Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković has rejected what he called “false theses” from Hungary’s foreign minister Péter Szijjártó that Croatia is profiting from war, saying the only party benefitting from the conflict through cheap hydrocarbons is Hungary.
Addressing reporters, Plenković said Croatia, with its Adriatic Oil Pipeline (JANAF) and the LNG terminal at Omišalj on Krk, is a regional energy hub whose role is to underpin security of supply for the European Union and neighbouring member states.
“As regards the statement by Péter Szijjártó, Croatia, with its capacities — the oil and LNG terminal at Omišalj and the JANAF pipeline — is a regional energy hub. Our task is to contribute to the energy security of the EU and other member states,” he said.
Plenković set out current capacities and recent upgrades. He noted that the “LNG Croatia” floating terminal’s regasification capacity has been increased from 3.1 billion cubic metres per year to 6.1 bcm. “With such capacities, Croatia can not only provide for itself (around 2.7 billion), but also meet the energy needs of other countries,” he said.
On oil, the prime minister referred to technical tests conducted on the JANAF system. “After testing, we can say with full confidence that JANAF is capable of transporting 15 million tonnes of oil for the needs of refineries in Hungary and Slovakia,” he said. In his view, that proves those countries have “a fully secure alternative route”.
Plenković said any suggestion that Croatia is a “war profiteer” is a deliberate distortion. “Hints that Croatia is some kind of war speculator can only be made by someone who is making an extremely crude attempt to mislead the international audience of these messages,” he said.
He drew a contrast with Budapest’s energy sourcing. “One can call a speculator the one who is now receiving cheaper oil and gas from Russia. I can say that this is Hungary which, on the basis of a narrative that it has no alternative route — and it has been proven that it does — has the possibility of having cheaper energy sources from Russia,” he said. “Hungary is profiteering, not Croatia,” he added.
On pricing, Plenković argued that Croatia’s tariffs are aligned with EU levels and shaped by normal commercial practice. “The offered prices, by all possible comparable prices, are at the level of the EU,” he said. “The greater the volume of the oil order and the longer the duration of the contract, the cheaper the price will be.”
He rejected outright the Hungarian claim that Croatia is exploiting wartime conditions. “I categorically reject the false theses of the Hungarian foreign minister that Croatia is profiteering from the war,” Plenković said. “On the contrary, Croatia is a good neighbour, an honest neighbour, and a neighbour that wants to place its capacities at the service of the security of supply of neighbouring countries in this energy crisis.”
The Croatian position rests on three points.
First, capacity. The Omišalj FSRU has doubled regasification capability, giving Croatia headroom beyond its own demand and enabling onward deliveries. The JANAF trunkline, backed by recent stress tests, is presented as sufficient to supply landlocked refineries in Hungary and Slovakia at volumes equal to their needs.
Second, alternatives. By highlighting both LNG and oil routes, Zagreb argues that Hungary possesses a viable non-Russian supply corridor. The contention is not about physical possibility, Plenković suggested, but about commercial preference.
Third, price formation. Zagreb’s stance is that fees and tariffs are comparable with EU benchmarks and reflect scale and tenure: larger nominations and longer contracts reduce the unit cost. In this reading, accusations of “war profiteering” are rhetorical cover for continued reliance on discounted Russian feedstock.
Plenković’s remarks are calibrated to rebut Budapest’s narrative at source. He frames Croatia as a provider of public-good infrastructure during an energy crisis — an EU-minded state opening its assets to neighbours — and recasts the profiteering charge back onto Hungary on the basis of its purchases from Russia. The language is direct: “profiteer” for those buying cheap Russian oil and gas; “misleading the international audience” for those alleging Croatian speculation.
The dispute will be read beyond Zagreb and Budapest. It bears on the credibility of alternative corridors to the Russian Druzhba network; on tariff politics along Adriatic routes; and on the EU’s wider effort to diversify away from Russian hydrocarbons while maintaining refinery runs in Central Europe. Croatia’s message is that the infrastructure exists, the capacity is proven, and the prices are within EU ranges. Hungary’s counter-claim rests on cost and competitiveness.
For now, Plenković’s response sets a clear marker: Croatia, he says, is not the speculator. The government’s line is that its pipelines and terminal are being put to work for regional security of supply — and that the only “war profiteering” accusation with substance rests with those continuing to source discounted Russian energy despite available alternatives.
