Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Business

Fico's ultimatum: threat to halt "emergency" power supplies — what it means for Ukraine

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico is demanding the resumption of oil transit through the "Druzhba" pipeline and is threatening to halt emergency electricity supplies to Ukraine. We examine the real context, motives and possible consequences for energy security.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

February 21, 2026 · 2 min read

Fico's ultimatum: threat to halt "emergency" power supplies — what it means for Ukraine
Фото: EPA / MARTIN DIVISEK

What happened

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said on Facebook that he will appeal to the state energy company SEPS to stop emergency electricity supplies to Ukraine if transit of Russian oil through the Druzhba pipeline is not restored by Monday.

"If oil supplies to Slovakia are not restored by Monday, I will appeal to SEPS... to demand the cessation of emergency electricity supplies to Ukraine"

— Robert Fico, Prime Minister of Slovakia

Context and chronology

This statement did not arise out of nowhere. Key facts:

  • 27 January — Russian forces attacked the Druzhba pipeline infrastructure in the Lviv region.
  • 16 February — Fico voiced suspicion that Ukraine is delaying the restoration of oil transit.
  • 18 February — Hungary and Slovakia announced the halt of diesel exports to Ukraine.
  • 20 February — it emerged that Hungary blocked a European loan to Ukraine worth €90 billion.

Why Fico used that tone

Economic and political factors combine here. According to him, delays in transit are costing Slovakia around half a billion euros a year. Against the backdrop of domestic political competition, such rhetoric works as a pressure tool: to put Ukraine in a position where restoring transit becomes a priority for European and logistical partners.

Energy sector analysts emphasize that this is also an attempt to strengthen a negotiating position by using energy supply chains as leverage. This tactic has two goals — a rapid technical solution and a political signal to Brussels and Kyiv.

Consequences for Ukraine

In the short term and technically — stopping the "emergency" supplies could complicate local energy deliveries, particularly in border regions. However, the national energy system has reserve mechanisms and international channels of cooperation; large-scale disruptions are not to be expected immediately if a coordinated response with partners is implemented.

Politically, this is additional pressure on Kyiv at a time when energy infrastructure is under attack. It is important for Ukraine to show two things: the technical ability to minimize the impact and deft diplomacy that channels the conflict into negotiation corridors rather than into an escalation of supplies.

What next

Three parallel steps are needed: first, an immediate technical risk assessment and plans to compensate supplies; second, intensive negotiations with Slovakia and European institutions to defuse an escalation scenario; third, communication with the public and businesses — to explain which regions and sectors are potentially vulnerable and which measures are already being taken.

A rhetorical question for partners: are they willing to allow energy supply chains to become a tool of political pressure? The answer will determine not only the timetable of oil deliveries but also trust in the European energy architecture.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026