Three years after Vladimir Putin’s tanks rolled into Ukraine and sent shockwaves through European energy markets, the European Union is making its final push to end its decades-long dependence on Russian fossil fuels.
With a quiet sense of urgency — and perhaps a dash of desperation — Brussels is calling in the real powerbrokers of Europe’s energy future: the executives.
The European Commission has begun a new phase of diplomacy, not with diplomats or defence ministers, but with oil and gas CEOs, renewables innovators, and grid operators. The goal is blunt: accelerate the break with Moscow by forging a resilient energy architecture that can survive the next geopolitical crisis.
“We cannot afford to return to the complacency of the past,” says Kadri Simson, the EU’s Energy Commissioner. “The war in Ukraine changed everything. Our security is now intimately tied to the energy we consume — and where it comes from.”
For decades, Russian gas was the lifeblood of Europe’s industry and households. Germany, once Moscow’s most important customer, piped in over 55% of its gas from Russia in 2021. France, Italy, and Austria all relied on Kremlin-controlled energy firms like Gazprom to keep the lights on and factories humming. Even as relations with Russia soured over Crimea and cyberattacks, the continent’s energy infrastructure remained firmly plugged into the East.
The invasion of Ukraine, and the subsequent weaponisation of energy, shattered that illusion of stability. Since then, Europe has scrambled to source liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States, Qatar, and Norway, build new terminals at lightning speed, and stockpile reserves to survive the winters. So far, the strategy has held — just.
But now, the Commission is pushing for something deeper: structural reform and long-term replacement.
This week, EU energy officials met with executives from Shell, TotalEnergies, RWE, Iberdrola and Siemens Energy to discuss investment plans, supply security, and technology transfer. The meetings are part of a broader Brussels initiative — described internally as “Strategic Autonomy 2.0” — to build energy resilience across the continent, from hydrogen innovation in Spain to offshore wind expansion in the North Sea.
The Commission is offering generous incentives: fast-tracked permitting, subsidies under the Green Deal Industrial Plan, and regulatory clarity to draw in private capital. In return, it wants commitments — not just lip service — to reducing reliance on Russian-origin fuels, including liquefied petroleum gas and coal, which still quietly trickle into some EU markets via third countries.
“Europe’s energy transition cannot be just about renewables,” says Jean-Pierre Clamadieu, chairman of Engie, France’s leading utility. “It must also involve storage, transmission, and an overhaul of pricing mechanisms. We are being asked to invest billions while navigating war, inflation and regulatory uncertainty.”
Industry leaders also warn of the political risks of moving too quickly. Natural gas, though increasingly unfashionable in Brussels, remains a crucial transition fuel for energy-intensive industries and heating. With elections looming in several member states, leaders are wary of further price shocks and supply gaps.
But time is running short. EU imports of Russian LNG rose last year, largely due to long-term contracts signed before the war. In the absence of a full embargo, some states — notably Hungary and Slovakia — have continued to import pipeline gas via Turkey and Ukraine, drawing criticism from other members.
A Commission official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there was “increasing frustration” in Brussels over the “mixed signals” sent by some capitals. “We are trying to build a common energy future. But we cannot do that if some governments are still hedging their bets.”
Meanwhile, the geopolitical chessboard is shifting. Russia has rerouted more of its gas exports to China and India, while using energy revenue to blunt Western sanctions and fund its military campaign. The EU, for its part, has become the world’s largest importer of American LNG, a shift that some warn may simply exchange one dependency for another.
To address this, Brussels is pushing harder into green hydrogen, cross-border interconnectors, and strategic reserves. But critics argue that the real obstacle is not infrastructure — it’s politics.
“Energy sovereignty is a fine slogan,” says Professor Claudia Kemfert of the German Institute for Economic Research. “But unless member states align their policies and commit to common goals, the EU will continue to lurch from crisis to crisis.”
For now, Brussels is betting that industry leaders — with their deep pockets and even deeper pragmatism — may succeed where national governments have faltered.
The message from the Berlaymont is clear: the era of Russian energy is ending. What remains uncertain is whether Europe’s political will and private enterprise can rise to the challenge — or whether old dependencies will be replaced by new ones, just in time for the next storm.
Main Image: Benoit BOURGEOIS: © European Union 2014 – EP Usage terms: Identification of origin mandatory
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Berlaymont: the European Commission’s HQ in Brussels
Read Also: European Commission’s Pathetic Dithering Over Russian Energy is a Disgrace.
Europe talks a good game but won’t back it up. Putin’s bet on Western weakness was right. That he can outlast the moral outrage of comfortable bureaucrats sipping wine at Brussels conferences.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
