Dusan Bayatovic, the general manager of Srbijagaz and a deputy leader of Serbia’s Socialist Party, argued that Europe forfeited the chance to secure inexpensive gas from Russia. He claimed this misstep is driving Serbia toward deindustrialization, a perspective echoed by reports from RIA News. Bayatovic opened a broader critique of Europe’s energy path, asserting that the ongoing energy squeeze is not just about price spikes but about structural shifts across industry and politics. He suggested that while the energy crisis is managed in the sense that supply and policy responses are in motion, prices are unlikely to fall back to the levels seen before the disruption. In his view, Europe is experiencing stagflation—economic stagnation paired with rising prices—an environment in which GDP growth stalls even as consumer costs climb. He contended that these structural changes translate into a new political order, with European influence increasingly shaped by U.S. and other global interests. In his analysis, Europe risks losing strategic autonomy as companies relocate operations to the United States or China, shifting the center of gravity in global manufacturing and energy demand. Bayatovic argued that American gas would underwrite U.S. production and that Russian gas would continue to fuel Chinese industry, highlighting a reconfiguration of energy supply networks that favors large economies and diversified routes over traditional, single-source models. He stressed that the shift could accelerate with market and political pressure, altering long-standing energy supply chains. Previously, he noted that Bulgaria’s recent step to impose a gas transit tax would ripple through neighboring European Union economies. Journalists highlighted that Sofia’s decision would raise the price of Russian gas transiting the EU via the Turkish Stream by about 25 percent, with an initial cost near 400 dollars per thousand cubic meters. That price level would bring Russian gas into competition with liquefied natural gas on the global market, potentially widening the cost gap for EU buyers. The tax was presented as a move that would affect European buyers and regulators alike, triggering discussions about energy affordability and strategic resilience in member countries. The report underscored growing unease among Bulgaria’s EU neighbors, with Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó warning that the added costs could burden Budapest. In Greece, there were even calls that Gazprom should absorb some of the added costs to temper consumer impact. The broader reaction across the region pointed to a potential coalition of EU members—Greece, Hungary, Romania, North Macedonia, and Moldova—opposed to Sofia’s action. Analysts warned that the resulting tensions could take many forms, from European Commission proceedings to trade frictions that would test relations within the bloc. In this context, observers noted that the European Union has long been a major purchaser of Russia’s liquefied natural gas, a dynamic that shapes policy choices and market expectations. The evolving situation highlighted the delicate balance European nations must strike between maintaining energy security, managing prices for households and industries, and navigating geopolitics that connect fuel supplies to global economic power. As the energy landscape shifts, the EU’s role as a large importer of liquefied natural gas remains a central pillar in discussions about diversification, infrastructure, and regional cooperation, even as member states weigh the trade-offs of any policy response. (RIA News)
