The EU’s new energy chief, Dan Jørgensen, is promising a bold new plan to sever Europe’s remaining reliance on Russian energy. Yet for all the lofty rhetoric, many question whether this vision is realistic—or even achievable—given the challenges ahead.
Jørgensen aims to roll out a roadmap by mid-March to address rising imports of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) and lingering dependencies on Russian nuclear fuel. While the EU has reduced its pipeline gas reliance by two-thirds since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, progress has stagnated. In fact, 2024 is expected to see a 10% increase in Russian LNG imports compared to 2023, raising doubts about the bloc’s commitment to its own goals.
Critics argue that eliminating all Russian energy ties by the informal 2027 deadline is a pipe dream. Countries like Hungary and Slovakia, led by Russia-friendly leaders Viktor Orbán and Robert Fico, have historically blocked new energy sanctions and show no signs of shifting their stance. Their resistance underscores the fractured nature of the EU’s energy strategy, where national interests often clash with Brussels’ ambitions.
Even if political consensus were reached, the practical hurdles are immense. Five EU countries remain dependent on Russian nuclear fuel, and replacing this supply chain isn’t a quick fix. As for LNG, the EU’s increasing reliance on imports from the U.S. comes with its own set of challenges. The bloc has leaned heavily on American energy to offset Russian losses, but this relationship may face turbulence—especially if Donald Trump regains the presidency. His administration could prioritize domestic interests and restrict new LNG export permits, leaving Europe scrambling for alternatives.
Jørgensen touts his experience as Denmark’s climate minister during the EU’s gas price crisis as a reason for optimism, but skeptics aren’t convinced. The political and logistical obstacles he faces now are far more complex. Internal divisions, global energy market dynamics, and the sheer scale of transitioning a continent away from Russian energy cast serious doubt on his ability to deliver meaningful change.
Moreover, some question whether Europe’s strategy has even been effective. While the EU boasts about reducing dependency, rising Russian LNG imports and continued nuclear reliance suggest otherwise. Critics also point out that sanctions targeting Russia’s energy sector haven’t deterred Moscow, while ordinary Europeans bear the brunt of higher energy costs and inflation.
As the deadline for Jørgensen’s roadmap approaches, the question isn’t just whether the EU can cut ties with Russian energy—it’s whether it can do so without unraveling economically and politically. For now, the lofty goal of energy independence seems more like wishful thinking than a grounded strategy.
