European Union ambassadors have failed to agree on extending individual sanctions against Russian citizens and entities for 12 months after Slovakia opposed the proposal and insisted on retaining the current six-month renewal cycle.

The disagreement emerged during a meeting of EU ambassadors in Brussels on 2 September. The sanctions are due to expire on 15 September, leaving member states less than two weeks to reach a unanimous decision. The ambassadors are expected to return to the issue on 9 September.

Poland is among the countries supporting a 12-month extension. Warsaw argues that longer renewal periods would make the sanctions system more stable and limit the opportunities available to individual member states to use their vetoes as political leverage.

According to diplomatic sources, Slovakia was the only country unwilling to support the one-year extension. Bratislava reportedly favours renewing the restrictions for another six months, which would require EU governments to vote on the issue again in March 2027.

What do the sanctions cover?

The measures apply to Russian officials, military commanders, oligarchs, businesspeople and companies regarded as responsible for supporting or benefiting from Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

Individuals on the EU blacklist face asset freezes and travel bans. European citizens and companies are also prohibited from providing them with funds or economic resources. When a company is listed, EU businesses cannot conduct certain transactions with it or transfer money to it.

The current system covers thousands of individuals and entities. In March 2026, the EU extended the measures for six months following a dispute involving Hungary and Slovakia. At the time, Budapest and Bratislava sought to have several names removed from the blacklist before agreeing to the renewal. Reuters

If the EU fails to approve a renewal before 15 September, the restrictions could expire. This would theoretically lead to the removal of travel bans and the unfreezing of assets belonging to listed individuals and companies. Such an outcome remains unlikely, however, because Slovakia is not calling for the sanctions to be abolished. Its objection concerns the length of the next extension.

Poland seeks to reduce the risk of recurring vetoes

Poland’s proposal reflects growing concern about the fragility of the EU sanctions system. Foreign-policy sanctions generally require the unanimous approval of all 27 member states. This gives every national government the ability to delay or block a decision.

Renewing the measures every six months creates regular opportunities for governments to demand concessions on unrelated issues. Poland and other supporters of the 12-month period believe annual renewals would reduce uncertainty and make it more difficult for Moscow to exploit divisions within the EU.

Longer sanctions would also provide greater legal and financial predictability. Banks, companies and national authorities responsible for enforcing asset freezes would know that the measures would remain in force for an entire year.

The proposal would not make sanctions permanent. EU governments would still be able to review individual listings, remove names if required by court decisions or introduce new sanctions in response to Russia’s actions.

Slovakia replaces Hungary as the main opponent

The latest dispute also demonstrates a shift in the internal balance of power within Central Europe. Under Viktor Orbán, Hungary repeatedly delayed EU decisions concerning sanctions, military assistance and financial support for Ukraine.

Following Orbán’s defeat in Hungary’s April parliamentary election and the formation of a government led by Péter Magyar, Budapest withdrew its opposition to extending the duration of Russia-related economic sanctions. In June, EU member states agreed that those sectoral restrictions would remain in place for 12 rather than six months.

Slovakia has now emerged as the principal Central European government questioning the tougher approach supported by Warsaw and most EU capitals.

Prime Minister Robert Fico has repeatedly criticised sanctions against Russia, arguing that they harm European economies without bringing the war closer to an end. His government has also ended state military assistance to Ukraine and called for restoring dialogue with Moscow.

In 2025, Fico said Slovakia would block future sanctions if they threatened its national interests, particularly its energy supplies and nuclear sector. Reuters

The Slovak government’s current position is nevertheless more limited. It has not demanded the termination of the individual sanctions regime. It is seeking to preserve the six-month renewal period and has reportedly raised questions about some of the names included on the blacklist.

A widening strategic gap between Warsaw and Bratislava

The dispute illustrates the increasingly visible difference between Polish and Slovak policies towards Russia.

Poland regards sanctions, military support for Ukraine and the strengthening of NATO’s eastern flank as interconnected elements of its national security. From Warsaw’s perspective, Russia must bear long-term economic and political costs for continuing the war.

Fico’s government presents a different assessment. It argues that the EU should place greater emphasis on diplomacy, economic interests and energy security. Bratislava is particularly concerned about the consequences of ending imports of Russian oil, gas and nuclear fuel.

This divergence may complicate regional cooperation. Poland and Slovakia share a border and have traditionally cooperated within the Visegrád Group, NATO and the EU. However, their governments now hold fundamentally different views about how Europe should respond to Russia.

The change of government in Budapest has made Slovakia more isolated, but it has not eliminated its influence. Because sanctions require unanimity, even a single government can delay the entire process.

Compromise remains the most likely outcome

EU governments are unlikely to allow the sanctions to lapse completely. A compromise could involve another six-month extension, possible changes to individual listings or political assurances addressing Slovakia’s concerns.

Such an agreement would prevent an immediate crisis but would represent a setback for Poland’s effort to make the sanctions regime less vulnerable to national vetoes. The EU would face another difficult renewal debate in March.

The dispute is therefore about more than the difference between six and 12 months. It concerns the EU’s ability to maintain a consistent long-term policy towards Russia while foreign-policy decisions remain dependent on the consent of every member state.

The next meeting on 9 September will show whether Poland can persuade Slovakia to accept the annual renewal or whether the EU will once again settle for a shorter extension to protect the unity of its sanctions regime.