Greece (Brussels Morning Newspaper) – In a world marked by growing geopolitical instability, the Western alliance finds itself with a shrinking circle of reliable partners and trading allies. Increasingly, nations are being forced to choose between the U.S.-led order and the alternative axis formed by Russia and China. The European Union, bound by history and politics to the former, has taken up the task—often at Washington’s urging—of forging deeper political and economic ties with strategically important states.
Countries like Turkey, Brazil, Morocco, Qatar, and Azerbaijan have signalled a willingness to engage with the EU and expand bilateral relations. The question, however, is whether Brussels is truly prepared to move beyond rhetoric and meet these partners halfway.
Thus far, the evidence suggests otherwise. Recent dealings with Qatar and Azerbaijan raise doubts about the EU’s capacity to offer meaningful partnerships rather than simply demands. In a multipolar world, influence is not granted—it must be earned.
EU can’t just keep asking
In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the European Union has ramped up efforts to diversify its energy sources, with Azerbaijan emerging as a central player in the bloc’s strategic pivot away from Moscow.
In 2022, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen signed a landmark deal with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev aimed at doubling gas imports from the South Caucasus by 2027. Since February 2022, the EU has cut its dependence on Russian gas from 45% to 13%—a shift not solely driven by the rise of renewable energy, but also by the willingness of key allies, including Baku, to step in and support the bloc’s energy resilience. The success of the TAP project, which despite numerous political pressures made Baku a crucial gas provider for Italy, boosted trust towards Azerbaijan and paved the way for more countries willing to buy fuel from Baku, including Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia etc.
Baku has proven to be a reliable commercial partner in the past. When asked to double its gas supply, it not only agreed in principle but also proposed modernizing infrastructure and securing a long-term supply agreement—steps that would have significantly reduced Europe’s dependency on Russian gas. In contrast, the European Commission pushed for increased gas flows without committing to agreements that would support new drilling or attract the necessary investment to upgrade reserves, all while remaining firmly focused on achieving net-zero emissions by 2030.
The European Commission’s persistent reluctance to solidify its investment relationship with Azerbaijan has increasingly cast Brussels as an unreliable actor on the global stage. For over three years of sustained energy crisis, the burden has fallen squarely on European households and industrial sectors, facing soaring costs and supply insecurity. Unlike New Delhi—which openly rebranded Russian fuels as Indian to maintain its market position—Baku played by the rules, engaging with EU bureaucratic channels and enduring political scrutiny in good faith as part of efforts to formalize a long-term agreement. Yet despite Azerbaijan’s cooperation and strategic relevance, the EU’s indecision continues to undermine its own credibility and energy security ambitions.
Not just a Fuel Pump
As the world’s third-largest exporter of liquefied natural gas—trailing only the United States and Australia—Qatar has entrenched itself as a cornerstone of global energy security. Through its state-owned firm QatarEnergy, Doha maintains long-term LNG supply agreements with major European players such as Shell, TotalEnergies, and ENI.
Crucially, Qatari leadership recognized early on that the United States had little appetite for deep entanglement in the energy architecture of the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Mediterranean—a reticence rooted in Washington’s reluctance to commit politically and militarily to volatile regions. Sensing a strategic vacuum, Qatar seized the moment as a historic opportunity to step in and shape the emerging global energy order on its own terms.
On one hand, the European Union continues to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Russia—even as it publicly accuses the Kremlin of committing war crimes in Ukraine and funnels hundreds of billions of euros into supporting Kyiv. It’s a contradiction that’s hard to ignore: while Brussels frames Moscow as a threat to European security, it has simultaneously increased Russian LNG imports to nearly 20% of its supply.
Meanwhile, the United States—currently responsible for roughly 45% of EU LNG imports—has remained largely disengaged from the political fallout, giving Europe room to shape its own approach. But to the international investment community, the optics are troubling.
At a time when Qatar is being dragged through layers of regulatory bureaucracy—from supply chain compliance to new due diligence mandates—Russia, a state actively engaged in military aggression, continues to benefit from significant energy trade. In effect, the message to investors appears incoherent: geopolitical adversaries are tolerated, while strategic partners are entangled in red tape.
To be clear, the EU’s new regulatory framework—such as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive—is a positive and necessary evolution in responsible investing. But its rollout must be accompanied by a credible roadmap for implementation. That includes modernization plans, phased timelines, and reciprocal infrastructure investment with key allies. Without it, the EU risks undermining both its credibility and its strategic partnerships.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
