Europe Says They Won’t Need Russian Gas in the Future, But Do They?

In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the European Union has aggressively pursued energy independence, vowing to eliminate its reliance on Russian natural gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG). EU officials, including Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen, have framed this shift not just as a response to geopolitical tensions but as a strategic move away from an unreliable partner that has “weaponized” energy supplies.

Yet, as the bloc proposes a full ban on Russian gas imports by the end of 2027, questions linger: Can Europe truly replace these volumes without crippling its economy? Will higher energy costs trigger deindustrialization? And is a broader financial crisis looming for the EU and the UK amid these disruptions?

This article examines the EU’s proposals, current import dynamics, required volumes from alternative sources, and the potential economic fallout, drawing on recent data and expert analyses as of mid-2025.

EU’s Proposed Ban on Russian Gas: A Timeline and Details

The European Commission unveiled a legislative proposal in June 2025 to phase out all Russian natural gas and LNG imports by 2027, marking the most comprehensive effort yet to sever ties with Moscow.

Key elements include:

  • Immediate Restrictions (2026 Onward): Starting January 1, 2026, bans on new pipeline gas and LNG contracts signed in late 2025. Short-term contracts (under one year) signed before June 17, 2025, would be prohibited from June 17, 2026.
  • Long-Term Phase-Out (2028): Existing long-term contracts must end by January 1, 2028, with mandatory disclosure of contract details to EU authorities
  • LNG Terminal Bans: EU facilities would be barred from servicing Russian customers, and the proposal extends to phasing out Russian oil imports.
  • Safeguards for Reliant States: Countries like Hungary and Slovakia, still dependent on Russian supplies, cannot veto the plan but must diversify by 2028. Recent negotiations, including Slovakia’s conditional support for the ban if economic cushions are provided, highlight internal tensions.

The proposal builds on earlier reductions: Since 2022, the EU has slashed Russian pipeline gas by two-thirds and banned seaborne coal and oi

However, Russian LNG imports persist, with the EU spending over €5 billion on them in the first four months of 2025 alone—a 17% increase year-over-year.

Experts like TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné argue that new capacities from the US and Qatar will fill the gap by 2028, ensuring supply security.

But critics, including some EU member states, warn of rising prices and supply disruptions.

Current LNG and Natural Gas Imports: Sources and Volumes

Europe’s gas imports have shifted dramatically since 2022. In 2024, total EU gas demand fell, with LNG imports dropping by about 32 billion cubic meters (bcm) year-over-year.

Despite this, LNG now constitutes 38% of EU gas supply, up from 22% in 2021.
Source
2024 Volume (bcm)
Share of EU Imports
2025 Projection
United States
~51 bcm (LNG)
45% of LNG imports

Increase to 25-35 mt (equivalent to ~34-47 bcm) if storage targets met

Norway
Major pipeline supplier
~30-40% of total gas
Stable, via pipelines
Russia
~15-20 bcm (LNG + pipeline remnants)
19% of LNG

Decline post-ban, but record LNG sales in early 2025

Qatar & Others
Growing
10-15%
Expansion via new contracts
Total EU LNG Imports
>100 bcm

Recovery by 18% (~30 bcm increase) from 2024 lows

Data from sources like the International Energy Agency (IEA) and Eurostat show the US as the top LNG supplier in 2024, followed by Russia
Russian volumes, however, remain significant: Early 2025 saw record LNG purchases exceeding pre-2025 pipeline levels through Ukraine.

Overall, EU gas imports hit a low in 2024, but 2025 forecasts predict a rebound, with LNG imports potentially rising 25-35 million tons (mt) to meet 100% storage targets.

The volumes required to replace Russian gas are substantial—up to 10-15% of annual EU consumption (around 40-50 bcm).

Alternatives like US LNG (down to 51 bcm in 2024 from 62 bcm in 2023) and Qatari expansions are key, but global market volatility and high regasification costs for landlocked nations pose challenges.

Deindustrialization Campaign? The Risk of Higher Energy Costs

The ban’s critics argue it could amount to a “deindustrialization campaign” by inflating energy costs. Since 2022, replacing Russian gas has cost the EU an extra €544 billion in imports alone, with total economic losses exceeding €1.3 trillion (2.4% of GDP over three years).

Households lost €1.6 trillion in real income due to inflation.

Energy prices have surged: TTF gas hit €35.58/MWh in July 2025, up 12.72% year-over-year.

Industries, particularly in Germany, face 3-6% annual GDP losses from pricier alternatives like US LNG, which is 2-3 times costlier than pre-2022 Russian supplies. Dozens of factories closed between 2021-2024, with nearly a million manufacturing jobs lost. Permanent deindustrialization threatens millions of jobs and trillions in capital stock, as European products lose competitiveness against Asian rivals benefiting from discounted Russian energy. While renewables have accelerated, they haven’t fully offset the gap, and experts warn of ongoing industrial pain.

Facing a Financial Crisis?

Risks for the EU and UK
The EU’s Spring 2025 Economic Forecast projects modest GDP growth of 1.1% for the EU and 0.9% for the euro area, stagnant from 2024. Geopolitical tensions, trade fragmentation, and energy shocks amplify risks, with many countries running sizeable deficits. J.P. Morgan estimates a 40% recession probability by end-2025.
In the UK, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) warns of an “unsustainable” fiscal path, with national debt potentially hitting 270% of GDP by 2070 amid climate and energy volatility.
Growth is projected at 1.2% in 2025, but risks from global fragmentation and tariffs loom. Rising debt and interest rates could trigger defaults, echoing warnings of a 2025 financial crisis.
Energy bans exacerbate these vulnerabilities: Russia’s lost $5-6.5 billion in revenue pales against Europe’s €700 billion in losses since early 2025 from pricier alternative.
Social media discussions highlight fears of economic “self-harm,” with some users noting Europe’s ongoing indirect purchases of relabeled Russian LNG

The Bottom Line: A Risky Bet on Independence

Europe’s declaration of gas independence is bold, backed by diversified supplies and renewables. Yet, the volumes needed—potentially 40-50 bcm annually—come at a steep price, risking higher costs, industrial decline, and broader economic instability. While the ban may weaken Russia long-term, it could accelerate deindustrialization and invite a financial crisis if alternatives falter. As one analyst put it, the EU’s “liberation” from Russian gas has already cost trillions—will the future justify the pain?
While it is an excellent thing for the United States to export LNG to the EU and the UK, they need to make sure they secure energy through trusted sources. Energy Security starts at home, and their Net Zero policies have ruined their energy independence, and they have become energy dependent on imports.
This article has not asked the question, “Why did Russia invade Ukraine?” Until the EU takes ownership of this question, with NATO adding countries that were counter to a Reagan and Gorbachov agreement for no more NATO countries, they will not learn anything. In my opinion, they are setting themselves up for a horrible fiscal collapse. Should NATO and the EU fail as organizations, I see this as a potential question looming on the horizon.
I will leave this post from Chay Bowels here for your review.