Poland’s call for the EU to end all imports of Russian oil by the end of 2026 represents one of the most assertive energy policy positions to emerge from within the bloc since the invasion of Ukraine. Warsaw’s call is rooted in a conviction that economic links to Moscow continue to undermine Europe’s geopolitical security and moral credibility. Yet, this ambition raises difficult questions for other EU members still structurally dependent on Russian crude, which will cause ripple effects on energy infrastructure, regional diplomacy and the political cohesion of the Union.
Poland’s strategic rationale
For Poland, the demand to end Russian oil imports is not just an impulsive political gesture but the culmination of years of strategic planning. The country has pursued energy sovereignty as a matter of national security since the mid-2010s, expanding its infrastructure to reduce reliance on Russian hydrocarbons. The Baltic Pipe, which links Poland to Norwegian gas fields, and the modernised port terminals in Gdańsk and Pomerania, have transformed the country into a credible hub for non-Russian energy flows.
The war in Ukraine lent a moral and geopolitical urgency to these efforts. Warsaw views any continued purchase of Russian oil as indirect financing of the Kremlin’s aggression and a sign of European inconsistency. It argues that even limited dependency weakens the EU’s collective leverage and leaves the continent vulnerable to energy blackmail. For Poland, therefore, setting a fixed date is an act of both leadership and self-discipline: an attempt to lock the EU into an irreversible path.
Energy dependence and structural constraints in the EU
The challenge, however, lies in the uneven distribution of energy infrastructure and refining capacity across the bloc. While Poland, Germany and the Netherlands can pivot to seaborne imports, several landlocked Central European states remain reliant on Russian crude supplied through the southern branch of the Druzhba pipeline. Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic are particularly exposed. Their refineries were built to process Urals-grade oil; reconfiguring them to handle alternative blends is both technically demanding and financially costly.
Hungary’s government has repeatedly warned that an abrupt cut-off would cripple its energy security and cause severe domestic inflation. Slovakia’s Slovnaft refinery faces similar technical obstacles. Bulgaria, too, though partially exempted from EU restrictions, would need to accelerate diversification of supplies through the Black Sea, a region still affected by conflict-related disruptions. These countries face not just ideological resistance to Poland’s call but structural dependence that cannot be overlooked.
Economic and market consequences
A co-ordinated EU phase-out of Russian oil by 2026 would almost certainly tighten supply and raise prices greatly. The refineries that currently process Urals crude would need costly retrofits, and some might face temporary shutdowns or reduced output. Inflationary pressures would ripple through the EU economy, particularly in states already grappling with high energy costs.
Were this to happen, however, new winners would emerge. Poland and the Netherlands, both equipped with deep-water ports and growing refining capacity, could become key gateways for non-Russian crude entering the EU market. Norway, the US and Gulf exporters (such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE) would likely capture a greater share of European demand, securing long-term contracts that further their influence over the continent’s energy mix.
In parallel, investment in oil transport and storage infrastructure would accelerate. Expanding the Transalpine and Adria pipelines, modernising refineries, and developing new terminals in the Baltic and Adriatic Seas, would reshape Europe’s energy geography. Financing for such projects would be expected to come from a combination of EU cohesion funds, national budgets and green-transition instruments reframed under the logic of security resilience. However, there are questions as to how much money would be needed and whether said funds, budgets and instruments could realistically provide sufficient capital.
Diplomatic and political dimensions
Poland’s proposal also tests the EU’s internal diplomacy. Energy solidarity is a recurring challenge for the Union, and the 2026 deadline risks reopening the east–west divide that often characterises its policymaking. Wealthier member states with access to global supply chains may find it easier to adapt, while smaller or landlocked economies could see the transition as an imposed sacrifice.
To prevent political fragmentation, Brussels would need to co-ordinate compensatory mechanisms, such as refinery modernisation support, infrastructure co-financing and joint procurement schemes similar to those used for gas during the 2023 energy crisis. Poland, as the leading advocate, would also bear a responsibility to promote compromise rather than confrontation, ensuring that its vision of energy independence is seen as a collective European goal rather than a unilateral demand.
Moreover, ending Russian oil imports carries symbolic significance beyond economics. It would mark a deliberate act of moral and political alignment, affirming that Europe is willing to absorb huge economic pain (over and above that which is being suffered today) to uphold democratic values and resist aggression. Clearly, this symbolism must be balanced against domestic political realities in states like Hungary, where governments could exploit the policy to fuel anti-Brussels sentiment. Managing that tension will be essential if Poland’s proposal is to strengthen, rather than break, European unity.
Global and geopolitical repercussions
As Europe phases out Russian oil, the global energy system will continue to rebalance. Russia has already redirected much of its crude toward China, India and Turkey, often at discounted rates. A full EU embargo would accelerate that shift, entrenching an energy bifurcation between Europe’s security-driven decoupling and Asia’s opportunistic engagement. This dynamic could well weaken Europe’s influence in global energy governance if not countered by closer co-ordination with key suppliers.
That said, the move could strengthen transatlantic energy co-operation, as US producers gain a more secure foothold in European markets. Gulf states, too, may deepen ties with the EU through long-term supply contracts and investment in refining and petrochemical ventures on European soil. In this sense, Poland’s call is not merely about cutting ties with Russia, it is about repositioning Europe within a rapidly shifting global energy order.
Conclusion
Poland’s demand to end Russian oil imports by 2026 encapsulates the dual challenge facing the EU: reconciling moral conviction with practical financial capability. It reflects a strategic foresight grounded in years of belief that Europe’s security cannot co-exist with energy dependence on an aggressor state. Yet, turning this vision into policy will require unprecedented co-ordination, financial solidarity and diplomatic sensitivity. The cascade effects across the EU (economic, political and infrastructural) are real and potentially destabilising.
To download a copy of this article, please click here.