The Aftermath Of Russian Gas Cut-Off. Transnistria Freezes, Slovakia Stirs Issuing Threats. Has Kyiv Invariably Made Even More Enemies?

Ukraine’s decision to halt the transit of Russian gas through its territory after a pivotal agreement with Moscow expired has set off a cascade of repercussions. Among the most immediate victims is Transnistria, the pro-Russian breakaway territory nestled on the border of Ukraine and Moldova. Since the New Year, this region has been thrust into a severe energy crisis, illustrating the far-reaching effects of the geopolitical tug-of-war.

Transnistria’s Freezing Reality

Transnistria, a relic of Soviet times that broke away from Moldova in 1991, has found itself in dire straits following the gas stoppage. Previously reliant on Russian gas routed through Ukraine, the region has been plunged into darkness and cold.

Vadim Krasnoselsky, the region’s leader, painted a grim picture on social media. Nearly 1,500 apartment buildings lack heating and hot water, and over 72,000 private households have no access to gas. The shutdown of 150 gas boiler houses has further compounded the crisis. Krasnoselsky urged residents to turn to firewood for warmth, emphasizing the region’s abundance of natural resources while acknowledging the hardship this imposes.

The local energy company has scrambled to adapt, switching the main power plant from gas to coal. While this measure offers a temporary lifeline for electricity, it does little to alleviate the widespread cold gripping the population. Temperatures in the capital, Tiraspol, hover just above freezing, with residents advised to huddle in single rooms, cover windows, and use electric heaters sparingly.

Meanwhile, industrial activity in Transnistria has also come to a grinding halt, with all non-food producers forced to close. Gas reserves, limited to 10 days of usage in the north and slightly more in the south, offer a precarious buffer as the region awaits a resolution.

Europe’s Gas Dependency

While the European Union has worked tirelessly to reduce its reliance on Russian energy, the numbers tell a more nuanced story. Despite sanctions and efforts to diversify, Russia remained the EU’s second-largest gas supplier in 2024, surpassing the United States and trailing only Norway.

In December 2024, Russian LNG deliveries to Europe hit an all-time high of 2.16 billion cubic meters, bringing the year’s total to nearly 21.5 bcm—a significant increase from previous years. This trend aptly indicates Europe’s ongoing struggle to balance energy security with geopolitical strategy.

Slovakia Strikes Back. Fico Threatens Retaliation

Slovakia has on its part issued warning to Ukraine, signaling the possibility of retaliatory measures after Kyiv halted the transit of Russian gas through its territory. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, known for his controversial stance on Ukraine and the EU’s Russia policies, did not mince words in his recent Facebook address.

Fico suggested that Slovakia might cut electricity supplies to Ukraine and reduce aid to Ukrainian refugees. This is no small threat—Slovakia exported 2.4 million megawatt hours of electricity to Ukraine in the first 11 months of 2024, a crucial lifeline for the war-torn country struggling with energy shortages caused by relentless Russian bombing of its infrastructure.

In his video message, Fico labeled Ukraine’s decision to halt Russian gas flows as “sabotage” orchestrated by President Volodymyr Zelensky. He further announced that a Slovak delegation would raise the issue in Brussels next week, after which his ruling coalition would consider retaliatory steps.

“The only alternative for a sovereign Slovakia is the renewal of transit or compensation mechanisms to offset the nearly €500 million loss in public finances,” Fico declared.

Tensions Hit a Boiling Point

Relations between Kyiv and Bratislava have grown increasingly strained. Fico has repeatedly warned of the broader impact of Ukraine’s decision on Europe, claiming it will drive up gas and electricity prices across the continent. Ironically, Fico argues that the real loser isn’t Russia but Europe itself, as Kremlin-owned Gazprom faces a $5 billion loss in gas sales while Ukraine forfeits an estimated $800 million in transit fees annually.

Fico’s position stands in contrast to the majority of European leaders. Since returning to power in 2023, he has ended Slovakia’s military aid to Ukraine, blocked Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, and criticized EU sanctions on Russia. His recent visit to Moscow on December 22—marking a rare appearance by an EU leader in the Kremlin since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine—only indicates his divergence from mainstream EU policies.

Kyiv’s Gas Gamble. Who Really Wins and Who Loses?

Ukraine’s decision to halt Russian gas flows through its territory has set off a cascade of economic and political ripples across Europe, raising eyebrows and temperatures alike. With the winter heating season in full swing, Kyiv’s bold move is not without consequences, sparking debates over energy security, transatlantic relations, and the future of European economies.

The timing of Ukraine’s decision couldn’t be worse for Europe, which is heavily reliant on natural gas during the winter months. The halt has already triggered a short-term price spike, adding to the energy woes of nations like Germany, where industrial production costs are soaring. With parliamentary elections on February 23, the economic strain could sway voters toward the Alternative for Germany (AfD), a far-right party advocating for the revival of energy ties with Russia.

This development exposes a critical vulnerability – Europe’s energy transition away from Russian gas is far from complete, and the alternatives—primarily LNG from the US—come at a steep price. Big Oil has been accused of exploiting the situation, selling LNG to Europe at rates two to three times higher than in the US domestic market, further straining European economies.

Ukraine. Biting the Hand That Feeds

Kyiv’s decision is being seen by some as a betrayal of its European allies, who have provided significant financial and military support in its conflict with Russia. In Germany, an undercurrent of opinion suggests that reviving energy ties with Russia might be a pragmatic step for economic recovery. This sentiment, if it gains traction, could reshape the political ecosystem and challenge the EU’s united front against Moscow.

The Russian Perspective. Strategic Gains Amidst the Chaos

Russia, despite facing significant economic sanctions, seems to be capitalizing on Europe’s energy disarray. Russian LNG remains a reliable and abundant option, and demand is only expected to grow as Europe grapples with limited alternatives.

Moscow has long understood the strategic importance of its energy ties with Germany, even tolerating scenarios where surplus Russian gas was resold by Germany to other nations like Poland for profit.

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova was blunt in her assessment, blaming the US, Kyiv, and European authorities for prioritizing American interests over European well-being. She argued that the cessation of Russian gas supplies weakens Europe’s economic potential and lowers living standards, while benefiting the US economy.

The Transatlantic Angle. Big Oil and Big Politics

The transatlantic relationship is also under strain, as European discontent grows over the US’s perceived profiteering from the energy crisis. Adding to the complexity is Elon Musk’s endorsement of the AfD, which aligns with calls for improved ties with Russia. Vice President-elect JD Vance’s public support for Musk’s stance signals a potential shift in US policy under Donald Trump’s administration, complicating matters further for Kyiv.

Ukraine’s Vengeful Move or Strategic Misstep?

Ukraine’s decision to halt the transit of Russian gas has ignited debates over accountability, economic repercussions, and geopolitical strategy. While Kyiv has expressed willingness to discuss preserving transit routes with European partners, the move shows the fragility of energy security in a region already facing rising prices and political tensions.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico’s recent visit to Moscow offered a potential path forward.

In his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Fico suggested that Europe might shift the turnover point for Russian gas within Ukraine—a proposal Putin reportedly nodded at.

Putin reiterated that, despite the ongoing conflict, Russia has maintained regular gas supplies and paid Ukraine $1 billion annually in transit fees. He also expressed readiness to use alternative routes, such as the Yamal-Europe pipeline via Poland, stating, “All it needs is just pushing a button.”

These developments hint at a pragmatic approach to address Europe’s energy needs, albeit one fraught with political sensitivities.
European Business Interests Weigh In

According to Russian media, Central European gas companies are already taking steps to secure transit routes through Ukraine for 2025, signaling a business-driven push to stabilize energy supplies. Valery Andrianov, an expert from the Financial University under the Russian Government, noted that while Europe has largely adjusted to the reduced reliance on Ukrainian transit, any disruptions would exacerbate market instability.

Such instability would heighten Europe’s dependence on external factors, including fluctuating gas prices in Asia, American LNG deliveries, and Norwegian production dynamics—all variables largely beyond Europe’s control.

Has Kyiv further alienated itself?

Ukraine’s decision to halt Russian gas transit might be seen as a calculated geopolitical move, but it has come at a high cost.
While Ukraine’s move has been labeled as vengeful by critics, its long-term impact is more complex. On one hand, Kyiv’s decision forces Europe to confront its reliance on Russian energy and explore alternative solutions. On the other, it risks alienating key allies and creating a ripple effect of economic instability across the continent.

For Russia, the situation offers both challenges and opportunities. The willingness to continue gas supplies—via Ukraine or alternative routes—positions Moscow as a pragmatic player, even as it capitalizes on Europe’s energy vulnerabilities.