European countries are being advised to lower gas storage filling targets and to start refilling gas stores early, as the conflict in Middle East drives up global energy prices. European Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen urged in a letter to national energy ministers, seen by POLITICO, that countries should be flexible in how they refill gas stores, to “help reduce the gas demand at times where the supply is tense and ease the pressure on gas prices in Europe.” Since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Tehran in late February, the ensuing conflict has caused global energy prices to spike, driven in part by Israeli strikes on Iran’s vast offshore gas field and Tehran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical passage that facilitates a significant share of the world’s oil and natural gas trade. In the letter, Jørgensen asked EU countries to lower their gas storage refilling targets to 80 percent, 10 percentage points below normal targets. He also suggested that countries could start storage injections early to avoid an “end-of-summer rush to refill storages,” which would put upward pressure on prices. He also suggested that governments extend the deadline to meet filling targets to as late as December, two months later than usual. He said countries can take these measures under the EU Gas Storage Regulation, which provides for flexibility in difficult market conditions. The EU requires member countries to maintain gas reserves at 90 percent of capacity by the winter — a measure brought in after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. But this year’s colder-than-average winter depleted those reserves to an average of under 30 percent as of March, the lowest since 2022. Anxiety has been growing in Brussels over whether the conflict in Iran, coupled with already low gas reserves, could spark a fight among countries over dwindling global energy supplies. Jørgensen said that the EU’s gas supplies remain “relatively protected” since the bloc only has “limited reliance” on gas imports from the region. But as a “net importer” of gas globally, “high and volatile global prices may also impact the EU gas storage injections,” he said. As developments in Iran and the wider region are “are significantly impacting global oil and gas markets,” there are indications that it could take longer for Qatari gas production to return to pre-crisis levels, Jørgensen said. The commissioner said he would support countries to make use of the allowed flexibilities, which should be discussed with the European Commission and other member states before being implemented. A Commission spokesperson confirmed that the letter was sent to energy ministers.

The Bank of England warned it may have to take a tougher line on interest rates as the spike in energy prices caused by the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran pushes inflation higher. “Monetary policy cannot reverse this shock” to world energy supply, Governor Andrew Bailey said in a statement on Thursday, after the Monetary Policy Committee voted unanimously to leave the Bank rate unchanged at 3.75 percent. “Monetary policy must, however, respond to the risk of a more persistent effect on U.K. consumer price inflation,” Bailey added. The Bank had only last month declared victory over inflation, which has been above its 2 percent target for over four years. However, its latest analysis suggests headline inflation will rebound back above 3 percent in the next three months and could add as much as 0.75 percentage points to the consumer price index over the summer, as higher fuel bills percolate through the economy. “The MPC is alert to the increased risk of domestic inflationary pressures through second-round effects in wage and price-setting, the risk of which will be greater the longer higher energy prices persist,” the Bank stressed. However, it also acknowledged that the energy price spike is likely to hurt economic growth, and that it is “assessing the implications for inflation of the weakening in economic activity that is likely to result from higher energy costs.” Until the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran, most analysts had predicted that a slowing economy and growing prospects of easing inflation would allow the MPC to cut rates at Thursday’s meeting. However, the invasion and the ensuing turmoil in world commodity markets have turned the situation on its head, by closing a vital chokepoint at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, through which irreplaceable volumes of oil, gas and fertilizer pass every day. As a result, the Bank warned that there is now a real threat of higher energy prices causing a broader rise in prices across the economy. Food prices face a similar risk. ALREADY OUT OF DATE? The situation is changing so fast that the Bank’s latest forecasts could already be out of date. The Bank said they were based on the situation as of March 16, when Brent oil futures were only at $100 a barrel. But a succession of strikes on key energy installations around the Persian Gulf since then has already pushed prices up by another 12 percent. “The news flow around the war in Iran looks more worrying for global markets with each passing day,” Deutsche Bank strategist Jim Reid said in a note on Thursday. Analysts argued ahead of the meeting that the Bank would prefer to err on the side of keeping policy tight in the face of the new risks, given lingering concerns about its credibility due to its slow response to the inflation shock in 2022. Inflation peaked at 11.1 percent back then, the highest rate posted by any major economy. The Bank’s change in outlook will make life doubly uncomfortable for the Labour government, which had hoped that its efforts to close the U.K. budget deficit would be rewarded with lower inflation and lower interest rates. Instead, the government’s key 10-year borrowing costs have risen by nearly half a percentage point since the war started, and they leaped again on Thursday, first in response to Iranian attacks on a Qatari gas field, then to the BoE’s statement. At 4.89 percent, the 10-year gilt yield is now at its highest in 15 months. The pound, by contrast, was steady against the dollar and euro after the decision. The Office for Budget Responsibility earlier this month already cut its forecasts for U.K. growth this year. That implies lower tax receipts which, combined with higher borrowing costs, threaten a new two-way squeeze on Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ fiscal arithmetic, less than six months after she had to raise taxes sharply at her latest budget.

President Donald Trump has often frustrated European allies with his overt entreaties to Russian President Vladimir Putin and harsh words for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. But behind the seeming imbalance is a longer-term strategic goal – countering China. The Trump administration believes that incentivizing Russia to end the war in Ukraine, welcoming it back economically and showering it with U.S. investments, could eventually shift the global order away from China. It’s a gamble – and one Ukrainians are concerned with – but it underscores the administration’s belief that the biggest geopolitical threat facing the United States and the West is China, not Putin’s Russia. While countering China isn’t the only reason the administration wants a truce, it does help explain why after more than 15 months of fruitless talks and multiple threats to walk away, the president’s team – special envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner – keep looking for a breakthrough. A Trump administration official, granted anonymity to discuss ongoing negotiations, said finding a “way to align closer with Russia” could create “a different power balance with China that could be very, very beneficial.” The administration’s desire to use Ukraine peace negotiations to counter China has not been previously reported. But many observers believe this plan has little hope of succeeding – at least while Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping remain in charge. And the idea of giving Russia economic incentives to grow closer to the U.S. is concerning for Ukraine, said a Ukrainian official, granted anonymity to discuss diplomatic matters. “We had such attempts in the past already and it led to nothing,” they said. “Germany had [Ostpolitik, Germany’s policy toward the East], for that and now Russia is fighting the deadliest war in Europe.” And when it comes to banking on breaking apart China and Russia, the Ukrainian official noted that both countries “have one [thing] in common which you can not beat – they hate the U.S. as a symbol of democracy.” Still, the strategy is in keeping with the administration’s broader foreign policy initiatives aimed at least in part in countering Chinese influence. Taking out Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and pressuring Cuba’s government to the brink of collapse all diminishes China’s influence in the Western Hemisphere. The administration threatened Panama, which withdrew from Chinese leader Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative a month after Trump took office and called Peru’s deal with China surrounding its deepwater port in Chancay a “cautionary tale.” And striking Iran shifted China’s oil import potential, as Tehran supplied Beijing with more than 13 percent of its oil in 2025, according to Reuters. Indeed, the Trump administration official noted that between Venezuela, Iran and Russia, China was buying oil at below-market rates, subsidizing its consumption “to the tune of over $100 billion a year for the last several years.” “So that’s been a massive subsidy for China by being able to buy oil from these places on the black market, sometimes $30 a barrel lower than what the spot market is,” the person said. Even as there are reports that Russia is sharing intelligence with Iran, the U.S. and Russia keep talking. Witkoff and Kushner met with Kirill Dmitriev, a top adviser to Putin, last week. The Russians called the meeting “productive.” Witkoff said they’d keep talking. These negotiations and the broader efforts to counter China now take place under the spectre of Trump asking several countries, including China, for help securing the Strait of Hormuz. The National Security Strategy, released in November, spilled a fair amount of ink on China, though it often doesn’t mention Beijing directly. Many U.S. lawmakers — from both parties — consider China the gravest long-term threat to America’s global power. “There is a longstanding kind of U.S. strategic train of thought that says that having Russia and China working together is very much not in our interests, and finding ways to divide them, or at least tactically collaborate with the partner who’s less of a long term strategic threat to us,” said said Alexander Gray, Trump’s National Security Council chief of staff in his first term. Gray, who is currently the CEO of American Global Strategies, a consulting firm, compared the effort to former Secretary of State and national security adviser Henry Kissinger, who spearheaded President Richard Nixon’s trip to China during the Cold War in an effort to pull that country away from the Soviet Union. The State Department declined to comment for this report. However, a State Department spokesperson previously told POLITICO that China’s economic ties with Latin American countries present a “national security threat” for the U.S. that the administration is actively trying to mitigate. The White House declined to comment. Fred Fleitz, another Trump NSC chief of staff in his first term, noted that the president has “pressed Putin to end the war to normalize Russia’s relationship with the U.S. and Europe,” and wants Russia to rejoin the G8. “It is clear that Trump wants to find a way to end the war in Ukraine and to coexist peacefully with Russia,” said Fleitz, who now serves as the vice chair for American Security at the America First Policy Institute. “But I also believe he correctly sees the growing Russia-China alliance as a far greater threat to U.S. and global security than the Ukraine War and therefore wants to find ways to improve U.S.-Russia relations to weaken or break that alliance.” Others, however, remain skeptical. Craig Singleton, senior director of the China program at Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the goal to break Russia and China is “appealing in theory, but in practice the partnership between Moscow and Beijing is iron-clad.” “Obviously there is nothing wrong with testing diplomacy and President Trump is a dealmaker. But history probably suggests that this won’t really result in much,” Singleton added. “The likely outcome [with Russia] is limited tactical cooperation with the U.S., not some sort of durable break with Beijing.” And China seeks to keep Russia as an ally and junior partner in its relationship as a counter to Western powers. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi reaffirmed the relationship in a press conference this month, saying, “in a fluid and turbulent world, China-Russia relationship has stood rock-solid against all odds.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio, shortly after his confirmation, hinted at the broader strategy, saying in an interview, that “a situation where the Russians are permanently a junior partner to China, having to do whatever China says they need to do because of their dependence on them” is not a “good outcome” for Russia, the U.S. or Europe. But Rubio, like the Trump administration official given anonymity to discuss ongoing negotiations, both acknowledged that fully severing those ties would be a tough lift. “I don’t know if we’ll ever be successful at peeling them completely off a relationship with the Chinese,” Rubio said in February of last year. Adam Savit, director for China policy at the America First Policy Institute, argued that “Russia matters at the margins, but it won’t be a decisive variable in the U.S.-China competition,” and that the “center of gravity is East Asia.” “Russia gives China strategic depth, a friendly border, energy supply, and a second front in Ukraine to sap Western attention,” he said. “Getting closer to Russia could complicate China’s strategic position, but Moscow is a declining power and solidly the junior partner in that relationship.”

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described European allies’ attitude over the Druzhba oil pipeline as “blackmail.” In remarks made public on Sunday, the Ukrainian leader criticized European pressure to allow oil to flow through the pipeline, which connects producer country Russia to Europe by way of Ukraine. The pipeline has been offline since January after a Russian attack, and has been at the center of a bitter row between Ukraine and Hungary. Budapest has accused Kyiv of deliberately blocking progress on repairing the infrastructure in order to engineer an energy crisis in the Hungary. In response, Hungarian Prime Viktor Orbán has been blocking the release of a €90 billion tranche of EU funding for Ukraine needed to keep the war-torn country financially afloat. On Thursday, the European Commission proposed sending a fact-finding mission to inspect the damage to the Druzhba pipeline in an attempt to resolve the dispute. “If we have decided to restore Russian oil supplies, then I want them to know that I am against it. … But if I am given conditions that Ukraine will not receive weapons, then, excuse me, I am powerless on this issue; I told our friends in Europe that this is called blackmail,” Zelenskyy said in reported remarks. The price of oil has surged passed $100 a barrel in recent days due to disruptions linked to the war in Iran, which began with American-Israeli strikes on Tehran on Feb. 28. Washington has eased sanctions on certain Russian oil consignments in response to the price pressure. On Saturday, Ukraine’s state oil and gas company, Naftogaz, announced that it had held a briefing with European and G7 ambassadors where it updated them on the state of the Druzhba pipeline. The company said the pipeline had been heavily damaged following a Russian attack in January. “Restoring such infrastructure is a complex technological process that requires time, specialized equipment, and the continuous work of teams even under constant threat,” Naftogaz said. The word druzhba means friendship in Russian.

U.S. President Donald Trump said late Friday that the U.S. launched punishing air strikes on Iran’s Kharg Island while sparing vital oil infrastructure as he pressed the country not to interfere with shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump, in a statement, called the attack one of the “most powerful bombing raids in the History of the Middle East,” and said only military assets were targeted on the island, a 5-mile strip of land that is home to Iran’s most important oil facility. “I have chosen NOT to wipe out the Oil Infrastructure on the Island,” Trump said on social media. “However, should Iran, or anyone else, do anything to interfere with the Free and Safe Passage of Ships through the Strait of Hormuz, I will immediately reconsider this decision.” The oil processing facilities at Kharg Island are a foundational component of Iran’s economy. Roughly 90 percent of Iran’s crude is processed at Kharg Island, and any disruption to its oil processing could cripple the country’s economy. The strategic purpose of the strikes on the island were not clear, but the threat of future strikes on oil infrastructure marks a significant escalation of the U.S. effort to secure the Strait of Hormuz. Trump has indicated he would send the Navy to escort ships through the critical waterway after Iran’s ships effectively closed it in response to the war.

Russian President Vladimir Putin entered the new year facing a painful choice — limit his so-called special military operation in Ukraine or risk serious damage to his economy. Almost overnight, U.S. President Donald Trump handed him the solution. U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran have sent oil prices soaring, boosting the Kremlin’s main source of revenue and making it easier for Putin to sustain his war effort. After Israel bombed Iranian oil facilities this weekend, benchmark crude prices soared to above $100 per barrel, hitting their highest mark since the summer of 2022, when markets spiked following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. For Russia, the surge in oil prices amounts to an economic windfall at a crucial moment, as the cost of four years of war in Ukraine threatened to spill over into a domestic economic crisis. The assault on Iran may undermine Moscow’s claim to stand by its allies, but it is already benefiting Russia’s economy and, by extension, its war against Ukraine — leaving the Kremlin well placed to emerge as one of the main beneficiaries of the expanding conflict in the Middle East. ECONOMIC TURNAROUND Only several weeks ago, the mood among Russia’s economic elite was grim. The Russian finance ministry’s budget plan for this year assumed a baseline benchmark of $59 per barrel of Urals crude, the country’s main export blend. But in January, energy revenues plunged to their lowest level since 2020, compounding a disappointing tax haul. As Western sanctions, high interest rates and labor shortages strained the economy, tension between the finance ministry and the central bank on how to mitigate the damage became increasingly visible. “It was far from a collapse,” said Sergey Vakulenko, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. “But the government was facing tough choices, had to cut its spending and raise taxes and even consider some reduction in military expenditure.” Stopping the war in Ukraine was never on the table, Vakulenko added, but it was becoming clear that even on that front, Russia would have to “economize a bit.” Then Israel and the U.S. attacked Iran. As Tehran retaliated and the conflict spilled over into a regional war, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has stalled, sending oil prices soaring. “Suddenly, Moscow received this gift,” said Vladimir Milov, a former deputy energy minister turned Kremlin critic in exile. “They had their lifeline.” These days, he said, Russian officials are “very, very happy.” ‘STRATEGIC MISTAKE’ Instead of selling at a discount because of Western sanctions, Russian crude may now fetch premium prices as its main buyers — India and China — scramble to secure supplies. What’s more, they’ll have Washington’s blessing.  Last Friday, the U.S. Treasury issued a 30-day waiver allowing India to buy Russian crude to “enable oil to keep flowing into the global market.” A day later, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the United States could “unsanction other Russian oil,” a sharp reversal from last year’s policy of penalizing countries for buying Russian energy. Unsurprisingly, the Kremlin is using the moment to maximum advantage.  “Russia was and continues to be a reliable supplier of both oil and gas,” Putin’s spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Friday in what sounded like a sales pitch, adding that demand for Russian energy products had increased. Meanwhile, Kremlin aide Kirill Dmitriev gloated in a series of posts on X that “the oil shock tsunami is just beginning,” criticizing Europe’s decision to cut itself off from Russian energy as “a strategic mistake.”  On Monday, pro-Kremlin commentators circulated a Wall Street Journal article predicting oil prices could skyrocket to $215. LONG GAME Energy experts warn it is too soon for Moscow to claim victory. Whether the Iran crisis proves a cure for Russia’s economy depends directly on how long it lasts. Milov, the former deputy energy minister, said that, to make a meaningful difference for the economy, Russia would need oil prices to remain at current levels for roughly a year. “One or two months of high prices would certainly help, but it won’t save it,” he said. A brief spike in prices will only “help to postpone the difficult decisions,” added Vakulenko, the analyst at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center.  There’s another reason why Moscow will be hoping the war drags on: With every day of fighting, the U.S. is depleting the weapon stocks Ukraine is relying upon to defend itself.  According to media reports, Russia has been providing Iran with intelligence to help it target U.S. warships and aircraft.  The assassination of Iran’s leader Ali Khamenei in a U.S.-Israeli airstrike may have dealt a blow to Russia’s promise to defend its allies, but Putin may ultimately decide it was a price worth paying.

LONDON — Days into the U.S. war with Iran, the U.K. government is retooling to cope with a crisis that is already squeezing British defense capabilities and driving up energy prices. Teams of officials are being redeployed around Whitehall, including at the Ministry of Defence, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and departments covering energy, transport and trade, in order to cope with fresh demands. Two people working in the civil service, granted anonymity because they like others in this piece were not authorized to speak publicly, said reassignments had been made on a three-to-four-month basis. A third person said internal government assessments are not necessarily that specific — but that they expect to be dealing with the war on Iran and its fallout “for the long haul.”  The government’s central assumption is that the direct, kinetic phase of the conflict will last weeks but its tail could be much longer. While the U.K. is straining to keep out of the conflict — granting only limited use of its military bases to the U.S. — ministers accept there will be a huge knock-on effect from the Middle East crisis. That includes on hot-button cost-of-living issues that are central to embattled Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s chances of political survival. MILITARY RESPONSE The Ministry of Defence is focused on the immediate task of trying to protect U.K. military assets and personnel, while the government’s other top concerns were highlighted Wednesday by Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ audience with oil and gas sector representatives and Treasury Minister Lucy Rigby’s meeting with insurers. “I don’t think anyone’s expecting this thing to be over quickly,” said one British diplomat.  The U.K. has been preparing for potential U.S. strikes on Iran since the beginning of the year, according to four officials, including by surging fighter planes to the region. The MoD moved to a higher level of force protection — measures designed to safeguard military personnel and facilities — in response to mass unrest in Iran and the U.S. bolstering its presence in the Gulf.  Treasury Minister James Murray alluded publicly to these operations, telling Times Radio: “I’m not going to get into exactly the details of what happened. But what I’m clear about is the defensive capability that we’ve been building up in recent weeks.” Nevertheless, two government officials said the eventual action by the U.S. and Israel was beyond what they had expected, as was Iran’s response — which they described as “haphazard.” The U.K. had some foresight of the U.S. intention to move, said one of these officials, but they had far less indication of where Iranian retaliation would fall, which partly explained the apparent slowness of British warship HMS Dragon and helicopters going to the aid of the U.K.’s Royal Air Force base on Cyprus. Jacob Parakilas, research leader at the RAND Europe think tank, said: “RAF Akrotiri was certainly a conceivable target in the event of hostilities but it’s neither the easiest nor the most significant target for Iran.” A Western official said the decision to send the warship to the Mediterranean only landed on U.K. Chief of Defence Staff Rich Knighton’s desk at 9.30 a.m. on Tuesday, and was approved soon afterwards. The MoD is one of the ministries which has redeployed staff internally to work on Iran, with high priority attached to ensuring that the U.K.’s changing posture does not damage existing NATO commitments or sap energy from efforts to support Ukraine. Starmer has already sought to link the Middle East conflict to the war in Ukraine, saying Ukrainian experts will help shoot down Iranian drones, and his government is expected to call on industry to help meet the need for stronger air and missile defenses. Parakilas predicted the conflict would not require a massive outlay of further British defense capabilities, since the U.K.’s naval base in Bahrain is heavily defended and can meet the threat of occasional attacks by Shahed-style drones.  But, he warned: “That should not be cause for complacency.” In this instance, Parakilas said, the U.K. and most of its facilities are at the edge of Iran’s reach — “but that will not necessarily be the case in future conflicts.” TERROR RISK Elsewhere, the Home Office and security services are monitoring for a heightened risk of domestic threats. On Monday the National Cyber Security Centre — part of the GCHQ digital intelligence agency — issued a fresh alert in response to the situation in the Middle East, calling on organizations to review their cybersecurity. It noted that although it views there to be “no current significant change” in the direct cyber threat from Iran to the U.K. this may change due to the “fast-evolving nature of the conflict.” The FCDO is meanwhile leading repatriation efforts described as “unprecedented,” by Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper with hundreds of thousands of Britons currently stranded in the Gulf. Above all, civil servants are scrambling to deal with potential implications for the energy sector and international trade — two areas that risk upending the unpopular Starmer government’s bid to slash the cost of living. Households could see more than £500 added to their energy bills this summer if hostilities continue, the Resolution Foundation think tank calculated earlier this week. Keir Starmer Starmer told MPs that “the question of energy supply right now is a serious one.” | Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing via Getty Images Starmer told MPs at prime minister’s questions Wednesday that “the question of energy supply right now is a serious one” and “we are doing all we can, with allies, to make sure that it is preserved. It is vital that we keep trade flowing through the Strait of Hormuz.” The U.K. is currently considering options for protecting commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz, including sending naval escorts, according to Western officials.  Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has held talks with representatives from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, as well as energy giants BP and Shell about global energy markets in recent days. A third government official said the hope is that consumers are protected for a while because Britain’s energy price cap — a limit on the amount suppliers can charge for each unit of gas and electricity — is locked in for the next three months. But they acknowledged there would be pressure to replicate several support schemes drawn up after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, even as they cautioned that the need for such a move is a long way off. Treasury Minister Lucy Rigby met insurance firm Lloyds of London Wednesday to discuss how the sector is being affected. A fourth Whitehall official said that while commercial insurance remains available, additional premiums may be needed for vessels transiting these areas. A jump in energy prices could, in turn, hold back the Bank of England from continuing on its path to reducing interest rates, economists have warned – something that would represent a significant blow to Reeves and the government’s wider battle with inflation. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research think tank has carried out analysis which finds that if the shock to energy prices is more than just temporary, the U.K.’s central bank may have to go in the other direction — raising the all-important Bank Rate from its current 3.75 percent rate to back above 4 percent. “The Bank of England will have to contend with a shock to global energy prices, with the question of persistence hanging over their heads. This will cause problems for Rachel Reeves as financing costs increase, putting further pressure on an already precarious fiscal outlook,”  said the NIESR’s Ed Cornforth. Mason Boycott-Owen and Charlie Cooper contributed reporting.

Ukraine condemned “ultimatums ⁠and blackmail” by the governments of Hungary and Slovakia on Saturday, after Budapest and Bratislava threatened to stop electricity supplies to Ukraine unless ⁠Kyiv restarts flows of Russian oil. Shipments of Russian oil to Hungary and ⁠Slovakia have been cut off since Jan. 27, when Kyiv says a Russian drone strike hit pipeline equipment in western Ukraine. Slovakia and Hungary accuse Ukraine of slow-walking the repairs for political purposes. Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico said on Saturday that he would cut off emergency electricity supplies to Ukraine unless Kyiv resumes Russian oil transit to Slovakia ⁠over Ukrainian territory. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán made a similar threat days earlier. In a statement posted on X late Saturday, Ukraine’s foreign ministry blasted the actions as “irresponsible,” saying they risked exacerbating the growing energy crisis that has followed months of Russian airstrikes against Ukrainian grids and power stations, leaving thousands of Ukrainians without heat and electricity in the depths of winter. “Such actions, in the context of massive and targeted Russian strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and Moscow’s attempts to deprive Ukrainians of electricity, heating, and gas during extreme cold weather, are provocative, irresponsible, and threaten the energy security of the entire region,” the foreign ministry said in a statement. “In doing so, the governments of Hungary and Slovakia are not only playing into the hands of the aggressor, but also harming their own energy companies that supply energy on a commercial basis.” Kyiv said it is also considering activating emergency energy supply measures under Ukraine’s association agreement with the EU. The 4,000-kilometer Druzhba pipeline — which runs from eastern Russia into Central Europe — is a key source of oil for both Slovakia and Hungary, both of which are exempt from EU sanctions on imports of Russian refined oil. It has become a major flashpoint over the past week as Budapest and Bratislava accuse Kyiv of deliberately delaying the repair of the pipeline to exert political pressure. It’s a politically sensitive moment for Orbán in particular, who is trailing in the polls behind the opposition Tisza party ahead of national elections in April that threaten to spell the end of his 16-year rule. Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó ramped up the pressure further on Sunday, vowing to block the EU’s latest raft of sanctions against Russia, which member countries are hoping to adopt on Monday. Budapest has separately threatened to block a €90 billion loan to Ukraine that the country needs to keep fighting before its war chest runs dry in April. Kyiv said over the weekend it was working round the clock to repair the damaged pipeline and that it had already offered to help restore flows to Slovakia and Hungary via alternative routes. It separately suggested to the European Commission that it supply the countries through its own transportation system or via Black Sea ports, according to a letter seen by POLITICO. It emphasized its “continuous readiness” to supply oil to the countries within legal bounds, calling on the Commission to help with logistics. Ukrainian specialists are “assessing the technical feasibility and conditions for the prompt restoration of oil transportation via the said pipeline,” it added.

BERLIN — Friedrich Merz embarks on his first trip to the Persian Gulf region as chancellor on Wednesday in search of new energy and business deals he sees as critical to reducing Germany’s dependence on the U.S. and China. The three-day trip with stops in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates illustrates Merz’s approach to what he calls a dangerous new epoch of “great power politics” — one in which the U.S. under President Donald Trump is no longer a reliable partner. European countries must urgently embrace their own brand of hard power by forging new global trade alliances, including in the Middle East, or risk becoming subject to the coercion of greater powers, Merz argues. Accompanying Merz on the trip is a delegation of business executives looking to cut new deals on everything from energy to defense. But one of the chancellor’s immediate goals is to reduce his country’s growing dependence on U.S. liquefied natural gas, or LNG, which has replaced much of the Russian gas that formerly flowed to Germany through the Nord Stream pipelines. Increasingly, German leaders across the political spectrum believe they’ve replaced their country’s unhealthy dependence on Russian energy with an increasingly precarious dependence on the U.S. Early this week, Merz’s economy minister, Katherina Reiche, traveled to Saudi Arabia ahead of the chancellor to sign a memorandum to deepen the energy ties between both countries, including a planned hydrogen energy deal. “When partnerships that we have relied on for decades start to become a little fragile, we have to look for new partners,” Reiche said in Riyadh. ‘EXCESSIVE DEPENDENCE’ Last year, 96 percent of German LNG imports came from the U.S, according to the federal government. While that amount makes up only about one-tenth of the country’s total natural gas imports, the U.S. share is set to rise sharply over the next years, in part because the EU agreed to purchase $750 billion worth of energy from the U.S. by the end of 2028 as part of its trade agreement with the Trump administration. The EU broadly is even more dependent on U.S. LNG, which accounted for more than a quarter of the bloc’s natural gas imports in 2025. This share is expected to rise to 40 percent by 2030. German politicians across the political spectrum are increasingly pushing for Merz’s government to find new alternatives. “After Russia’s war of aggression, we have learned the hard way that excessive dependence on individual countries can have serious consequences for our country,” said Sebastian Roloff, a lawmaker focusing on energy for the center-left Social Democrats, who rule in a coalition with Merz’s conservatives. Roloff said Trump’s recent threat to take over Greenland and the new U.S. national security strategy underscored the need to “avoid creating excessive dependence again” and diversify sources of energy supply. The Trump administration’s national security strategy vows to use “American dominance” in oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy to “project power” globally, raising fears in Europe that the U.S. will use energy exports to gain leverage over the EU. Last year, 96 percent of German LNG imports came from the U.S, according to the federal government. | Pool photo by Lars-Josef Klemmer/EPA That’s why Merz and his delegation are also seeking closer ties to Qatar, one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of natural gas as well as the United Arab Emirates, another major LNG producer. Last week, the EU’s energy chief, Dan Jørgensen, said the bloc would step up efforts to to reduce it’s dependence on U.S. LNG., including by dealing more with Qatar. One EU diplomat criticised Merz for seeking such cooperation on a national level. Germany is going “all in on gas power, of course, but I can’t see why Merz would be running errands on the EU’s behalf,” said the diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. ‘AUTHORITARIAN STRONGMEN’ Merz will also be looking to attract more foreign investment and deepen trade ties with the Gulf states as part of a wider strategy of forging news alliances with “middle powers” globally and reduce dependence on U.S. and Chinese markets. The EU initiated trade talks with the United Arab Emirates last spring. Gulf states like Saudi Arabia also have their own concerns about dependencies on the U.S., particularly in the area of arms purchases. Germany’s growing defense industry is increasingly seen as promising partner, particularly following Berlin’s loosening of arms export restrictions. “For our partners in the region, cooperation in the defense industry will certainly also be an important topic,” a senior government official with knowledge of the trip said.  But critics point out that leaders of autocracies criticized for human rights abuses don’t make for viable partners on energy, trade and defense. Last week, the EU’s energy chief, Dan Jørgensen, said the bloc would step up efforts to to reduce it’s dependence on U.S. LNG., including by dealing more with Qatar. | Jose Sena Goulao/EPA “It’s not an ideal solution,” said Loyle Campbell, an expert on climate and energy policy for the German Council on Foreign Relations. “Rather than having high dependence on American LNG, you’d go shake hands with semi-dictators or authoritarian strongmen to try and reduce your risk to the bigger elephant in the room.” Merz, however, may not see a moral contradiction. Europe can’t maintain its strength and values in the new era of great powers, he argues, without a heavy dollop of Realpolitik. “We will only be able to implement our ideas in the world, at least in part, if we ourselves learn to speak the language of power politics,” Merz recently said. Ben Munster contributed to this report.