Eugene Simonov
Environmental organizations welcome the EU’s new roadmap for ending the bloc’s reliance on Russian energy but point to an absence of ambition when it comes to climate-related issues. Additionally, implementing the program will require great effort in an unpredictable and constantly changing geopolitical environment.
In early May the European Commission announced its updated “roadmap” for the REPowerEU program, one of the goals of which is to end imports of Russian energy resources by 2027. The program is generally assessed by the commission as a relatively successful tool for ridding the EU of dependence on Russian energy.
From 2022 to 2024 the countries of the European Union have completely weaned themselves off Russian coal, and the share of Russian oil imports fell from 27% to 3%. Only two countries, Hungary and Slovakia, are continuing to import Russian oil. Deliveries of Russian gas to Europe have halved, bringing the share in gas imports from 45% down to 19%.
The program has also achieved success by introducing alternative solutions to fossil fuels. A raft of measures to improve energy efficiency and introduce RES (renewable energy sources) have reduced gas demand by 18%, with imports falling from 334 billion cubic meters in 2022 to 273 billion cubic meters in 2024. The new roadmap is based on the assumption that the measures introduced under REPowerEU will continue to ensure an annual reduction in gas consumption of 15 billion cubic meters, bringing demand down by 40-50 billion cubic meters by 2027, and by 100 billion cubic meters by 2030.
Read more: Does REPowerEU Reinforce or Contradict the Green Deal?
Why rely on an aggressor?
Civil society organizations have consistently criticized the EU for being too slow and inconsistent in implementing the environmental goals of the program and depriving Russia of sources of funding by introducing sanctions on carbon fuel exports. According to the Ukrainian environmental organization Razom We Stand, fossil fuel exports since the beginning of the invasion have put 870 billion euros into Russia’s coffers, of which 208 billion came from the pockets of EU member states.
The inadequacy of the measures taken became painfully clear in 2024 when imports of liquefied gas from Russia increased by 12% compared to the previous year, and pipeline deliveries increased by 26%. As a result, the European Union paid Russian suppliers 23 billion euros, a sum that is substantially larger than the 18 billion total given to Ukraine in aid. Ten EU member states were still buying Russian gas in 2024, and another seven were importing Russian uranium and services related to nuclear power plant operation.
Since the end of 2024, when Donald Trump’s election as US president radically altered the geopolitical situation, making it far less favorable for Ukraine, there has been increased pressure from businesses and politicians wishing to resume cooperation with Russia, whether by restarting the Nord Stream gas pipeline or launching joint hydrocarbon production ventures in the Arctic. The new roadmap for the REPowerEU program is not only an attempt to achieve the energy independence targets previously set, but also a political gesture aimed at demonstrating pan-European solidarity with Ukraine.
The European Union is not merely promising to one day rid itself of its energy dependence on Russia, but has now proposed a concrete action plan to achieve this by the end of 2027.
Presenting the roadmap on May 6, the EU’s energy and housing commissioner Dan Jørgensen betrayed a certain emotion in his speech: “The message to Russia is clear: ‘No more shall you blackmail our member states. No more shall Euros go into your war chest. Your gas will be banned. Your shadow fleet will be stopped.’ We do this to preserve our security. But it is also an important step toward becoming energy independent. Producing our own clean affordable energy instead of importing expensive fossil fuels.”
What’s in the ‘roadmap’?
The roadmap contains nine interrelated measures aimed at completely severing the European Union’s energy dependence on Russia by 2027.
The first four, which are aimed at eliminating EU dependence on Kremlin gas, propose that all buyers be required to disclose information about contracts for gas from Russia, even when it is purchased through intermediaries. By the end of the year the EU will ban all imports of Russian gas under existing short-term contracts, as well as the signing of any new contracts. All imports of Russian pipeline gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG) under existing long-term contracts must be ended by the end of 2027. The European Union is planning to improve the joint use of existing gas infrastructure and a system of overseas joint gas purchasing.
By the end of 2025, the European Commission wants to see clear action plans from those member states still struggling to wean themselves off Russian fuel (such as Hungary and France). Countries will be expected to show how they plan to stop buying Russian gas, oil and radioactive substances, as well as set deadlines. Tariffs will be introduced on supplies of Russian nuclear fuel, giving equal opportunities to alternative suppliers from other countries and companies, and the signing of new contracts with the state-owned Russian nuclear monopoly Rosatom will require permission from the Euratom Supply Agency. A European alternative to the supply of Russian radioisotopes used in medicine will also be created under the REPowerEU program, though it is not entirely clear why such a replacement is vital for the European Union.
The final, ninth point in the roadmap involves taking stronger steps to prevent Russia using its “shadow fleet” to bring its oil to the market illegally. It recommends working across the board to strengthen dialogue with all third countries with an interest (both buyers of oil and those providing their flag and other services to ships), work with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to establish and uphold strict requirements for safety at sea, etc. The European Commission will also consider the possibility of creating a special EU shadow fleet mission that would involve enhanced joint patrols of European seas in order to identify and inspect suspicious ships.
Read more about our investigation into Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’: Military oil spill: How the Kerch Strait tanker disaster is linked to Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’ oil exports
Objections from the usual suspects
Unsurprisingly, the new roadmap was immediately received with hostility in the two EU countries most dependent on Russian hydrocarbons – Slovakia and Hungary.
Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico declared that in its current form the plan was “absolutely unacceptable to the government of the Slovak Republic” and would harm the European Union more than it would Russia.
Hungary’s premier Viktor Orban used criticism of the roadmap in order to proclaim the necessity of prolonging his rule. “We also must win the election because if we don’t win the election next year, then Hungary will not be led by a national government, but by a government that Brussels will hang around our necks,” he said, addressing members of his party.
Russian officials also expressed their concern over the new EU plan.
“We believe that the measures that the EU is implementing in the form of sanctions are illegal and counterproductive, including for the residents of these countries,” said Energy Minister Sergei Tsivilyov. “We will find a way to supply our products to those who are interested in them, and the demand for our products is high.”
The Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the European Union and Euratom in Brussels said in a statement to Russian state-run news agency RIA Novosti that Moscow saw obviously destructive consequences for Europe in its policy of rejecting Russian energy resources, including protracted economic stagnation, deindustrialization, and a fall in living standards. “The latest anti-market measures proposed by Brussels, dictated solely by political motives, will cause even greater damage to the EU economy,” it read.
Moscow is clearly counting on the European Commission having difficulties agreeing on the proposed plans with EU member states, especially with those who are still buying Russian gas.
Grumbles from the Greens
Although Ukrainian and European environmental organizations generally support the goals set out in the plan, on May 6 they hit out at its perceived half-heartedness and the absence of clear additional measures for a green transition.
Dr. Svitlana Romanko, the founder and executive director of Razom We Stand, criticized the deficiencies of the roadmap in detail:
“We welcome this attempt to further curtail European money transfers to Russia’s war chest through EU energy purchases. Yet it is unacceptable that more than three years into Russia’s full-scale war, the EU still refuses to commit to ending purchases on the spot market or setting earlier deadlines for ending LNG gas imports from Russia. By not moving more quickly, the Commission is sending the wrong message, both to Ukrainians under daily attack and to the entire world—that human lives are still negotiable when fossil fuel profits are at stake.”
A new report published by Razom We Stand “Getting Rid of Russian Gas Dependency in EU Member States: A Case-by-Case Approach,” shows that the EU already has everything it needs – the technology, the tools and the policies – to free itself from Russian LNG gas.
“This roadmap could have marked the quick beginning of the end of Russian energy dominance in Europe. However, without mandatory certificates of origin for LNG, the EU cannot close the biggest loophole in its energy sanctions: Russian gas traded on short-term spot markets. These untraceable shipments continue to fuel the Kremlin’s war while quietly entering EU ports. To stop this, Europe must establish an independent authority to verify the origin of all LNG imports, backed by real financing and enforcement powers. Without it, RePowerEU risks being a policy of ambition without accountability,” concludes Romanko.
Tom Lewis, Energy Policy Coordinator, CAN Europe declared: “After 3 years since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it is about time that Russian uranium is put under the spotlight. A restriction on all new Euratom contracts with Russia is a good first step, however these measures are unable to change nuclear power’s inherent dilemma – it keeps us dependent on imported uranium. Too much emphasis is put on diversification of supply, while the attention should be on reducing and phasing out nuclear power as a contribution to building energy security.”
Greenpeace EU climate and energy campaigner Thomas Gelin mentioned: “Keeping money flowing to Putin’s war chest for these fuels is scandalous, but the Commission risks replacing one disastrous dependency with another – unplugging Putin’s gas and plugging in Trump’s. Instead of locking us into polluting and risky fossil fuel contracts, governments and the EU should be cutting energy waste and people’s bills by insulating homes, and giving us true energy security with a massive boost to renewables. The end of Russian fuel imports must be the beginning of the end of fossil fuels entirely, and a ban on new fossil fuel projects is the first step. Dumping fossil fuels, saving energy and focusing on renewables is the only roadmap to true energy independence.”
Indeed, the plan is written as if all further steps to make the transition to green energy and develop energy efficiency policies have already been provided for elsewhere or will happen by themselves. At the same time, the necessary actions for purchasing gas and uranium from non-Russian sources are already spelled out in detail in the roadmap itself.
What next?
Over the summer, the European Commission will be busy turning the measures outlined in the roadmap into bills and laws. This means complicated negotiations not only with Hungary and Slovakia, but also with Italy, France and other member states hungry for cheap Russian LNG.
The comprehensive program for combatting the shadow fleet laid out in the roadmap is expected to be closely linked to the 17th package of sanctions against Russia, which came into force on 20 May 2025. It is entirely possible that the new tranche of sanctions will be coordinated with the measures planned in the US Congress.
During the first year, the goal of reducing imports from Russia will be met regardless of whether any legislation is adopted, due to the cessation of gas transit through Ukraine. This means that the share of Russian gas in EU imports will fall from 19% to 13% in 2025. The European Commission anticipates that this year the EU will receive 36.5 billion cubic meters of gas from Russia, including 20 billion cubic meters in the form of LNG and 16.5 billion cubic meters via the Turkish Stream gas pipeline.
At the end of 2025, several countries are due to present their vision for completely opting out of Russian fuel, but some of these states may again ask for a delay instead of presenting such a national plan.
It is extremely difficult to say what will happen next, but in any scenario, environmental organizations will have to work hard to set the REPowerEU program back on its original green path. Otherwise, when geopolitical tensions subside, politicians may lose interest in achieving environmental goals that are seen as no longer relevant, while when tensions increase, they may embark on the path of quickly replacing “bad” Russian fossil fuels, such as LNG and uranium, with “good” ones from other countries..
Translated by Alastair Gill
Main image source: ClimateBreak
