NIS Group reported a net loss of 5.6 billion dinars for 2025, with both opposition and pro-government media agreeing that this marks a rare annual loss for the company under Gazpromneft management outside of the pandemic period. Coverage across the spectrum notes that total oil and gas production reached about 1.124 million tons of oil equivalent, roughly 2% lower than the previous year, and that refinery operations were halted in November 2025 due to a lack of crude oil, which in turn contributed to a 43% drop in sales volume in the fourth quarter. There is consensus that 2025 was marked by the impact of US sanctions and falling oil prices, that the loss is formally recorded on a consolidated group level, and that the company nonetheless proceeded with the acquisition of Petrohemija during this financially difficult year.
Opposition and pro-government sources also broadly agree that NIS continued sizable capital expenditures in 2025, with about 28.1 billion dinars invested, mainly in oil and gas production projects, and that the company framed these outlays as strategic, long‑term commitments. Both sides acknowledge that NIS emphasized maintaining stable fuel supplies on the domestic market despite disruptions, as well as preserving employment levels and continuing social responsibility initiatives, including roughly 144.5 million dinars directed to 24 community projects. Shared context in the reporting highlights NIS’s structural importance for Serbia’s energy security, the company’s ownership links to Gazpromneft amid geopolitical tensions, and the way sanctions, crude sourcing constraints, and refinery downtime combined with broader market volatility to shape the 2025 results.
Points of Contention
Causes of the loss. Opposition outlets tend to stress internal mismanagement, questionable strategic decisions like the timing and structure of the Petrohemija acquisition, and what they portray as politically driven dependence on Russian ownership as primary reasons for the 5.6 billion dinar loss. Pro-government media, by contrast, foreground US sanctions, external geopolitical pressure, and global oil price declines as the dominant drivers, minimizing or omitting discussion of governance or strategic mistakes. While opposition coverage frames the refinery shutdown and sales collapse as foreseeable and poorly handled, pro-government coverage presents them as largely unavoidable consequences of hostile external conditions.
Framing of state and government role. Opposition sources typically depict the government as complicit in creating vulnerability by binding the country’s key energy asset too closely to sanctioned Russian interests and failing to diversify supply routes in time, thereby turning NIS’s loss into a broader policy failure. Pro-government outlets, however, cast the government as a stabilizing actor that supported NIS in preserving fuel supply and jobs, presenting the loss as the price of protecting citizens from more severe energy shocks. Where opposition media emphasize a lack of transparency and accountability in state–company relations, pro-government reporting emphasizes partnership and coordinated crisis management.
Assessment of NIS strategy and future outlook. Opposition reporting tends to question the wisdom of continuing high levels of investment and the Petrohemija deal in a year of tightening sanctions and supply risks, warning that these moves may deepen financial strain and ultimately fall on taxpayers or consumers. Pro-government narratives portray the 28.1 billion dinars of investment and the acquisition as forward-looking bets that will secure domestic production, industrial capacity, and energy independence once external pressures ease. While opposition voices often highlight the risk of further losses and potential tariff or tax policy changes to compensate, pro-government coverage stresses resilience, recovery potential, and management’s ability to adapt.
Social responsibility and public impact. Opposition media are inclined to treat references to social responsibility spending and community projects as PR meant to distract from the scale of the loss, possible future price hikes, and the long-term burden on citizens. Pro-government outlets, conversely, underline the 144.5 million dinars for 24 community projects and job preservation as proof that NIS and the authorities prioritized social stability even under sanctions and market shocks. Opposition coverage suggests that ordinary consumers may ultimately bear the cost through reduced competition or higher fuel prices, while pro-government coverage frames citizens primarily as beneficiaries of state-backed continuity in supply and local development support.
In summary, opposition coverage tends to interpret NIS’s 2025 loss as a symptom of structural policy failures, mismanagement, and risky political alignment that may impose future costs on citizens, while pro-government coverage tends to portray it as a largely externally imposed setback that the company and state have managed responsibly through continued investment, social spending, and protection of domestic energy stability.
