Europeans Want Affordable Energy, Not Ideology

The majority of EU citizens reject Brussels’ policy of steering the bloc from dependence on Russian natural gas into a more expensive dependence on the United States. Opposition to phasing out Russian gas is highest in Hungary and Bulgaria — at 73 percent.

Illustration (Photo: LOU BENOIST Source: AFP)

As a result of the Russia–Ukraine war and the subsequent trade conflicts, the EU has significantly reduced its pipeline imports of Russian natural gas. The shortfall has largely been compensated by an increased volume of liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments from the United States. By 2023, the U.S. had become the EU’s largest LNG supplier. American market expansion is expected to continue: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has pledged that the EU will purchase U.S. energy products worth €750 billion in the coming years. To fulfill this agreement, the EU would have to multiply its current LNG imports from the United States several times over.

Banning Russian gas would merely swap one form of dependence for another — a far more expensive one. (Photo: Shutterstock)

A new analysis by the Szazadveg Foundation examines how this strategy is perceived among EU citizens.

As numerous companies, NGOs, and research institutes have pointed out, replacing Russian gas with American LNG would push the EU into a new and costlier dependency, one that would significantly weaken its economic performance.

The Draghi Report also concluded that one of the EU’s gravest competitiveness issues is that European companies are paying multiple times more for energy than firms operating in the United States. By relying increasingly on U.S. LNG, the EU is cementing this disadvantage — since gas produced in the U.S. will always be cheaper domestically than after it is liquefied, shipped, and regasified for the European market.

Despite these economic drawbacks, the European Commission continues to treat the permanent and total exclusion of Russian energy sources and subsequent increased imports of U.S. LNG as its top energy policy priority. Even though energy mix decisions fall under national competence, Brussels is restricting member states’ room for maneuver through sanctions and trade measures.

This policy direction has even appeared in Hungarian domestic politics: despite its harmful economic effects — such as fuel prices jumping to over 1,000 forints per liter and utility bills more than tripling — the Tisza Party included Brussels’ demand to phase out Russian oil and gas in its platform, even though the vast majority of Hungarians reject it.

Brussels’ alignment with the U.S. lacks strong public legitimacy not only in Hungary but across Europe. According to Szazadveg’s Europe Project survey, 54 percent of EU citizens with an opinion find it unacceptable that the Union is replacing pipeline gas from Russia with more expensive American LNG.

Member states are divided on the issue: in Scandinavian and Baltic countries, which have typically already cut most of their trade relations with Russia, the majority (69 percent of respondents in Finland and 62 percent in Estonia) are in favor of the switch. 

In contrast, Central and Eastern European countries — given their current supply routes and geographic realities — largely oppose the replacement. The highest rejection rates were found in Hungary and Bulgaria (73%), followed by Greece (71%).

Interestingly, the issue most divides citizens in countries such as France, Spain, and Belgium, which continue to import large quantities of Russian gas — but in liquefied, rather than pipeline, form.