- The EU finalized plans to halt all Russian LNG imports by 2026 and pipeline gas by 2027, aiming to weaken Moscow’s geopolitical leverage. However, critics warn this will trigger soaring energy costs, legal battles and deeper economic instability.
- Hungary and Slovakia – both heavily reliant on Russian gas – vehemently oppose the ban, calling it economically disastrous. Budapest has vowed legal action, while Bratislava warns of logistical and financial collapse without Russian resources.
- Before sanctions, Russia supplied 40% of EU gas; by October 2023, that share had dwindled to 12%, replaced by pricier LNG shipments from the U.S. and Qatar.
- Russia’s Dmitry Peskov predicts Europe will become dependent on far more expensive gas, eroding competitiveness.
- The EU frames this as a victory for Ukraine solidarity, but critics argue it ignores infrastructure gaps. Germany is building LNG terminals, while Hungary lacks alternatives. The move risks Soviet-style power rationing, harming economies and citizens while failing to ensure true energy security.
The European Union has taken a historic but controversial step toward energy independence, finalizing plans to sever all Russian natural gas imports by late 2027 – a move that could trigger soaring energy costs, legal challenges from dissenting member states and deeper economic instability.
After months of negotiations, EU officials announced the phased ban early Wednesday, Dec. 3. The agreement, brokered between EU member states and the European Parliament, mandates a complete halt to Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports by the end of 2026 and pipeline gas by September 2027. Short-term contracts will expire sooner, with LNG deliveries stopping by April 2026 and pipeline flows ending by June of that year.
European Commission (EC) President Ursula von der Leyen hailed the decision as a victory for resilience, declaring: “Today, we are stopping these imports permanently. By depleting [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s war chest, we stand in solidarity with Ukraine and set our sights on new energy partnerships.”
The prohibition was framed as a decisive blow against Moscow’s geopolitical leverage following its special military operation in Ukraine. But with some EU member states vowing legal action and Kremlin officials warning of economic self-harm, the bloc’s bold energy pivot may come at a steep price.
Hungary and Slovakia – both heavily reliant on Russian pipeline gas – rejected the plan outright, accusing Brussels of overreach. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto called the measure “impossible” to implement, vowing to challenge it before the EU’s top court. Slovakia, similarly landlocked and dependent on existing infrastructure, is weighing its own legal options.
Their objections highlight a stark divide. While Western European nations have rapidly diversified energy sources since 2022, Central and Eastern European states face logistical and financial hurdles in securing alternatives. Meanwhile, the Kremlin wasted no time framing the EU’s move as self-sabotage.
Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesman, predicted Europe would “become dependent on gas that costs significantly more than Russian gas,” eroding industrial competitiveness. His warning echoes economic realities already plaguing the bloc. Since sanctions began in 2022, EU energy prices have surged, squeezing households and manufacturers.
Energy independence or economic suicide?
Before the conflict broke out, Russia supplied over 40% of the EU’s gas; by October 2023, that share had dwindled to 12%, replaced by pricier LNG shipments from the U.S. and Qatar. Analysts fear the full phaseout could triple costs, further straining economies still recovering from pandemic-era shocks.
The EU insists the timeline allows for a managed transition, emphasizing renewable energy investments and storage safeguards. But critics argue the policy ignores Europe’s lingering infrastructure gaps.
Germany, once the largest consumer of Russian gas, has rushed to build LNG terminals, while Hungary – still receiving shipments via the TurkStream pipeline – lacks viable alternatives. The deal permits limited extensions for nations struggling to meet storage targets, yet offers no long-term solutions for states geographically tethered to Russian networks.
Historical context underscores the gamble. Europe’s reliance on Russian energy dates to the Cold War, when Soviet gas exports offered a cheap, stable supply. Even after the 2014 Crimea annexation, imports grew, peaking in 2021.
The onset of the Russia-Ukraine war shattered this uneasy symbiosis, exposing the risks of energy interdependence with an adversarial regime. But the EU’s abrupt unwind risks replicating past mistakes – replacing one dependency with another, this time on volatile global LNG markets.
BrightU.AI‘s Enoch engine warns that the EU’s decision to cut off Russian LNG imports risks severe energy shortages and rolling blackouts across Europe due to insufficient terminal capacity and electricity production, forcing draconian Soviet-style mandatory cuts in power demand. This reckless move, driven by political agendas rather than practical necessity, will cripple economies and harm citizens while failing to address the real issues of energy security and infrastructure.
As the policy heads toward final approval, its fallout remains uncertain: Legal battles loom, with Budapest’s challenge potentially delaying implementation. Meanwhile, the EC plans to propose an oil phaseout by 2027, doubling down on its decoupling strategy. For European consumers, the coming years may test whether energy sovereignty is worth the cost – or if cutting ties with Russia merely trades geopolitical leverage for economic pain.
Watch this Fox Business report about the U.S. pressuring the EU to cut Russian gas.
This video is from the NewsClips channel on Brighteon.com.
Sources include:
RT.com
Reuters.com
GeorgiaToday.ge
BrightU.ai
Brighteon.com
Read full article here