| Abstract [eng] |
Despite the European Union’s firm commitment to energy independence from Russia after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and ambitious European Green Deal, the situation in 2024 reveals a different reality than planned. Belgium, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden have all continued to import Russian liquefied natural gas in 2024. Given Russia’s long-standing use of energy resources as a tool of political leverage, this continued reliance raises important questions about the cohesion and resilience of the EU’s collective energy security. Research question: What factors have led some member states of the European Union to continue importing liquefied natural gas from Russia, despite renewable energy commitments and the outbreak of the full-scale war in Ukraine? Research goal: To identify and examine the reasons that led selected European Union member states to continue purchasing liquefied natural gas from Russia. The main objectives are: 1. To identify the main EU agreements, policy documents, and other factors that create conditions for the continued purchase of liquefied natural gas from Russia. 2. To analyze the EU liquefied natural gas sector and its trends, and to identify the selected state cases examined in the study. 3. To identify the variables used in the research based on the 4A theory and to collect the data representing them. 4. To conduct data calibration and construct a truth table using fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA). 5. To determine causal configurations and assess which combinations of factors are necessary and/or sufficient to explain the continuation of Russian LNG imports. The cases of states were analyzed using the 4A energy security theory and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) as the methodological approach. This involved calibrating the variables and constructing a truth table based on the collected data. Based on the obtained values, it can be argued that Russian LNG imports depend primarily on long-term purchase contracts with Russian companies and on prices that are lower than those offered on the market, while public approval or disapproval appears to have the least influence on the outcome. This further supports the assumption that acceptability, regardless of whether it is high or low, is not the main factor determining Russian LNG imports. Therefore, it can be concluded that long-term contracts and lower-than-market prices are the key aspects explaining why states have chosen to continue purchasing LNG from Russia. Inability to quickly switch to alternative suppliers due to the high share of natural gas in a country’s overall energy balance, as well as states’ capacity to re-export and utilize regasification infrastructure, may be considered additional factors that strengthen accessibility and affordability. Future research could examine the reasons why some states have ceased importing LNG from Russia using a different methodological approach. It could also expand the analysis to include other EU member states to assess their actual dependence on Russian LNG, including possible re-export effects after regasification. Additionally, similar studies could be conducted on other major LNG exporters to the EU, such as the United States or Qatar, to determine whether the key factors identified in this study - particularly affordability and accessibility - are also relevant in those cases. |
