Since this Commission took office, Europe has had to confront a world in its most precarious state for decades. From threats to our security and democracy to risks to our economy and industry, including the reckless airspace incursions and attempts at economic coercions we have witnessed in the past months, and Russia’s ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine. These challenges have come at a time when the international order – on which Europe’s security and prosperity has long relied – is rapidly fraying. Against this backdrop, this must be Europe’s Independence Moment. Europe must step up to secure and shape its own future,’ the European Commission says in the introduction to its work programme for 2026, a document published in October 2025.
With regard to energy issues, the document says: ’Bringing down energy prices for households and companies remains a core priority for boosting our competitiveness and our independence, and reducing dependencies. We will ensure a genuine Energy Union by improving its governance, upgrading grids, removing existing bottlenecks, cutting red tape for cross-border energy projects and boosting electrification and the resilience of the electricity system. This will be part of our work to keep Europe on track to meet its climate goals and also put forward an enabling framework for the decade ahead securing Europe’s competitiveness and sustainability. In this spirit, we will also seek to further improve the deployment of infrastructure for electric charging as well as the supply of sustainable alternative fuels for vessels and aircraft. In addition, we will put forward a strategy for setting up the first fusion power plants in Europe, which will contribute to our energy independence’.
The above quotes clearly show that, despite the Commission is aware of the dangers and risks that threaten the EU’s energy security, it still tries to avoid speaking openly about the real problems. Instead of openly presenting the issue to the citizens and offering a beneficial solution, it uses the good old phrases, promising improvement in some ‘very important’ areas, without mentioning Europe’s new dependence on US LNG which, according to many experts, seems to be one of the most significant challenges Europe can face in the coming years.
As experts point out, the continued dependence of the EU energy demand on fossil fuel supplies underscores the pressing challenge of energy security, particularly in light of recent geopolitical tensions including not only the Russia-Ukraine war but also the recent wedges in the transatlantic relations.
Based on these pressures, the need for strategies to strengthen EU energy security seems obvious, even to a child. However, no trace of such a clear strategy can be found in any EU document, including the RePowerEU plan which focuses only on ending the bloc’s reliance on Russian fossil fuels while it does not pay attention to the EU’s new dependence on US gas.
As part of a recent trade deal, the EU will buy $750 billion of US energy by 2028. The deal effectively ties the EU’s energy supply to one seller, risking energy security and jeopardising gas reduction plans, the US-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) warns adding that, despite the bloc has strengthened its energy security by cutting gas demand by over 20% between 2021 and 2024 and curbing gas imports from Russia, this progress also means a new vulnerability for the EU given that increasing imports of US LNG has created a potentially high-risk new geopolitical dependency. The think tank linked the risk to political leverage and affordability, stating that ‘an overreliance on US LNG, the most expensive LNG for EU buyers, contradicts the REPowerEU plan of enhancing EU energy security through diversification, demand reduction and making energy more affordable.’
As part of the implementation of the RePoweEU plan, on 26 January, EU Member States gave their final approval to ban Russian gas imports by late 2027, although Slovakia and Hungary – two landlock countries which are heavily reliant on Russian energy imports – voted against and Bulgaria abstained.
In addition, if phasing out Russian gas would not be enough, the European Commission plans to also propose legislation in the coming months to get rid of Russian pipeline oil and Russian nuclear fuel.
According to the assessment of the S&P, LNG is expected to play an increasingly important role in Europe’s gas supply mix. This forecast also higlight that while about half of Europe’s gas supply will come from LNG, Europe is becoming increasingly reliant on it over the next few years to fill the gap in supply as it leaves Russian gas and LNG behind.
With bad regulation and ill-considered plans, top bureaucrats in Brussels have created a major strategic vulnerability for the bloc, which, after decades of heavy reliance on Russia, now leaves the EU at the mercy of the US. As tensions in the transatlantic relations are slowly but surely move toward a deep crisis, this carelessness – or intentional destruction? – is inexcusable.
European consumers and manufacturers already face some of the highest energy prices in the world, making it hard for the EU to refuse cheaper gas from the U.S. despite Washington’s threatening language, POLITICO assessed, quoting the words of a European government offical who said that ‘the dependence is certainly there, but we’re kind of stuck where we are. There’s really no alternative.’
Given that, instead of diversifying energy sources with a shift toward renewables and existing options available in Member States, the EU has locked itself into a new long-term reliance on fossil fuels, which contradicts its own objectives, the conclusion is that European energy and climate policy primarily serves objectives of political marketing instead of reducing the EU’s dependence on fossil fuels.
Against this backdrop, whether this would really be ‘Europe’s Independence Moment’, as the Commission claims, is highly questionable.
