dw.com
EU's Energy Security: Sufficient Gas Reserves for Winter 2025, but Geopolitical Risks Remain
As of September 15, 2025, the EU's natural gas storage is at over 80%, lower than previous years but higher than 2021, offering a buffer against potential supply disruptions despite geopolitical uncertainties and the end of the Ukraine-Russia gas transit agreement.
- What is the current state of EU natural gas storage, and what are the immediate implications for the upcoming winter?
- EU natural gas storage exceeds 80% as of September 15, 2025, providing a solid reserve for winter. This is lower than the 90% of previous years but significantly better than 2021's levels, mitigating the risk of severe energy shortages. However, rapid withdrawals or unexpected weather could still cause price spikes or localized shortages.
- What are the potential future challenges and uncertainties impacting EU energy security, and what is the EU's long-term plan?
- Trump's proposed tariffs on countries importing Russian energy pose a significant geopolitical risk, potentially disrupting supply and increasing prices. Additionally, while the EU aims to eliminate Russian fossil fuel imports by 2027, progress varies across member states, with some lagging in diversification and renewable energy investment. The lack of a renewed gas transit agreement with Ukraine adds another layer of uncertainty.
- How did the EU diversify its energy sources following Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and what is the impact on its current energy security?
- After Russia's invasion, the EU diversified its energy sources by increasing LNG imports from Norway, the US, and Qatar, and expanding renewable energy capacity. This diversification, coupled with increased storage capacity, enabled near-complete gas storage replenishment by September 2025, contributing to the current energy security.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents a balanced view of Europe's energy security situation, acknowledging both positive developments (high gas storage levels, diversification of energy sources) and potential risks (Trump's tariffs, unpredictable weather). The narrative doesn't overly emphasize one perspective over another, although the positive aspects are presented more prominently in the beginning.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and objective. Terms like "solid shield" and "energetska neizvjesnost" (energy uncertainty) are used, but they are appropriately contextualized within expert opinions and data. There's no overtly loaded language.
Bias by Omission
While the article provides a comprehensive overview, potential omissions exist. For instance, the article doesn't delve deeply into the social and economic impact of high energy prices on vulnerable populations. The complexities of transitioning away from Russian gas are also somewhat simplified. The article also lacks detailed analysis of the potential effectiveness of Trump's tariffs.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the EU's efforts to diversify its energy sources, increase renewable energy use, and build up gas storage, all of which contribute to ensuring affordable and clean energy access. The success in filling gas reserves and the reduced reliance on Russian gas are positive steps towards energy security and potentially lower energy prices. However, the potential impact of Trump's tariffs introduces uncertainty.