moscow’s ability to supply gas to allies and proxy regions like Transnistria has been strained by sanctions, logistical challenges, and shifting global energy markets.
Russia’s gas supplies have often been used as a political tool, creating uncertainty and instability in Transnistria’s energy security.
Current crisis.
Russia's state-owned energy company, Gazprom, suspended gas exports to Moldova, including Transnistria, citing unpaid debts.
This suspension exacerbated the energy shortfall in the region.
On January 1, 2025, Ukraine halted the transit of Russian gas through its territory following the expiration of a five-year agreement.
This action disrupted the primary gas supply route to Transnistria, which had long depended on this corridor for its energy needs.
Kyiv’s offer of help.
Never waste a crisis for an opportunity to exercise soft power - Zelensky understands this well.
In a meeting with his Moldovan counterpart President Maia Sandu, in Kyiv on January 25, Zelensky proposed solutions to alleviate Transnistria’s energy crisis, offering coal and technical support in exchange for electricity cooperation.
Zelensky highlighted Ukraine’s readiness to assist in boosting Transnistria’s power plant capacity, potentially reducing Moldova's electricity costs by 30%, and countering Russia’s efforts to exploit the crisis.
Despite prior refusals from Transnistrian authorities, who rely on Moscow for limited gas supplies, acceptance of Ukrainian and Moldovan aid would undercut Russia's narrative as Transnistria's savior and weaken its influence ahead of Moldova's Summer 2025 elections.
Moscow benefits politically from creating energy crises that destabilize the region and shift Moldovan public opinion away from pro-European policies.
The energy crisis is therefore a critical issue ahead of Moldova’s parliamentary elections.
Russia is likely using this crisis to undermine public trust in the pro-European leadership by highlighting the costs of aligning with the EU.
Zelensky’s move is therefore extremely timely to blunt Russia’s propaganda, weaken its influence, and to create a contrast with its neighboring Slovak and Hungarian leaders.
The message is clear: this is what being part of Europe means.
This is what you do in times of crisis.
This is how you push back against Russia’s attempts to weaponize its gas.
Ukraine is proving that it deserves a seat both at NATO and the EU - leaders in the West must acknowledge and commend such actions in public.
This would boost morale of the Ukrainian public and show Putin that his attempts at sowing discord have limits.
Why are Slov and Hungary the bad guys for wanting to continue cheap energy imports from a close partner prior to russia/uk conflict? Other countries secured other means of energy distribution but is it that easy? Was there increased cost/ political concessions to do that...what is the end goal for eastern Euro diplomacy w Russia? never have normal relations w russia again?