Yves here. This headline warrants a big “BWAHAHA”. Sure, operationally Europe has been reorganizing its affairs so as not to use Russian energy and may eventually get there. But there’s no admission whatsoever in the official prattle that OilPrice has picked up of the huge cost to European businesses and societies of permanently higher energy costs, and how the self-sabotaging sanctions have worked out to the perp, the US’ advantage, by creating considerably more demand for higher-cost, less certain LNG supplies.
By Felicity Bradstock, a freelance writer specialising in Energy and Finance. Originally published at OilPrice
- The EU has proposed a legally binding ban on Russian gas and LNG imports by 2027.
- Europe has significantly reduced its reliance on Russian energy since 2022, boosting energy security.
- The European Parliament may push for an earlier ban and stricter rules, as debate continues.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the European Union has been working to decrease its dependence on Russian energy. The EU responded to Russia’s invasion by introducing sanctions on a range of energy products, including oil and gas, which it has gradually strengthened over the last three years as the region has reduced its reliance on Russian energy. Now, the EU and several energy experts believe that Europe will not need to go back to using Russian gas in the future, having successfully strengthened and diversified its energy supply chains.
In June, the European Commission (EC) proposed a legally binding ban on EU imports of Russian gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG) by the end of 2027. If passed, this would bring a decades-old energy trade relationship to an end. The EC included legal measures in the proposal that ensure that EU members that continue to rely on Russia, such as Hungary and Slovakia, cannot block the plan. However, the aim is to get the support of all EU members, perhaps even if that means providing financial incentives for moving away from Russian energy.
The EU energy commissioner, Dan Jørgensen, said that the bloc did not introduce the proposal to phase out Russian gas imports solely because Russia invaded Ukraine. “This is a ban that we introduce because Russia has weaponised energy against us, because Russia has blackmailed member states in the EU, and therefore they are not a trading partner that can be trusted,” Jørgensen said. “That also means that, irrespective of whether there is a peace or not, which we all hope there will be, of course, this ban will still stand.”
The proposal includes the ban of gas imports from any Russian pipeline gas and LNG contracts signed during the rest of 2025, starting January 1, 2026. Imports under short-term Russian gas deals signed before June 17, 2025, which last less than one year, would be banned from June 17 next year. In addition, imports under existing long-term Russian contracts would be banned from January 1, 2028. Hungary and Slovakia would have until January 1, 2028, to diversify their gas imports away from Russia before a ban is implemented under the plan.
If implemented, the plan would bring an end to LNG contracts held between Russia and several oil majors, including France’s TotalEnergies and Spain’s Naturgy. A ban would also eventually be imposed on EU LNG terminals providing services to Russian customers. Meanwhile, companies importing Russian gas would be required to disclose informationon their contracts to the EU and national authorities.
At the beginning of July, the European Parliament’s chief negotiator, Ville Niinistö, said the EU should consider introducing a ban on Russian gas imports a year earlier, in 2026. Niinistö said, “We would be interested in looking at a 2026 deadline.” He added, “The Parliament’s role here is to scrutinise the proposal and make sure that it’s as rigid as possible… Legally speaking, we are going to check … [whether] those timetables are strict enough or can they be hastened.”
Niinistö stressed that the proposal should include Russian oil in the ban, as well as gas. “We are also interested in … [the] potential possibility of including oil more strictly in the legal language as well,” with a phaseout date of 2027 “at a minimum,” he said. Niinistö also said he would be assessing the legal position of the proposal “to make sure that there are no undue legal consequences for European companies” from Russia. Before it can become law, he must establish a proposal that aligns with the expectations of the European Parliament’s various political groups. To achieve this by “early fall”, he will talk “with everyone,” including Russia-friendly far-right and far-left lawmakers.
Since imposing sanctions in 2022, the EU has reduced its gas supplies from Russian pipelines by approximately two-thirds. It has also banned the import of seaborne coal and oil. However, the region continues to rely on Russia for large volumes of LNG. Some powers are also requesting that the EU ease sanctions on Russian energy in the face of rising consumer prices, as Moscow is offering lower-priced crude and gas than its competitors.
However, the CEO of TotalEnergies, Patrick Pouyanné, stated in July that Europe’s improved energy resilience means it can successfully ban the import of Russian gas. “We’ll be able to ensure the security of supply of Europe without Russian LNG in 2028”, thanks to new capacities under construction in the United States and Qatar, said Pouyanné.
It is not yet certain whether the EU will adopt a legally binding ban on EU imports of Russian gas and LNG. However, the bloc’s proposal has highlighted just how much Europe has reduced its reliance on Russia for energy. The diversification of the EU’s energy trade has helped boost the region’s energy security, as well as encouraged several countries to accelerate the development of their renewable energy capacity.
Truly, the EU is run by people who have lost contact with the physical world. Natch, I’m thinking of Ursula von der Leyen and her war on wolves, as well as Kaja Kallas and her inability to understand that a rabid Estonia is going to be defeated by its geography or the addled Finn Niinistö above who thinks that LNG is somehow a more viable way of transporting fossil fuels than a pipeline.
And there’s this: “This is a ban that we introduce because Russia has weaponised energy against us, because Russia has blackmailed member states in the EU, and therefore they are not a trading partner that can be trusted,” Jørgensen said. “That also means that, irrespective of whether there is a peace or not, which we all hope there will be, of course, this ban will still stand.”
Weaponized energy? Blackmailed? Untrustworthy? Hey, Jorgensen, is that Russia — or Trumplandia? Are we talking Gazprom or Chevron?
Yet one of the remarkable things about the article is this: We sometimes discuss decadent capitalism or “late-stage” capitalism here in the comments. Yet Yves Smith and Lambert Strether always caution against the use of terms like late-stage, terminal, collapsing. What this article is about is capitalism (which now means mainly big businesses and war profiteers shoveling money in and out of globalized banks) reinventing itself once again. It used to be that U.S. capitalists diddle around in banana republics like Honduras. Now they plan to diddle around with France — and, yes, Finland and Estonia, where Lutheranism seems to have taught the elites that they can get by on Salvation by Capitalism Alone.
If Western Europe have any brains at all they would vote to withdraw from the EU and its ridicules economic and military policies.
One result of the US sanctions on Russian energy is the swing of US from a modest net importer of hydrocarbon to a 2 to 3 million barrel equivalent net exporter.
The swing is LNG.
To open more facilities to freeze, store and load LNG requires more production, fracking?, and high NG prices in the world.
Graham and Blumenthal want more supply limits!
Self fulfilling: limit supply, raise prices!
The constant repletion of the word “dependence” as in the phrase, “the European Union has been working to decrease its dependence on Russian energy” strikes me as dubious, especially when it is admitted that Russia has been a reliable source of energy for decades.
It’s never mentioned that the West thinks Russia might be “dependent” on Euros and Dollars and this has been part of the economic strategy, together with sanctions and support for Ukraine, to weaken and downsize Russia, and make it vulnerable to regime change. The strategy has backfired, however, the EU elites are not willing to concede that fact and they would rather double down on their ridiculous so-called energy plan.
In addition, western values are at stake. The US and Israel have violated international law, supported terrorists, and bombed, invaded, or regime changed nearly every country in West Asia. Yet, compared to our ally, the oppressive Saudi Arabia, Russia looks like peace, love, and democracy forever.
Moreover, there is the ongoing genocide and apartheid in Palestine, fully supported by the US, while the EU basically stands aside. That the EU should think Russia is the bigger threat to Western values is hardly rational.