Macron admits cost of giving up cheap Russian gas

Macron admits the cost of giving up Russian gas

How much did forgoing cheap Russian gas cost? Emmanuel Macron gave his answer on Wednesday at the Spain-France Trade and Investment Forum: Russian gas "was a fundamental part of the competitiveness" of European industry, and giving it up ended up causing "a crisis across the entire continent." It was not a textbook hypothesis. It was the official assessment of a political decision that Europe took of its own volition and that is now taking its toll again, with the Strait of Hormuz blocked and fuel prices soaring.

What Macron said and why it is uncomfortable

The French president admitted that European competitiveness depended "to a large extent" on cheap Russian gas. The phrase, spoken at a bilateral forum with Spain, reads as an amendment to the narrative that Brussels maintained during the break with Moscow: cheap energy was not just a saving on the bill, it was the assumption on which a large part of the continent's industrial fabric was built.

Macron did not call for turning back. He called for mobilization. Faced with the rising cost of diesel and fuel, he described prices in France as "unbearable" and urged "total mobilization." It is the political version of an uncomfortable admission, because the problem does not allow for quarterly management: it points directly to the design of the energy system.

Why did the Strait of Hormuz change everything?

The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz laid bare Europe's dependence on fossil fuels. Macron himself said it: even countries that have made great strides in decarbonization, such as Spain or France, each trinc its own path, still maintain those dependencies. A maritime corridor closed on the other side of the world is enough to blow up the continent's energy bill.

That is the point that official discourse has been dodging for some time. The energy transition has not eliminated exposure to fossil markets; in some segments it has concentrated it in fewer suppliers and more fragile routes. "Energy sovereignty" sounds good until a strait is closed.

Storage at 67% and the order to cut consumption

The numbers do not support optimism. EU gas storage is only 67% full, compared with 80% a year earlier, and analysts warn of possible price increases during the winter. With that starting point, an analysis circulated in the debate maintains that the European Commission, through its Energy Commissioner, has asked member states to immediately cut gas and electricity consumption and has lowered the storage filling target to 80% to contain cost volatility before the arrival of severe cold.

There is a kind reading of that maneuver: technical management ahead of an uncertain winter. And another far less kind one: lowering the bar so the figure does not look so ugly. Both are circulating.

From 45% to 12%: the Russian gas still arriving

Since 2022 the EU has sharply reduced its imports of Russian fuels. Seaborne crude purchases have fallen almost completely and the share of Russian gas has dropped from 45% to 12%. Just over a tenth of the gas consumed is therefore still coming in.

The calendar is pressing: from January 1, 2027, all imports of Russian LNG will be banned. The last tap is thus closing with storage already low and with the escalation in the Middle East driving up oil and gas prices, shutting down industries, adding layoffs and weakening the European economy. A participant in the debate noted that the information came with links to Russian state media, something another disputed by recalling that the source of the statements was Macron himself.

Nuclear power returns to the argument

In the realm of interpretations, a thesis is gaining ground: that cheap Russian gas served to deactivate European nuclear energy, which is more expensive to build but insensitive to the swings of a strait. It is even argued that Moscow financed anti-nuclear campaigns in favor of its own gas. It is an accusation without independent verification in this matter, and it should be treated as what it is, not as a proven fact.

There are also those who focus on pure geopolitics: supply was cut from outside and the bill is presented in Europe. And those who recall that storage at 67% cannot be fixed with wishes.

With the thermostat at 67% and the veto on Russian LNG around the corner, some sum up the moment this way: raising the price of heating and calling it transition.