Vladimir Putin’s energy pressure on the European Union continues to test the cohesion of the Twenty-Seven as Europe responds to the war in Ukraine. Despite the restart of the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline, Moscow can cut supplies at any time, creating social and economic strain. The European Commission has included in contingency plans a goal to cut fossil fuel use by 15% between August and March 2023. It is a voluntary measure that Brussels can make legally binding. The proposal met a frosty reception in many capitals, with Madrid and Lisbon expressing doubts and others showing skepticism. The plan will face its first real test during an extraordinary meeting on Tuesday, with energy ministers preparing for a heated discussion to come.
Is a 15% reduction really necessary? Why apply it evenly when member states have different dependence on gas? Why should the European Commission trigger the alert in a famine scenario and apply a cut in an area that remains largely within national competence? These questions are expected to resurface as energy ministers review Ursula von der Leyen’s team’s plans at a 10 a.m. meeting on 26 July.
The first ambassadorial debate among the Twenty-Seven took place this Wednesday. It lasted three hours, and sources say the southern states Spain, Portugal, Italy, Malta, Cyprus and Greece expressed dissatisfaction with Brussels’ plan. Ambassadors will try again in a Friday preparatory meeting, but the arrangement that needs ratification remains a complex matter to navigate under a qualified majority rule. Brussels hopes to achieve a coordinated stance, yet Tuesday’s outcomes may prove intricate.
South facade
“We understand the need to support member states facing hardship, but effective responses require careful execution,” said Teresa Ribera, the third vice president of the Spanish Government and minister for ecological transformation. In Spain’s view, the Commission did not proceed with sufficient consultation with member states or account for the unique characteristics of each energy market. Critics note that the last-minute discussions allow some countries with limited interconnections to request partial exemptions, reducing required savings by up to 5%.
This stance does not soften criticism from Spain or its neighbor Portugal. Joao Galamba, Portugal’s secretary of state for energy, described the proposal as disproportionate and unsustainable and said Portugal opposes it because it fails to reflect country differences. In Athens, the Brussels plan was likewise received with skepticism. Giannis Oikonomou, a government spokesman, reminded that Greece might resist the idea of reducing natural gas consumption.
Germany calls for solidarity
Germany, heavily dependent on Russian gas and lacking sufficient regasification capacity for liquefied natural gas from other sources, approached Brussels’ plan with measured caution. The German economy minister emphasized that European solidarity matters more than ever and called for closer cooperation to manage gas crisis situations. Germany announced that savings measures would be implemented, including in public buildings, as part of a broader effort to demonstrate solidarity and reduce consumption. Berlin warns that if gas supplies tighten in one country, all member states feel the impact through the single market.
The European Commission and von der Leyen have stressed that some countries face higher exposure to Russian gas and are more vulnerable during blackouts, but the consequences would be felt across the union. The core message remains that every member state should contribute to energy savings and storage while standing with neighbors in times of trouble, with a focus on coordinating responses to the current energy and economic crisis.
As discussions continue, the broader context includes the legacy of a pandemic-era financial framework and joint procurement mechanisms for vaccines, underscoring that collective action remains key to weathering the current energy shock and ensuring resilience across the European energy market. The unfolding debate reflects the tension between national circumstances and the pursuit of a unified European response to an interconnected energy challenge.