Europe's Most Dangerous Fantasy

Illustration by Will Allen

A peculiar delusion stalks European policy circles: that Russian energy might once again prove Europe's economic salvation. In Berlin and Budapest, officials are manoeuvring to orchestrate a weakening of European resolve in the face of its biggest threat. Such thinking represents more than mere fantasy; it portends geopolitical costs far exceeding the sums citizens now pay to heat their homes and power their businesses.

That such proposals surface at all, after three years of determined efforts to wean the continent from Russian energy, betrays the depth of political frustration in certain Central European capitals. Long dependent on Moscow for their fuel needs, soaring energy costs have forced firms to curtail production, while rising bills have stretched household budgets to breaking point. Meanwhile, Ukraine's counter-offensive, sustained by European arms and resources, has stalled. War-weariness is all-pervasive. 

Yet for those politicians buckling under electoral and economic pressure, the promise of "cheap Russian energy" has always been chimeric. The low price of gas that coursed through the Nord Stream pipeline never reflected economic reality. Rather, it represented a predatory loan issued by the Kremlin, with European strategic autonomy held as collateral. For Europe to return to Putin's fossil fuels now, after several arduous years of progress toward independence, would constitute both humiliation and betrayal. Each euro sent to Russia finances another barrage of artillery shells raining down on those brave Ukrainians defending democracy's frontier.

Since the outbreak of war in 2022, the EU has made remarkable strides in diversifying its energy supply. It has spent over €1.25 billion on cross-border energy projects, €6.6 billion on energy storage and grid investment, and achieved record renewable generation rates that now surpass fossil fuels; solar capacity alone has quadrupled since 2020. Increases in liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage have enabled the continent to secure friendlier suppliers for much of its remaining gas needs. The statistics tell their own story: in 2022, Europe sourced 47% of its gas from Russia; today that figure stands at less than 15%. Yet EU members have still paid Russia over €36 billion for gas since 2022. Eliminating this dependency entirely must remain the absolute priority; retreat is unconscionable.

But the arithmetic of expedience tells only half the story. Like the Hanseatic League's medieval dependence on Baltic trade routes, Europe's Russian gas addiction has always carried strategic costs. Cheap gas today would come at the expense of stranded assets tomorrow. Investments in LNG terminals, grid upgrades, and renewable infrastructure would be rendered partially obsolete, delaying the transition to cleaner energy and shackling the continent to fossil fuel dependency for decades. The long-term costs of this folly - climate degradation and energy shocks - would dwarf any ephemeral savings on winter heating bills.

More troubling still is the question of strategic autonomy – that very independence Putin seems so keen to undermine. History demonstrates that Russia's gas exports are as much geopolitical leverage as they are a commodity. In 2006, Moscow severed Ukraine's gas supply in the depths of winter over a price dispute. By 2009, the stakes had risen: gas to much of Western Europe was cut off for 13 days. This weaponisation of energy resources has resurfaced since the invasion of Ukraine, with threats of supply interruptions should EU states refuse to pay in roubles - a gambit designed to prop up Russia's beleaguered currency and fracture support for Kyiv. Returning to dependence on Russian energy would hand the Kremlin its cherished leverage anew, leaving the continent vulnerable to future geopolitical coercion.

Such dependence would corrode trust within the European Union and NATO. States like Poland and the Baltic nations, which have laboured to eliminate Russian energy imports, would view any reversal as betrayal. It risks sundering the unity that has underpinned Europe's response to Russian aggression and weakening collective defence commitments. How could Estonia or Lithuania, having phased out Russian gas entirely, stand shoulder to shoulder with governments willing to bankroll Moscow for marginal cost savings? These fissures in European solidarity would be visible not merely to allies but to adversaries, emboldening authoritarian states worldwide to weaponise energy as leverage.

A return to Russian gas would represent nothing less than a profound moral and political capitulation. It would abandon Ukraine at its most vulnerable, undermining Kyiv's leverage in peace negotiations and signalling that Europe prizes short-term economic relief over enduring justice and stability. Such a move would fracture the EU's identity as a champion of democracy and human rights, supplanting solidarity with cynicism. More perniciously still, it would embolden far-right populists across the continent - parties like Germany's AfD and France's National Rally, which have already weaponised energy inflation to assail EU institutions. A retreat to Russian gas would provide them with fresh ammunition to erode public trust, painting Brussels as spineless and unprincipled.

The question, ultimately, is one of identity. Europe has striven to reduce its dependence on a regime that threatens its neighbours, violates international law, and seeks to undermine the democratic values upon which the EU was founded. To reverse course now would not merely undo years of progress but betray the very principles that define the continent. The cost of Russian gas far exceeds its price per cubic metre - it is measured in lives lost, freedoms eroded, and futures compromised. Europe must remain steadfast in its commitment to energy independence, strategic autonomy, and unwavering solidarity with Ukraine. The alternative would mark nothing less than the abdication of European values and strategic wisdom - a price far steeper than any energy tariff.

Image: Flickr/Petra Wessman

Licence.

No image changes made.