Slovakia is stalling the implementation of the latest European Union (EU) sanctions package aimed at Russia. Slovakia is seeking an exemption as a condition to lift its veto. This situation illustrates the enormous diplomatic struggle all EU member states confront while discussing how far they can go with restrictive measures without tipping into their self-interests.
Slovakia’s position stems from the country’s dependence on Russian oil and energy supplies. Slovakia argues that imposing the new sanctions would be economically disadvantageous for it than for Russia, hence is seeking specific exemptions. Slovakia argues that while supporting EU ostracism, the principle of trade balance cannot be overlooked where sanctions are enacted that would adversely impact households and industries.
This sanctions package is in the context of an ongoing EU campaign to deal with Russia more severely. The EU has been trying to restrict the horrible capabilities of the Russian government ever since Russian troops started the war on Ukraine. These policies are composed of technology sanctions that seek to deny the export of crucial technologies, asset freezes against oligarchs and state banks, state officials travel bans, and financial sanctions against Russian companies.
But finding compromises has always been the foundation of the EU’s unity. The need for consensus grants even a small country like Slovakia the opportunity to shape the final sanctions deal. For many in Brussels, this is both a strength and a headache: it ensures member states have buy-in, but complicates negotiations during diverse national interest conflicts.
Slovakia is not the first to seek derogations from sanctions. Earlier sanctions included energy carve-outs for member states with heavy dependence on Russian energy supplies. The EU has attempted to reconcile its ethical and strategic priorities with the harsh reality of the vulnerabilities among member states. For Slovakia, new trade sanctions may result in increased energy prices, inflation, and economic instability.
Bratislava officials argue that punishing Russia should not be accompanied by an additional burden on their citizens. They expect a bespoke exemption within the sanction framework, stipulating that they will accept the overall package only after alterations are made to the document. While some see this as fair bargaining, others fear that EU credibility of imposing sanctions will weaken if too many loopholes are created.
The ongoing negotiations have clearly demonstrated the difficulty in enforcing economic sanctions on a country whose economy is so interconnected with the global energy sector. The EU wants to send a strong signal to Moscow, but at the same time, it wants to mitigate self-harm. Russia’s economy has suffered due to a blockade of exports, asset confiscations, travel bans, and within the EU, these measures are done with constant intra-bloc negotiations to prevent collateral damage.
EU diplomats continue to express optimism that a deal will be struck, stating that this is simply business as usual. This involves deeply technical language, forms of compromise, and often “all-nighter” scheduled bargaining. Slovenia’s push is not viewed as an aggressive attempt to dismiss sanctions; instead, it is a counterargument advocating for equitable treatment because of the country’s specific energy predicament.
For the European Union, this also serves as a case study on the price of deciding by consensus. The challenge has always been enforcing cohesion on the approach to Russia, and that friction combines principles with practicality. Trade barriers are only as effective as their level of collaboration and agreement and cooperation. As other countries watch Slovakia’s bid for exemption, they will know that these sets of rules create a precedent for all their interests to be considered in the next rounds of sanctions.
At the end of the day, the impasse illustrates a more comprehensive situation: sanctions are as much about punishing foes as they are about diplomacy among allies. Sanctions are most effective when they are precisely tailored and minimize self-damage within the EU. Slovakia’s veto is compelling the union to grapple with that balance—and sculpt a solution that preserves both unity and practicality.
