Before the European Commission even published their official proposal for a ban on Russian gas by the end of 2027, Belgian Minister of Energy Bihet already started  casting doubt over it. His concerns regarding economic consequences, Russian damage claims and security of supply were, however, easily refuted by the Commission. In next week’s European Energy Council, Minister Bihet must pick a side: will he champion European citizens’ interests, democracy and climate and hence the ban, or will he defend the pockets of the Belgian gas industry?

Angelos Koutsis is an energy policy expert at the Belgian environmental and climate NGO Bond Beter Leefmilieu. 

Dr Svitlana Romanko, Founder and Executive Director of Razom We Stand, a Ukrainian NGO advocating against Russian fossil fuels and for the energy transition in Europe 

Joeri Thijs is spokesperson at Greenpeace Belgium

Arnaud Collignon is an energy project manager, at Canopea

Unbeknown to most, Belgian gas grid operator Fluxys has from the beginning played a pivotal role in the success of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG). Back in 2015 –  barely a year after the illegal annexation of the Crimea – Russian company Yamal LNG and Fluxys signed a long-term contract worth 1 billion euros, providing Yamal LNG with access to transshipment and storage capacity at the LNG terminal in Zeebrugge. This in turn enabled ice-class vessels coming from Siberia to transfer LNG onto conventional LNG carriers to cost-effectively ship Russian gas to global markets. These transshipment services were banned in last year’s 14th sanctions package, which Belgium shamefully abstained on during the Council’s vote.

Unfortunately, Fluxys’ involvement with Russian gas didn’t end there. In 2024, 50% of Russian LNG imports to the EU passed through Fluxys’ LNG terminals at Zeebrugge and Dunkirk. According to a recent report by Greenpeace Belgium, 6.2 billion euros worth of Russian LNG was imported in Zeebrugge alone since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This number contrasts starkly with the €3.2 billion that Belgium has sent in aid to Ukraine so far. In total, the Kremlin has already cashed 9.5 billion euros in income tax on the LNG it sold between 2022 and 2024, most of which went to EU countries. Zooming further out, by including gas imported through pipelines, Russia has raked in a cool €106 billion from EU countries buying its gas. 

As ancient Greek writer Aesop would put it: “The haft of the arrow had been feathered with one of the eagle’s own plumes”. Every euro that flows to Moscow fattens the Russian war chest, enhancing the Kremlin’s ability to drop the bombs and missiles that terrorise Ukrainian cities every night. Recent months have seen an escalation of aggression, with Putin getting bolder and directing several drone operations on EU soil. 

The 19th sanctions package, codifying a ban on the import of Russian LNG, is supposed to put an end to this. But sanctions have two weaknesses: they require a unanimous vote, and they need to be renewed every six months. It doesn’t require a lot of imagination to come up with a scenario wherein Hungary and Slovakia decide to veto the next sanctions package or, even worse, decide to halt existing sanctions such as the Russian LNG transshipment ban.

The REPowerEU regulation proposal is supposed to circumvent this weakness: a legislative way to permanently prohibit import and services for Russian fuels, which, crucially, only requires a qualified majority. You would think that Belgium’s Energy Minister, Mathieu Bihet, would fully back the regulation out of atonement for Belgian complicity in the Russian LNG trade, but instead he has been pleading to scrap the proposed ban on LNG services and has busied himself with casting doubt on the validity of the REPowerEU regulation. But do his concerns – regarding the economic impact on Fluxys, security of supply and energy prices, and the legal framework – hold water? 

Economic impact on Fluxys

Minister Bihet requested from the Commission an in-depth economic impact assessment of the proposed Russian gas ban on the LNG terminal of Zeebrugge. Ironically, none other than Fluxys has already made such an assessment. In its 2023 annual report, the grid operator concludes: “there is a limited risk for Fluxys LNG of not achieving the predetermined return”, protected as it is by its windfall profit accounts and the possibility to re-auction unused LNG import capacity slots. 

Security of supply and energy prices

In its proposal, the Commission rightfully points out that our current predicament is inherently risky: “a significant portion of LNG import capacity is controlled by Russian companies … creating a risk … to substantial market distortions, increased prices and threats to critical security”. In addition, market analysts have pointed to an LNG supply glut from 2026 onwards, making any arguments against a Russian gas ban based on security of supply risks and a fear of energy price hike unwarranted. 

Furthermore, it is a bit rich that Minister Bihet, of all people, started voicing these concerns after he decided to postpone the offshore wind tenders in Belgium, jeopardising the Belgian security of supply in a very real sense, with no practical alternative in sight. True European security can never be achieved by remaining dependent on fossil energy from Russia – or even from the US; only accelerating renewable deployment and energy efficiency moves us in the right direction.

Legal certainty and Russian damage claims

Belgium has argued that it needs more reassurance on the legal consequences of breaching contracts. But LNG services are a regulated activity in Belgium, which means all contracts are based on templates approved by the regulator. All of them mention acts by a Belgian government authority or the European Union as a reason to invoke force majeure. The Commission confirms this view in their REPowerEU proposal.

Belgium should walk the talk and display real solidarity with Ukraine, along with renewed leadership in its climate ambitions, by fully endorsing the European Parliament’s position to phase out Russian gas by 2027 at the latest. Yes, this involves putting the public good above financial gains for Fluxys – but who does our government represent again?