EU Commission rectification on vitality dependence on the USA | EUROtoday

Listen to the audio model of the article

“Situation not corresponding to the hyperlink with Russia”

The EU Commission has in fact corrected the message sent by two of its representatives in recent days of alarm over the risk for the EU of being dependent on imports of American gas as part of the decoupling from imports from Russia. The spokeswoman responsible for energy indicated, in fact, while stating that she did not want to take a position or comment on statements by members of the EU college, when pressed by journalists, she said that “LNG imports from the USA can’t be in contrast with the dependence on Russia earlier than the invasion of Ukraine”, that “present information don’t point out the existence of issues on this regard” and that “importing extra vitality from the USA is a part of our technique to cease importing from Russia”. In recent days, the number 2 of the Commission Teresa Ribera and Commissioner Dan Jorgensen had given an opposite message. The case highlights two aspects: on the one hand the president of the Commission does not want to provide arguments to the US regarding the agreement (of a political nature and therefore quite uncertain in its concrete implications) to purchase energy for 750 billion dollars by 2028; on the other hand von der Leyen does not want to openly recognize that Trump’s policy no longer makes the United States a predictable and reliable partner the press derives directly from the communication choices of the presidency of the Commission.

Teresa Ribera, first vice-president of the Spanish Commission, responsible for the “inexperienced” transition and competition, had indicated in recent days that the EU “is considerably growing our dependence on LNG imported from the United States”. The Danish energy commissioner had said that Europe “doesn’t need to exchange one dependence with one other” (moving from dependence on Russia to dependence on the United States). Very clear messages expressed in the context of the growing criticism of the American president’s choices which culminated with the events in Minneapolis and in the more general context of the attack on the EU (from the Greenland case to the new threats of tariffs).

Similar positions are also held in other international institutions. At the Davos conferences, the director of the international energy agency Fatih Birol had indicated that Europe risks “placing all its eggs in a single basket” by replacing one large supplier (Russia) with another large supplier (the USA).

The spokesperson responsible for energy at the European Commission, asked to clarify the reactions of the leaders to the statements of the two commissioners, indicated that currently the EU’s dependence on LNG imports “is way more manageable than the dependence on pipeline imports and that is a side of the market that have to be stored in thoughts when discussing the transition from one dependence to a different dependence”. The LNG that the EU purchases from the USA, arriving by sea, cannot be considered in the same way as Russian gas that “travels” via pipelines controlled by Russia, which has “steadily and repeatedly practiced using vitality provides as a weapon”. Second argument: imports from the USA are part of the European strategy to emerge from dependence on Russia and “the LNG market is world and really liquid, versatile, subsequently it affords extra choices to the EU to diversify provides”.