Subscribe
The energy crisis has not affected Europe uniformly, nor has it had the same effects in all European Union countries, which is why we can say that energy is no longer just a technical issue, but a deeply political one, and the way in which European Union leaders manage risks says a lot about our future. It is clear that European countries are going through the same crisis, but with different resources and results, and the lessons they have learned are uncomfortable and impossible to ignore.
A comparative analysis of the study “Securing Supply: Rethinking Energy in a Changing Europe” conducted in December 2025 starts from this fundamental reality and transforms it into a key to interpreting the European present. We therefore live in a European Union built on economic, historical, and political diversity, which has made energy a test of coordination, solidarity, and institutional maturity. The way in which different regions have managed the energy shock says as much about infrastructure and resources as it does about governance, vision, and trust. The comparative analysis carried out by authors Rota Šņuka and Reinis Āboltiņš shows that opportunities and vulnerabilities are not distributed evenly, which is why regions with diversified economies, access to multiple energy sources, and strong institutions have been able to mitigate the impact of the energy crisis much more quickly. On the other hand, areas and, implicitly, countries dependent on a limited number of suppliers or energy-intensive industries were much more exposed. This discrepancy is not accidental, but the result of long-term political and economic choices, and the study commissioned by the ECR suggests that energy has become a mirror reflecting the structural differences between Europe’s regions. From this perspective, the current energy crisis we are experiencing can also be interpreted as a real test of Europe’s ability to anticipate, not just react to, the present situation. Many of the current vulnerabilities of energy systems were known or at least predictable, but were nevertheless postponed on the political agenda for reasons of cost, convenience, or complicated consensus. The lack of a common European strategic culture in the field of energy meant that repeated warnings were treated superficially and solutions were implemented rather late. The crisis accelerated processes that should have taken place gradually, forcing institutions and Member States to act under pressure.
The opportunities identified in the study “Securing Supply: Rethinking Energy in a Changing Europe” are real, but they are not without conditions. Some of the Member States that have invested in innovation, local production capacities, and energy efficiency have managed to turn the current crisis into an impetus for modernization. In these cases, the energy transition was not seen merely as an obligation imposed by Brussels, but as an opportunity for economic and strategic repositioning. However, the study warns us that these examples cannot be replicated mechanically and that, in the local context, administrative capacity and public support are considered decisive factors. Expanding domestic production capacity, particularly in the field of renewable energy, is presented as a major strategic direction, but not one without tensions, as the energy transition involves high social and economic costs in the short term, even though the long-term benefits are undeniable. Differences between regions and Member States in terms of public acceptance of energy projects, labor market adaptation, and access to finance may amplify existing inequalities. In the absence of compensatory policies, this energy transition risks becoming a new factor of polarisation, but on the other hand, the challenges are profound and persistent. The comparative analysis carried out by Rota Šņuka and Reinis Āboltiņš highlights the risk of energy fragmentation, in which stronger countries consolidate their advantages, while the most vulnerable remain stuck in a vicious circle of dependence and underinvestment. This dynamic threatens not only energy cohesion, but also the European political project as a whole, because energy, in this sense, becomes a test of real solidarity, not just declarative solidarity. An additional level of the study concerns the relationship between European energy and the European Union’s position in the international system, because energy dependencies have repeatedly limited the Union’s diplomatic room for maneuver, exposing it to external geopolitical pressures. This is precisely why we must understand that energy security is inseparable from the concept of strategic autonomy, which is increasingly present in European political discourse but still insufficiently translated into coherent and operational policies at EU level.
Energy security, a matter of common interest
The chapter of the study “Securing Supply: Rethinking Energy in a Changing Europe,” dedicated to the political context of the European Union and strategic risk management, highlights an essential paradigm shift. For decades, European energy policy has been dominated by market logic, efficiency, and cost reduction, while geopolitical risk has been treated as marginal, a distant possibility. However, the recent crisis, caused primarily by the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, has demonstrated that this approach is insufficient. Energy cannot be separated from politics, and security of supply cannot be left solely to the market. The study shows that the European Union has begun to integrate strategic risk management into its energy policies with some delay, but the process is still incomplete. Identifying risks, diversifying sources, and creating strategic reserves are important steps, but their effectiveness depends on coordination and implementation capacity. Differences between Member States in terms of priorities and resources complicate this process, and in the absence of a common vision, there is a risk that measures will remain fragmented and reactive.
A central element of the new approach is the recognition by policy makers that energy security is a matter of common interest because no Member State can manage systemic risks on its own. Interdependence is inevitable, and attempts at isolation can create additional vulnerabilities. However, this interdependence requires a high level of trust and effective governance, aspects that are not uniformly developed across European Union countries. The governance of European policies and institutional dynamics bring a critical perspective to how decisions are made because the multi-layered structure of the European Union, with powers shared between the European, national, and regional levels, can be both a strength and a weakness. In the context of the energy crisis, this complexity has sometimes led to delays, confusion, and overlapping competences, and the lack of institutional clarity can undermine the effectiveness of the response to the crisis. European energy governance currently faces a fundamental dilemma. On the one hand, we can argue that central coordination is needed to manage systemic risks and ensure solidarity, while on the other hand, we must acknowledge that certain states and regions insist on autonomy, citing local specificities and democratic accountability. It is precisely for this reason that the future of European energy policy will depend on the ability to balance these two seemingly contradictory needs. Another crucial aspect is the role of European institutions in creating a predictable framework, as energy investments require stability and confidence, and political uncertainty and frequent regulatory changes can discourage long-term initiatives. In this sense, governance should not be considered merely an administrative matter, but a determining factor in energy security.
The social dimension is a recurring theme in the study by Rota Šņuka and Reinis Āboltiņš, as energy policies risk being perceived as technocratic and disconnected from the everyday realities of citizens. Excessive price increases, energy austerity measures, and accelerated transition can generate discontent if they are not accompanied by social protection mechanisms. In the absence of such mechanisms, public support for European policies risks eroding, fueling populism and Euroscepticism. Comparative analysis shows that the regions that have managed these tensions more effectively are those that have integrated energy policies into a broader vision of development, linking energy to jobs, innovation, social cohesion, and regional identity. This holistic approach appears to be one of the most important lessons of the crisis. The combination of regional analysis, the European political context, and institutional dynamics paints a picture of a Europe undergoing profound transformation, as this energy crisis has exposed the limitations of the old model while also creating the conditions for structural reform. The future of European energy security will depend not only on technology or investment, but on the European Union’s ability to learn from the crisis and build a governance framework adapted to an unstable world. We can say that Europe is at a crossroads, but it can treat the energy crisis as a temporary episode or turn it into a catalyst for change. At stake is not only the security of supply, but the credibility of the European project as a whole, because energy has become a test of the Union’s political maturity, and the outcome of this test will have consequences far beyond the energy sector.