Saved from Russia, snared by America?

The European Union (EU)’s new energy dependence risks replacing one geopolitical trap with another.

Ursula von der Leyen

The European Union (EU) has recently taken the decision to prohibit the import of gas from Russia, with a complete ban expected to come into force by 2027. At the same time, the EU has reached an agreement to revive and sign a long-term liquefied natural gas (LNG) deal with the United States - an agreement that had earlier been suspended. This renewed partnership follows the resolution of disputes linked to Greenland, but it raises a troubling question: has Europe truly learned from its recent energy crisis, or is it merely replacing one dependency with another?

For years, Russia was Europe’s primary gas supplier. As recently as 2022, around 40 percent of Europe’s gas imports came from Russia. However, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and growing evidence that revenues from gas exports were being channelled into financing the war, the EU moved to drastically reduce Russian gas imports. By 2024, Russian gas supplies to the EU had dropped by nearly 11 percent - 19 percent for pipeline and LNG combined.

This reduction, however, did not happen because Europe suddenly became energy independent. It happened because the EU switched suppliers, chiefly to the United States. Today, the US accounts for nearly 45 percent of the EU’s LNG imports, with imports in 2024 more than double what they were in 2021.

Replacement Strategy

The key question now is not whether ending Russian gas imports was the right decision (it was) but whether it came far too late, and whether the replacement strategy is fundamentally flawed. Instead of accelerating the transition to renewables or investing aggressively in domestic energy efficiency, the EU chose to lock itself into a long-term, expensive fossil gas contract with the US in August 2025. This $750 billion deal is not a chain-breaker but a new fetter.

US President Donald Trump has already begun pressuring China and other Asian countries to increase their LNG purchases. If such massive volumes of LNG are exported, how will the US meet its own domestic energy demands? More importantly, what happens to Europe’s energy security when supply priorities shift due to geopolitical calculations?

Trump’s recent statements about acquiring Greenland and the subsequent threats of imposing a 10 percent tariff on exports from European countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, and the Netherlands if these countries did not comply with his demands (a threat he later retracted) should serve as a warning. With Denmark and other European states firmly rejecting these demands, the threat of trade retaliation looms large. In this context, is it not reasonable to ask whether the EU should reconsider or even cancel its LNG agreement with the US?

Further complicating matters is the recent EU-India trade agreement, which has reportedly heightened diplomatic tensions between Brussels and Washington, with Trump’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accusing the EU of “financing the war against themselves.” These foreign policy frictions, combined with Europe’s growing dependence on a single energy supplier, create a real risk of future supply disruptions. This dependence is made worse by continued reliance on fossil fuels, despite repeated commitments to decarbonisation.

As Greenpeace fossil fuel campaigner Lisa Göldner aptly notes, “Banning Russian gas is a rectified decision, but Europe cannot celebrate breaking free from Russian gas while locking itself into a new dangerous dependency on Trump and his fossil gas.” She points out that two to three LNG tankers from the US now arrive in Europe every single day.

Renewable Systems

What Europe should be doing instead is clear: invest heavily in domestic renewable energy systems that are stable, affordable, and free from political blackmail while also reducing climate chaos.

The irony is hard to ignore. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 and weaponised energy supplies, plunging Europe into an energy crisis, the leaders of all 27 EU countries came together with remarkable urgency. They restricted Russian gas imports, diversified supply sources, and committed to replacing fossil fuels with green energy. The REPowerEU plan - a blueprint to boost energy autonomy and clean energy - was proposed and implemented within just two months.

The results were tangible. By the end of 2022, gas prices had fallen and remained relatively stable through 2023. European leaders had witnessed firsthand what happens when a region becomes dangerously dependent on a single supplier—Ukraine being the most tragic example. So why, after learning this lesson, is Europe repeating the same mistake with the United States?

Isn’t it deeply ironic that the EU, having recognised the perils of energy dependence, is now willingly entering into another long-term fossil fuel dependency - this time under an unpredictable political leadership? Does this suggest that a handful of powerful and wealthy actors continue to dictate the global flow of energy?

According to a recent analysis by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), US LNG accounted for 57 percent of the EU’s LNG imports in 2025 - a share that could rise to 80 percent by 2030. This trajectory does not reflect resilience or autonomy; it reflects vulnerability.

True energy security for Europe will not come from swapping Russian gas for American LNG. It will come from investing in its own renewable capacity, improving efficiency, and building an energy system that is insulated from the whims of geopolitics and unpredictable rulers. The EU once showed that it could act decisively in a crisis. The question now is whether it has the political will to choose long-term sustainability over short-term convenience.

(The writer is a public policy researcher specialising in education, tribal communities and international trade. Views personal.)