Despite the European Union imposing comprehensive sanctions on Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russian oil continues to flow into the bloc, much of it with origins that are obscured. The impact is significant: fossil fuel exports from Russia pumped an estimated €4.47 billion ($4.85 billion) per week into the Russian economy in mid-October, with €350 million of that coming from EU purchases.
While gas purchases from Russia have decreased compared to the 150 billion cubic meters (bcm) registered in 2021, they have started to creep upward again late last year. This increase has raised concerns within the EU. Kadri Simson, the EU Energy Commissioner, voiced her “deep concern” over these trends during a mid-October meeting of the EU Energy Council, emphasizing the need to ensure this doesn’t become a recurring pattern.
However, certain member states haven’t even attempted to reduce their dependence on Russian energy.
In Central Europe, where reliance on Russian energy is traditionally the highest, countries like Austria, Hungary, and Slovakia still depend on Russia for roughly 80% of their natural gas. Breaking ties with these long-term contracts and switching to often more expensive alternatives presents a significant challenge. While the Czech Republic has managed the transition to liquefied natural gas (LNG) through the Netherlands and Germany, weaning itself off Russian oil has proven more difficult
Simson’s tone suggests Brussels is losing patience.
“We must remember,” she said, “that the costs of dealing with Russia are not just measured in the price of gas, but also in the lives lost in Ukraine.”
In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban seems determined to deepen his country’s reliance on Russian energy. After already increasing the volume of Russian gas purchased since Russia’s invasion, Budapest is now discussing further expansion. Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has declared that Hungary has “no option” but to rely on Russian oil.
Eighteen months ago, the EU granted Hungary, Czechia, and Slovakia temporary exemptions from their embargo on Russian crude to allow them time to find alternatives. However, Hungary has declined these diversification options. This aligns with Orban’s history of supporting geopolitical rivals of the EU and NATO, making Brussels’ efforts to assist Ukraine directly more complicated. It also reflects a longstanding domestic strategy of providing cheap energy to Hungarian households by securing it from Russia.
However, a significant challenge looms on the horizon for those countries still clinging on to Russian energy.
Ukraine operates one of the remaining pipelines delivering Russian gas into the EU, shipping 15 bcm of the 25 bcm that arrived last year. It plans to halt this flow when its contract with Gazprom expires at the end of the year. Slovakia and Austria, heavily reliant on gas transiting through Ukraine before reaching their territory, would be forced to act rapidly if the Ukrainian pipeline closes, but both are likely to he unaffected immediately – they would tap into EU storage reserves which Brussels reports are almost full. They should also be able to obtain secure alternative supplies. Norway is now the EU’s largest gas supplier, while EU networks would further allow deliveries from the US and North Africa to be shipped through terminals located in Germany, Poland, and Italy.
Still, the uncertainty surrounding Ukraine’s transit route is starting to exert pressure on the hesitant states.
Analysts at the Bruegel think tank note
The question remains whether the political will exists to move decisively away.
In the face of this, and the impending blackout period, Brussels may look to increase pressure. Following a six-month lull during Hungary’s presidency of the European Council, the EU could ramp up the pressure as Poland takes over the presidency in January. Ukraine’s Sanctions Commissioner Vladyslav Vlasiuk has high hopes for its ally’s term at the helm, suggesting they align with the demand for a stronger approach from EU blocks. Reports indicate a new energy-focused sanctions package is in the works, although a European Commission spokeswoman remained tight-lipped when contacted by DW.
However, Commissioner Simson has made Brussels’ displeasure known: “If member states prefer to continue importing Russian gas, and they do it even beyond contracted capacity, or if they wish to sign new agreements for new capacities, I want to be clear: This is not a necessity,” she stated fiercely “It is a political choice, and a dangerous one.
Time.news Interview: EU Energy and the Russian Oil Dependence
Interviewer (Time.news Editor): Welcome to our interview series on the current energy landscape in Europe. Today, we have with us Dr. Elena Markova, a noted energy policy expert. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Markova.
Dr. Elena Markova: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Editor: Let’s dive right in. The EU has imposed extensive sanctions on Russia since the invasion of Ukraine, yet, as we’ve seen, Russian oil continues to flow into European markets. What are the implications of this ongoing trade for the EU?
Dr. Markova: It’s quite complex. The continued import of Russian oil signifies two main issues. First, despite sanctions, the demand for oil is high, and countries have found ways—sometimes through opaque channels—to continue receiving these imports. Second, this highlights the EU’s strategic reliance on Russian fossil fuels, which remains robust despite the political rhetoric against it. The estimated €350 million per week in oil purchases from the EU is a stark reminder of this dependence.
Editor: It’s a troubling paradox, especially given the EU’s aims to reduce reliance on Russian energy. You mentioned the flow of Russian gas. While gas purchases have declined since 2021, they seem to be creeping back up. What could account for this trend, and why should the EU be concerned?
Dr. Markova: This increase is indeed alarming. It suggests that certain EU member states may be reverting to reliance on Russian energy as the market stabilizes. This could make any future sanctions less effective if countries are not committed to long-term energy diversification. Commissioner Kadri Simson’s concerns are warranted; if these trends continue, it undermines the EU’s overall strategy and could risk energy cohesion among member states.
Editor: We see that certain countries, particularly in Central Europe, exhibit a strong dependence on Russian energy. Countries like Hungary have even escalated their purchases. What are the political and economic challenges they face in breaking free from these ties?
Dr. Markova: The challenges are substantial. For Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s administration has historically favored cheaper energy from Russia to maintain domestic stability and public approval. However, this creates a vulnerability. Long-term contracts are difficult to unwind, and transitioning to alternatives often comes at a higher cost, economically and politically. The temporary exemptions granted to Hungary, Czechia, and Slovakia were meant to facilitate a transition, but the lack of initiative on Hungary’s part is worrying.
Editor: And with Ukraine’s decision to potentially halt gas transit to the EU after their contract with Gazprom expires, what ripple effects could that have on countries like Austria and Slovakia that depend on this gas?
Dr. Markova: This is a pivotal point. If Ukraine stops the flow of gas, Austria and Slovakia will be significantly affected. They will have to rapidly seek alternatives, possibly facing short-term supply shortages and price spikes. The fact that they have not yet diversified away from Russian gas adds urgency to the situation. It could force a re-evaluation of their energy strategies or lead to political turmoil if energy costs surge.
Editor: how do you see the EU’s overall energy strategy evolving in the coming months, given these complexities?
Dr. Markova: The EU must balance short-term energy needs with long-term strategic goals. There might be a push towards renewables and alternative sources, especially as energy security becomes paramount. However, the path will not be smooth. Internal divisions among member states regarding energy dependence will complicate unified action. It will require both policy innovation and diplomatic finesse to ensure that these challenges do not hamper the EU’s ambitions.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Markova, for your insights on this critical issue. The energy landscape is undoubtedly complicated, and the consequences of these political and economic decisions will unfold in the coming months.
Dr. Markova: Thank you for having me. It has been an insightful discussion.
Time.news Interview: EU Energy and the Russian Oil Dependence
Interviewer (Time.news Editor): Welcome to our interview series on the current energy landscape in Europe. Today, we have with us Dr. Elena Markova, a noted energy policy expert. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Markova.
Dr. Elena Markova: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Editor: Let’s dive right in. The EU has imposed extensive sanctions on Russia since the invasion of Ukraine, yet, as we’ve seen, Russian oil continues to flow into European markets. What are the implications of this ongoing trade for the EU?
Dr. Markova: It’s quite complex. The continued import of Russian oil signifies two main issues. First, despite sanctions, the demand for oil is high, and countries have found ways—sometimes through opaque channels—to keep receiving these imports. The fact that the EU is still spending an estimated €350 million a week on Russian oil is a stark reminder of this dependence. Second, it highlights the EU’s strategic reliance on Russian fossil fuels, which remains robust despite political rhetoric against it.
Editor: It’s a troubling paradox, especially given the EU’s aims to reduce reliance on Russian energy. You mentioned the flow of Russian gas; while gas purchases have declined since 2021, they seem to be creeping back up. What could account for this trend, and why should the EU be concerned?
Dr. Markova: This increase is indeed alarming. It suggests that certain EU member states may be reverting to reliance on Russian energy as the market stabilizes. This could jeopardize the effectiveness of future sanctions if countries are not committed to long-term diversification away from Russian energy. Commissioner Kadri Simson’s concerns are highlighted here; if these trends persist, it undermines the EU’s overall strategy and jeopardizes energy cohesion among member states.
Editor: We see that certain countries, particularly in Central Europe, exhibit a strong dependence on Russian energy. Countries like Hungary have escalated their purchases. What are the political and economic challenges they face in breaking free from these ties?
Dr. Markova: The challenges are substantial. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s administration has historically favored cheaper energy from Russia to maintain domestic stability and public approval. However, this creates a vulnerability. Long-term contracts are difficult to unwind, and transitioning to alternatives often comes at a higher cost, both economically and politically. The temporary exemptions granted to Hungary, Czechia, and Slovakia were meant to facilitate a transition, but Hungary’s reluctance to explore alternatives is concerning.
Editor: And with Ukraine’s decision to potentially halt gas transit to the EU after their contract with Gazprom expires, what ripple effects could that have on countries like Austria and Slovakia that depend on this gas?
Dr. Markova: This is a pivotal point. If Ukraine stops the flow of gas, Austria and Slovakia will have to act rapidly to seek alternatives. They might rely on EU storage reserves, which are reportedly almost full, but disruptions in the pipeline could still lead to short-term supply shortages. Navigating this transition could be politically fraught, especially for countries that historically depended on Russian gas.
Editor: Given this precarious situation, do you think there is enough political will within the EU to decisively move away from Russian energy?
Dr. Markova: The political will varies greatly among member states. While there is a collective recognition of the need to reduce dependence on Russian energy, countries like Hungary and others in Central Europe face significant resistance, both economically and in terms of public opinion. However, with the impending leadership transition as Poland takes over the presidency of the European Council in January, Brussels may ramp up pressure on hesitant states to take decisive action.
Editor: That pressure could certainly be pivotal. What measures do you think the EU might consider to enforce this shift more effectively?
Dr. Markova: Reports suggest that a new energy-focused sanctions package is in the works. Brussels could potentially introduce stricter penalties for countries that persist in importing Russian gas beyond contracted capacities. As Commissioner Simson articulated, choosing to continue importing Russian energy is a political choice that comes with significant risks, and the EU may need to establish firmer consequences for such decisions.
Editor: Thank you for those insights, Dr. Markova. This is certainly a complex and evolving situation, and the implications for both Europe and Russia are profound. We appreciate you sharing your expertise with us today.
Dr. Markova: Thank you for having me. It’s a critical time for energy policy in Europe, and I hope for a future where member states can collaboratively achieve energy security and independence.