The Ukrainian-Russian agreement on the transit of Russian gas to European countries expired on January 1, 2025. This step severed the last of Ukraine’s energy dependence cord to Moscow.
Manipulating gas prices and supplies is among the Kremlin’s oldest hybrid warfare tools. For example, in 2010, during Viktor Yanukovych’s presidency, the so-called “Kharkiv Agreement” was signed. Following this agreement, the duration of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet stay in Simferopol was increased by 25 years. Signing it was frankly unprofitable for Ukraine, which is why to “push” the agreement to the conclusion Russian Gazprom lowered the prices for Russian gas for Ukraine. Later it played a fatal role during the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the UN applied sanctions on the Russian energy market. Price limits were set for a barrel of Russian oil and logistical obstacles were imposed on the oil and gas trade. In response, the Kremlin built up its shadow fleet, which allowed the Russian economy to keep getting “doping” in the form of oil and gas revenue during the three years of the full-scale war.
At the same time, the Kremlin intensified its propaganda and blackmail directed toward Western audiences, meant to cultivate the fear of a global energy crisis. In 2022-2023, one of the main narratives broadcasted into Europe by the Kremlin was the claim that Russian oil and gas have no alternatives and are the only salvation against the risk of the industrial facilities stopping their work and people freezing in winter.
Gas compressor station in Ukraine
The Kremlin paints an American trail
The Kremlin actively promotes a conspiracy theory that the transit agreement was ended so that the U.S. could monopolize the UN gas market. Some “experts” suggest that this is a plot that would allow Ukraine to keep receiving military aid. Thus, the narrative of America having an economic interest of its own is reinforced by accusing the Western countries of being the cause of war, instead of Russia itself.
In reality, ending the agreement is a logical step for Ukraine. After the start of Russia’s armed aggression in 2014, Kyiv embarked on the path of rejecting Russian energy products. Since November 2015, Ukraine has purchased gas exclusively on the European market and developed its own deposits. The continued transportation of Russian gas through Ukrainian territory was, to a large extent, due to the obligations that Ukraine had to European countries.
The narrative of the U.S. involvement is an obvious “fairy tale”, especially seeing as the transit pipes’ capacities being released is an economic opportunity for Ukraine specifically. For example, Volodymyr Zelenskiy in his interview with Bloomberg considered a possibility of transporting gas from other countries. The transit pipes can also be used to transport other compounds, such as biomethane and hydrogen, or to cover alternative needs, such as the requirements of energy infrastructure.
Alternative solutions
Another narrative that is supposed to reassure others that the situation is under control is Russia having alternative routes for transporting gas. Despite the international sanctions, Moscow is looking for potential intermediaries in future gas deals. One of the most popular candidates is Turkey, followed by Serbia and Belarus. The Kremlin’s propagandists claim that Russia will be able not only to maintain the usual level of gas exports but also to increase them in the future thanks to new sales routes.
Despite the assurances, increasing or even maintaining the amount of gas transportation is highly doubtful, seeing as the TurkStream has a lower transit capacity and is already “filled to the brim” by the gas that is transported from Turkey to the countries of the Balkan Peninsula and Central Europe.
Some of the Russian propagandists are also speculating on the topic of the Nord Stream being “unfrozen” and being used to bypass Ukraine. As leaders of the parties that have the best chance of forming a coalition after the February elections have publicly acknowledged that the pipeline is a tool for geopolitical pressure on the EU’s largest economy, Germany making a move of this sort seems unlikely. Of course, the Kremlin has an ally in renewing Berlin’s energy infrastructure dependence on Moscow in the face of the far-right political force Alternative For Germany (Alternative für Deutschland, AfD). However, as Christoph Halser, an analyst for the German research company Rystad Energy, points out, at the moment Germany lacks the “political consensus” needed to make a decision like this.
Europe’s dedication to diversifying its gas purchases is also a significant obstacle for the Kremlin. For example, in 2022 the European Commission implemented the REPowerEU project, which is meant to stop the global dependency on Russian fossil fuels. The Russian pipeline gas imports declined by 40% in 2021, and by 8% in 2023, with the European countries’ efforts to reduce the dependence on Russian energy products continuing to grow.
The map of Russian gas pipelines to Europe. Source: theweek.com
The man-made crisis
Ironically, the grim scenario Russia painted for the UN if it were to refuse Russian gas happened in the pro-Russian Transnistria, which is a part of Moldova that Russia occupied in 1992. In Transnistria hot water and heating were turned off for household consumers after the transit of Russian gas through Ukraine was stopped. Only some critical infrastructure enterprises such as hospitals had access to gas. Under these conditions, Russian propaganda rushed to accuse Ukraine, Moldova, and the EU of deliberately creating a humanitarian catastrophe to pursue their own political goals and change the occupant government in Tiraspol.
Pro-Russian protesters in Transnistria accuse Moldova of “genocide of the Transnistrian people” after cutting off Russian gas supplies
Despite the active search for the culprits and “finger-pointing” executed by the Russian propagandists, the situation in Transnistria was man-made chaos. Foreseeing the humanitarian crisis, the Moldovan government offered Tiraspol its help in purchasing gas from neighboring European countries. However, this scenario was unprofitable for Moscow, as solving the problem this way would refute the Kremlin’s narrative of Russian oil and gas being irreplaceable. Moreover, it would ruin the information bubble for the people of Transnistria and limit Russia’s ability to manipulate Moldova’s electoral and political climate.
Therefore, not only does Ukraine’s decision to stop the transition of Russian gas limit Russia’s capacity to finance its imperial appetites, but it also undermines Moscow’s ability to interfere with other countries’ politics by using its “energy infrastructure leash”. Still, the Kremlin is trying to compensate for the loss of the gas pipe as a means of corrupting political elites and influencing electoral preferences in European countries by spreading propaganda.
Viktoriia Odusanvo
