2026年2月，中東歐能源局勢因「友誼」輸油管道（Druzhba pipeline）在烏克蘭境內中斷而急速升溫，事件不僅影響俄羅斯石油過境運輸，也迅速演變為涉及能源安全、地緣政治與歐盟內部立場分歧的外交衝突。依賴該管道供應原油的匈牙利與斯洛伐克，相繼採取強硬反制措施，對烏克蘭施加能源壓力，使區域能源合作關係陷入高度緊張。

事件的直接導火線，是俄羅斯石油自1月27日起無法經由烏克蘭境內的「友誼」輸油管道向中歐輸送。該管道為冷戰時期建立的重要能源動脈，長期承擔俄羅斯向中東歐輸送原油的核心角色，因此任何中斷都會立即影響依賴陸路能源供應的內陸國家。隨著輸油停擺時間延長，匈牙利與斯洛伐克政府於2月18日宣布暫停向烏克蘭出口柴油，明確將能源供應作為談判籌碼，表示只有在石油過境恢復後才會重新供應燃料。

衝突進一步升級之處，在於電力供應的政治化。斯洛伐克總理Robert Fico公開警告，若烏克蘭持續封鎖或未能迅速恢復管道運作，斯洛伐克可能切斷對烏克蘭的電力輸出。此舉被外界視為罕見的能源威懾手段，顯示能源基礎設施已成為區域外交博弈的重要工具。同時，匈牙利外交部長Péter Szijjártó亦強調，當本國能源安全受到威脅時，政府無法再單方面保障他國需求，並指出能源合作應建立在互惠原則之上，而非政治壓力。

由於原油供應長時間中斷，斯洛伐克政府宣布自2月19日起進入國家石油緊急狀態。為避免國內燃料市場出現短缺與價格劇烈波動，政府批准從國家戰略儲備中釋放最多25萬噸原油，供應國內主要煉油企業Slovnaft使用，約相當於一個月的需求量。這項措施顯示該國能源安全已進入高度警戒階段，也反映陸鎖型國家在能源供應鏈受阻時的脆弱性。

對於管道中斷原因，各方說法存在明顯分歧。烏克蘭方面表示，俄羅斯對境內能源基礎設施的攻擊導致管道相關設備受損，包括利維夫州一帶的設施，因此輸送被迫停止。然而匈牙利與斯洛伐克則質疑維修進度過慢，甚至指控烏克蘭可能透過延遲修復或電力限制方式施壓，希望迫使兩國在烏克蘭加入歐盟等政治議題上改變立場，使事件從技術性事故轉變為政治爭議。

為降低對單一路線的依賴，兩國已開始尋求替代能源方案，包括向克羅埃西亞提出合作請求，希望透過海運方式輸入俄羅斯原油，再經由亞得里亞海沿岸基礎設施轉運至中歐地區。此舉顯示區域能源格局可能出現新的物流調整，也凸顯歐洲在能源去風險化過程中的結構性困境。

目前歐盟委員會正與烏克蘭政府協調管道修復時間表，同時評估中東歐地區短期能源供應風險與可能的市場干預措施。整體而言，此次危機不僅是單一能源事故，更反映俄烏戰爭背景下歐洲能源依賴、政治立場與經濟安全之間日益複雜的連動關係，也再次凸顯能源在現代地緣政治中的戰略性地位。

In February 2026, the energy situation in Central and Eastern Europe rapidly intensified after the Druzhba pipeline was disrupted within Ukrainian territory. The incident not only affected the transit of Russian oil but quickly evolved into a diplomatic conflict involving energy security, geopolitics, and internal divisions within the European Union. Hungary and Slovakia, both heavily dependent on crude oil supplied through the pipeline, responded with firm countermeasures and imposed energy pressure on Ukraine, pushing regional energy cooperation into a state of heightened tension.

The immediate trigger of the crisis was the halt of Russian oil shipments to Central Europe via the Druzhba pipeline starting on January 27. Built during the Cold War, the pipeline has long served as a critical energy artery transporting Russian crude oil to Central and Eastern Europe. Any disruption therefore has an immediate impact on landlocked countries reliant on overland energy supplies. As the shutdown persisted, the governments of Hungary and Slovakia announced on February 18 that they would suspend diesel exports to Ukraine, explicitly using energy supply as a bargaining tool and stating that fuel deliveries would resume only after oil transit was restored.

The conflict escalated further with the politicization of electricity supply. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico publicly warned that Slovakia could cut electricity exports to Ukraine if the pipeline blockade continued or repairs were not carried out swiftly. This move was widely interpreted as a rare form of energy deterrence, highlighting how energy infrastructure has become a key instrument in regional diplomatic power struggles. At the same time, Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó emphasized that when national energy security is threatened, the government cannot unilaterally guarantee the needs of other countries, stressing that energy cooperation must be based on reciprocity rather than political pressure.

As the prolonged interruption of crude oil supplies intensified concerns, the Slovak government declared a national oil emergency starting February 19. To prevent domestic fuel shortages and severe price volatility, authorities approved the release of up to 250,000 tons of crude oil from national strategic reserves for use by the country’s main refinery, Slovnaft—equivalent to roughly one month of demand. The measure underscored that Slovakia’s energy security had entered a high-alert phase and illustrated the vulnerability of landlocked states when supply chains are disrupted.

There remain significant disagreements over the cause of the pipeline disruption. Ukraine stated that Russian attacks on energy infrastructure damaged pipeline-related facilities, including installations in the Lviv region, forcing the suspension of transport operations. However, Hungary and Slovakia questioned the slow pace of repairs and even accused Ukraine of potentially applying pressure by delaying restoration work or restricting electricity flows, allegedly aiming to influence the two countries’ positions on political issues such as Ukraine’s accession to the European Union. As a result, what began as a technical incident gradually transformed into a political dispute.

To reduce dependence on a single transit route, both countries have begun seeking alternative energy solutions. They have approached Croatia to explore cooperation that would allow Russian crude oil to be imported by sea and then transported inland through Adriatic coastal infrastructure into Central Europe. This development suggests potential logistical adjustments in the regional energy landscape and highlights the structural challenges Europe faces in its broader efforts to reduce energy risk exposure.

At present, the European Commission is coordinating with the Ukrainian government to establish a timetable for pipeline repairs while assessing short-term energy supply risks in Central and Eastern Europe and considering possible market intervention measures. Overall, the crisis represents more than a single energy disruption; it reflects the increasingly complex interaction between Europe’s energy dependence, political positions, and economic security amid the ongoing Russia–Ukraine war, once again underscoring the strategic importance of energy in modern geopolitics.