Russian oil flows to Hungary halted after Ukrainian attack, Budapest says
Hungary imports most of its crude oil via the Druzhba pipeline, which transports Russian crude through Belarus and Ukraine to Hungary and also Slovakia.
Szijjarto wrote on Facebook that he had talked to Russian Deputy Energy Minister Pavel Sorokin who told him that experts were working to restore the transformer station, but it was unclear when deliveries will resume.
"This latest strike against our energy security is outrageous and unacceptable," Szijjarto wrote. He did not give any details about the location or time of the attack.
Ukraine's defence ministry and armed forces, and Hungarian oil company MOL , did not immediately respond to requests for comment. There was also no immediate comment from Slovakia's Slovnaft refinery, which receives Russian crude through the same pipeline.
Unlike many other European Union countries, Hungary has maintained close political and business ties with Russia and kept up its reliance on Russian energy since Moscow invaded Ukraine in February 2022.
Last year, Szijjarto said that the Druzhba pipeline would remain Hungary's primary route for crude oil imports.
Monday's suspension of oil deliveries comes after a temporary halt last week, when Ukraine's military said on August 13 that its drones hit the Uniecha oil pumping station in Russia's Bryansk region.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
White House just watered down the only concession it can claim Trump won from Putin — Ukraine security
But comments from the White House, European leaders and Russia on Monday and Tuesday make it clear that there's still at least one major gulf that needs bridging. Trump returned to Washington this weekend from Alaska, where the U.S. president met for a summit with Russia's Vladimir Putin that was sharply criticized by his adversaries and a source of real concern for Europe, after which it appeared that the U.S. was on the verge of negotiating away swaths of Ukrainian territory without any input from Kyiv. On Monday, he met with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House alongside a cadre of European leaders from Germany, France, the U.K. and elsewhere. An eyebrow-raising scene played out this time in Washington, D.C., as world leaders crowded around the Resolute Desk like schoolchildren and Trump at one point dismissed them for an impromptu call with Putin. Afterwards, the pro-Ukraine delegation was echoing a level of optimism that the White House was eager to echo at a press briefing on Tuesday. Yet, there was one other development that took place over Monday and Tuesday that could keep progress towards a peace agreement elusive. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that the Trump administration was wholly opposed to deploying troops to support Ukraine under any circumstances, and was only considering acting as a coordinator for a security agreement between Ukraine and its European neighbors. She couldn't tell reporters where common ground on the issue still existed with Russia — which separately indicated through statements that a European security force in Ukraine was off the table. "U.S. boots will not be on the ground in Ukraine,' Leavitt said on Tuesday. 'But we can certainly help in the coordination, and perhaps provide other means of security guarantees to our European allies.' The erosion of that common ground that Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff eagerly proclaimed had been found in an interview Sunday could present the biggest obstacle to a long-term peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia going forward. On Sunday, the administration's go-to conflict resolution expert was on CNN, telling Jake Tapper that Putin had agreed to allow 'Article 5-like protections' to Ukraine, something he called a 'game-changer' in the path towards a peace deal. 'We got to an agreement that the United States and other European nations could effectively offer Article 5-like language to cover a security guarantee,' Witkoff said. By Tuesday afternoon, it was completely unclear whether that was still a feasible suggestion. Russian officials repeated their objections to NATO forces entering Ukraine under any circumstances. The White House rejected the prospect of U.S. boots on the ground at any point. Yet Zelensky, in his own statements, has made clear that his government will not lay down arms without a concrete arrangement protecting his country's sovereignty and borders from future Russian aggression. He wrote on Saturday on Twitter/X: 'Security must be guaranteed reliably and in the long term, with the involvement of both Europe and the U.S.' It's a demand seen all the more crucial by Kyiv, given that Trump is now talking openly about ceding the Donbas region, part of which is occupied by Ukrainian forces, to Putin as a concession to make a deal. On Tuesday, Leavitt was pressed further to confirm that Vladimir Putin agreed to meet with Volodymyr Zelensky within two weeks, something the Kremlin has not yet stated definitively. Just the development of the two leaders in the same room would present a massive step forward in the Russia-Ukraine peace talks. But Russian officials previously agreed to begin 'direct' talks with Ukraine in May, only for those plans to be abandoned. Kremlin officials seemed to already be moving in that direction on Tuesday, saying that talks needed to begin 'gradually'. "We're going to find out about President Putin in the next couple of weeks," Trump himself told reporters on Tuesday. "It's possible that he doesn't want to make a deal."
Reuters
14 minutes ago
- Reuters
US, NATO planners start to craft Ukraine security guarantee options
Aug 19 (Reuters) - U.S. and European military planners have begun exploring post-conflict security guarantees for Ukraine, U.S. officials and sources told Reuters on Tuesday, following President Donald Trump's pledge to help protect the country under any deal to end Russia's war. Ukraine and its European allies have been buoyed by Trump's promise during a summit on Monday of security guarantees for Kyiv, but many questions remain unanswered. Officials told Reuters that the Pentagon is carrying out planning exercises on the support Washington could offer beyond providing weapons. But they cautioned that it would take time for U.S. and European planners to determine what would be both militarily feasible and acceptable to the Kremlin. One option was sending European forces to Ukraine but putting the U.S. in charge of their command and control, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. The sources added that the troops would not be under a NATO banner but operate under their own nations' flags. The Pentagon and NATO did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the idea. In a press briefing, the White House said that the United States could help coordinate a security guarantee for Ukraine. Russia's Foreign Ministry has ruled out the deployment of troops from NATO countries to help secure a peace deal. Trump has publicly ruled out deploying U.S. troops in Ukraine but on Tuesday appeared to leave the door open to other U.S. military involvement. In an interview with Fox News "Fox & Friends" program, he suggested Washington could provide air support to Ukraine. "When it comes to security, (Europeans) are willing to put people on the ground, we're willing to help them with things, especially, probably, ... by air because nobody has stuff we have, really they don't have," Trump said. He did not provide further details. U.S. air support could come in a variety of ways including providing more air defense systems to Ukraine and enforcing a no-fly zone with U.S. fighter jets. Since Russia's full-scale invasion of its neighbor in 2022, the United States has shipped billions of dollars worth of weapons and munitions to Kyiv. The Trump administration briefly halted those weapons shipments, including after a contentious White House meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in February and again in July. Shipments have resumed and Trump has pledged to send weapons, primarily defensive ones, to help the war-torn country. NATO military chiefs will focus on Ukraine and the way forward when they meet virtually on Wednesday, a conference first reported by Reuters. U.S. Air Force General Alexus Grynkewich, who also oversees NATO operations in Europe, will brief the chiefs of defense on the Alaska meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin last week. A U.S. official speaking on condition of anonymity said U.S. General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was expected to attend the meeting. The official added that Caine would meet with some of his European counterparts in Washington on Tuesday evening. Trump has pressed for a quick end to Europe's deadliest war in 80 years, and Kyiv and its allies have worried he could seek to force an agreement on Russia's terms after the president last week rolled out the red carpet for Putin. Russia says it is engaged in a 'special military operation' in Ukraine to protect its national security, claiming NATO's eastward expansion and Western military support for Ukraine pose existential threats. Kyiv and its Western allies say the invasion is an imperial-style land grab.
BBC News
44 minutes ago
- BBC News
What 'security guarantees' for Ukraine would actually mean
In the wake of this week's historic White House meetings, President Volodymyr Zelensky says Ukraine and its allies are "already working on the concrete content of the security guarantees". Sir Keir Starmer has been chairing a virtual meeting of those nations prepared to help secure Ukraine after a peace deal - the so-called "Coalition of the Willing". And Britain has dispatched its Chief of Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, to Washington to work out how the US can help. The cogs are clearly what do "security guarantees" actually mean in practice?There is a wide spectrum here, ranging from the much overused "boots on the ground" to the threat of crippling economic sanctions on Russia's oil start with what Ukraine wants, and isn't going to get, at least not for the foreseeable future, and that's membership of Nato. US President Donald Trump has ruled that out but there are plenty of other Nato members who also quietly oppose it, such as Slovakia, mainly on the grounds it would dramatically raise the chances of the transatlantic alliance getting dragged into a shooting war with Ukraine will need strong security guarantees after a peace agreement is reached, to prevent Russia from coming back and taking a second, or third, bite. This is why Sir Keir and President Emmanuel Macron of France have been putting together the 30-plus nation Coalition of the Willing with the aim of providing Ukraine with some international reassurance after a peace deal is Ukraine's airspace is one likely option. This could be done by basing planes at existing airbases in neighbouring Poland or Romania, with US participation. But they would still need clear and robust rules of engagement if they are to be anything more than a symbolic gesture. In other words, pilots need to know whether or not they can shoot back if Russia violates the peace deal by say, firing a cruise missile at a Ukrainian Black Sea is another area where Western security guarantees could help keep Russia's fleet at bay and ensure the free flow of commercial vessels out of ports such as land, the situation becomes more problematic. Ukraine is a vast country and the front line currently stretches for more than 600 miles, or 1000km-plus. The Coalition of the Willing cannot possibly muster enough troops to deploy to safeguard that line of contact, even if Russian President Vladimir Putin would agree to that, which he won't. The Kremlin has reiterated its absolute opposition to the presence of any Nato troops in Ukraine, under whatever badge. So military support here is likely to be more in the areas of training, intelligence and logistic support, helping Ukraine to rebuild its bruised army, along with an ongoing supply of weapons and ammunition.A big question mark, though, remains over what Russia will accept as security guarantees for Ukraine. Plenty of commentators online have suggested that Moscow should have no say in this matter at all. But no countries in the Coalition of the Willing are prepared to send troops into Ukraine opposed. Nobody wants to start World War Foreman, a former British military attaché in Moscow who has been following every twist and turn of this conflict, told me: "Russia might accept a US security guarantee for Ukraine in return for formal recognition of the occupied territories, effectively partitioning Ukraine for the long term, and no NATO (troops) in Ukraine and no Ukraine in NATO…Whatever happens, the Coalition of the Willing is no substitute for US power." Will the US step up? Numerous military experts have said any future "reassurance force" provided by the Coalition of the Willing must have input from the US, something that up until the Alaska summit last week, Donald Trump had declined to commit has now said the US will be involved, but with no boots on the ground in Ukraine. In an ideal world, what Ukraine and its allies would like from Washington is both US support for this notional future force but also, more crucially, a solid undertaking that if Russia breaches the peace deal and looks like renewing its assault on Ukraine then US military muscle – especially air power – will be on-hand to back up the Europeans. Trump has hinted that US air support will be available in some form but given how many times he has changed his position over how to end this war, this is less than (retd) Ben Hodges, who commanded US Army forces in Europe, says he is sceptical that the "US is really serious about security guarantees for Ukraine and will deliver more than just words". He adds: "The Europeans do not trust Vladimir Putin and they are not confused about who the aggressor is in this war. They are concerned that Trump is unable or unwilling to acknowledge that Russia is the aggressor. Putin will not abide by any agreement unless he is forced to do so".And here lies the inherent contradiction about security guarantees. How do you make them robust enough to put Russia off attacking Ukraine again, yet not so robust that Russia opposes them and threatens to target Western assets if they go ahead without Moscow's consent?The former British Defence Secretary Sir Ben Wallace believes the West, collectively, has not been firm enough in standing up to Vladimir Putin."The reality that everyone seems to want to avoid admitting or doing anything about is that Putin shows no sign of wanting to stop the killing," he says."Until Trump or Europe or both are prepared to do something to make Putin want a change then little will be achieved."Edward Arnold, senior research fellow for European security at the London-based thinktank RUSI, concludes the Coalition of the Willing has been "successful in providing a format which is flexible and can engage with Trump in a constructive way while supporting Ukraine". But he cautions: "It remains a political aspiration, rather than a hardened military construct. The next couple of months will really test its resolve and political risk appetite".
