By Matt Underwood 
Zelenskyy’s accusation against Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico centers on allegations that Slovakia’s energy deals with Russia actively undermine European efforts to lessen dependence on Russian gas and inadvertently aid Russia in circumventing sanctions. The accusations are made amidst the ongoing war in Ukraine and Slovakia’s participation in EU sanctions against Russia, creating a complex and highly charged situation.
The crux of Zelenskyy’s criticism lies in Slovakia’s recent energy agreements, which he believes provide substantial financial benefits to Russia. He claims these deals, estimated to be worth a billion dollars annually, effectively reward Russia’s aggression while simultaneously hindering the collective European goal of weaning itself off Russian energy. The Ukrainian president contends that these apparent discounts aren’t freely given; rather, they represent a hidden cost, paid for through compromised sovereignty or underhanded dealings.
Adding fuel to the fire is the timing of Fico’s meeting with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin, where the renewal of a gas transit deal between Russia and Ukraine was discussed. Fico’s subsequent statements placing blame on Ukraine for the non-renewal of the contract with Gazprom further fueled Zelenskyy’s accusations. This narrative, Zelenskyy argues, obscures the true nature of the arrangement and its implications for European security.
Zelenskyy’s strong words paint a picture of Fico as deeply beholden to Moscow, questioning the prime minister’s motivations and suggesting potential undisclosed payments or compromises. He explicitly labels Fico’s policies as “immoral,” highlighting the human cost of the war in Ukraine, a cost, he implies, that Fico’s actions directly contribute to. The secrecy surrounding the negotiations further supports this claim, with Zelenskyy suggesting that both Fico and Putin are avoiding public pronouncements for fear of negative public reaction.
Slovakia’s situation is precarious. As one of the countries most vulnerable to the disruption of Russian gas transit through Ukraine, it faces significant economic consequences should the flow of gas be halted. This vulnerability, Zelenskyy argues, is being exploited by Russia, with Fico’s actions exacerbating the problem rather than addressing it strategically. The calls from other EU nations, such as Hungary and Austria, to reverse Ukraine’s decision to cease the transit of Russian gas through its territory further complicates the issue.
The Ukrainian president’s proposed compromise—delaying payments for Russian gas until the end of hostilities—attempts to bridge the immediate needs of countries like Slovakia with the long-term strategic goal of reducing Russia’s leverage. However, the underlying accusation remains: that Slovakia, under Fico’s leadership, is prioritizing short-term economic gain over broader European security and long-term energy independence.
The situation in Slovakia is further complicated by the ongoing political instability within the government. A potential loss of majority support for the current administration adds another layer to the already complex web of accusations and counter-accusations. This political vulnerability underscores the sensitivity of the issue and the potential ramifications of Zelenskyy’s accusations.
The accusations against Fico are not merely a diplomatic spat; they expose a deeper fissure within the EU’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. They highlight the challenges of maintaining a united front against Russia when individual member states have conflicting interests or internal political pressures. The accusations force a critical examination of the strategies employed to reduce dependence on Russian energy and underscore the potential vulnerability of individual member states to Russian influence and pressure. The situation reveals the potent intersection of geopolitical strategy, domestic politics, and economic realities, with far-reaching implications for the ongoing conflict and the future of European energy security.