Energy analysts in Brussels have been burning the candle at both ends this week to determine the full extent of the disruption and economic fallout from the European Union’s impending ban on oil imports from Russia. But though Germany has dropped its opposition, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is still intent on vetoing the oil embargo. Any delay may spell trouble for the EU’s plan to cut off Russian oil, as opposition to the embargo among EU leaders may be growing rather than shrinking.
The embargo proposal unveiled yesterday by the European Commission was already designed to be a phased-in ban between now and the end of 2022, in order to ease German worries that an overnight replacement of Russian oil would not be readily available in the country’s east. The proposal has also carved out an exemption for Hungary and Slovakia, granting them an additional year for the phaseout to kick in, as a condition of staving off a Hungarian veto. But Hungary’s foreign minister nonetheless insists that the proposal isn’t acceptable and that Budapest cannot support it as currently designed. The task of forging a unanimous agreement has fallen to France, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU’s Council of Ministers.
But some other EU member countries that are no less dependent on Russian oil—or even more so, in the case of Finland—are questioning why Hungary and Slovakia are getting preferential treatment. The stated reason for the exceptions granted to Budapest and Bratislava is that, while Finland can import oil from alternative sources by ship, landlocked countries like Hungary and Slovakia cannot do that. But the carveouts nonetheless seem to give Czechia and Austria justification to request exemptions of their own, and Bulgaria, which has poor port facilities, might do the same.
New objections are also being raised by Greece, Cyprus and Malta over a provision in the proposal that would ban EU countries from participating in Russian oil deliveries anywhere in the world, including “by any vessel registered under the flag of a member state” or owned by any entity from the EU. European companies would also be prohibited from providing insurance or financial services for such shipments of Russian oil. It is meant to ensure that Russia can’t easily switch to exporting oil to Asian buyers like China and India. But the three EU Mediterranean island countries, which make a lot of money from their flag-carrying ships, have raised concerns that the provision will take an economic toll, forfeiting this business to non-EU countries like Turkey, China and Panama.
EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell has said that he’s aiming for a final agreement next week. Many EU diplomats are convinced that Hungary will ultimately decide not to veto the embargo, as it would destroy Orban’s carefully built partnership with Poland, which has pushed a hard line against Russia since the outset of the Ukraine crisis.
Even if the EU fails to reach a consensus on the proposed embargo, there are other options it could explore to cut off Russian oil imports. One such alternative could be adopted by the remaining EU governments through a special procedure called enhanced cooperation. Of course, this is an extremely undesirable option that the EU will likely turn to only as a last resort, since its application would expose cracks in the unity the bloc has displayed since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But one way or another, the embargo is almost certain to happen.
So, what will the ramifications of an oil embargo be for Europe—and for Russia? Speculation of all kinds abounds. German Energy Minister Robert Habeck said Monday that Germany has already reduced the proportion of its Russian oil imports in the past two months from 35 percent to 12 percent. “So, after two months of work, I can say Germany is not against an oil ban on Russia,” Habeck said. “Of course, it is a heavy load to bear, but we are ready to do that.” He noted, however, that other EU countries are not in the same position as Germany and may need special consideration.
Unveiling the proposal to the European Parliament yesterday, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also acknowledged the tough decisions that lie ahead for the bloc’s member states. “Let us be clear: it will not be easy. Some member states are strongly dependent on Russian oil, but we simply have to do it.”
Spain’s prime minister is the latest victim of Pegasus spyware. The Spanish government announced in a hastily convened press conference Monday morning that Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s mobile phones, as well as those of Defense Minister Margarita Robles, were infected last year with the Pegasus spyware. The revelation raises major questions about the scope of the spyware’s use, because the NSO Group—which manufactures Pegasus—still insists it was only ever made available to government agencies. Last month it was revealed that Pegasus was used to spy on Catalan politicians, and most observers assumed the national government in Madrid was behind that campaign. But the revelation that even officials in Madrid were themselves targeted raises a new question: Could a foreign government have been spying on officials in both Madrid and Barcelona?
The EU woos India. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Paris yesterday, meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron as part of a larger diplomatic outreach by the EU and the U.S. to win India’s support amid the ongoing Ukraine conflict, in which New Delhi has so far claimed neutrality. Modi, who began his European tour in Berlin earlier this week, stated after a meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz that “there won’t be any winners in this war and everyone will lose.” However, Modi has still yet to condemn Russia’s invasion directly during his visit. The EU’s main aim is to convince India not to circumvent sanctions the bloc has slapped on Moscow following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and in particular the embargo of Russian oil that EU leaders are preparing.
Is the EU about to be transformed? Since the traumatic constitution-turned-Lisbon Treaty experience of the mid-2000s, EU national governments have dreaded bringing up “the T-word”: treaty change. As a result, this is now the longest stretch the European Union has gone without a treaty revision since its creation, despite the economic, migration and health crises it has experienced in the past decade. On Monday, the Conference on the Future of Europe—a ground-up exercise designed to capture public opinion from EU citizens about what kind of union they want—handed over its recommendations, including calls for treaty revisions, to EU leaders.
Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi already crossed the Rubicon this week by endorsing treaty change in a speech to the European Parliament, arguing that Europe should not be afraid of further federalization. The center-right European Peoples’ Party, the largest bloc in the EU parliament, echoed Draghi’s call for a constitutional convention this week, while stopping short of using the phrase “treaty change.” All eyes will now be on Macron, whose country holds the EU’s rotating presidency, to see if he uses the opportunity to announce a new constitutional convention intended to develop treaty revisions.
Dave Keating is an American-European journalist who has been based in Brussels for 12 years. Originally from the New York City area, Dave has in the past covered the halls of the U.S. Congress in Washington, courtrooms of Chicago, boardrooms of London, cafe of Paris and the climate campaigns of Berlin.