The Dangerous Allure of Cheap Energy: Why Belgium’s PM is Wrong on Russia
There’s a certain irony in the fact that a call for ‘common sense’ can often be the least sensible thing in a crisis. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever’s recent suggestion to normalize relations with Russia to secure cheap energy is a case in point. On the surface, it sounds pragmatic—Europe is struggling with soaring energy costs, and Russia has the resources. But if you take a step back and think about it, this proposal is not just shortsighted; it’s potentially catastrophic.
The Temptation of Pragmatism
De Wever’s argument hinges on the idea that Europe is ‘losing on all fronts’ and needs a quick fix. Personally, I think this framing is deeply flawed. Yes, energy costs are a pressing issue, but they are a symptom of a much larger problem: Europe’s historical dependence on Russian resources. What many people don’t realize is that this dependence has always come with a price—not just in euros, but in geopolitical leverage. Putin has weaponized energy for years, using it as a tool to divide and weaken the EU. To suggest returning to that dynamic now, after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, feels like a betrayal of both European values and strategic foresight.
The Illusion of Neutrality
One thing that immediately stands out is De Wever’s claim that European leaders privately agree with him but are too afraid to speak up. This raises a deeper question: Are these leaders truly convinced, or are they simply exhausted by the economic strain? From my perspective, the silence is less about fear and more about recognizing the moral and strategic implications of such a move. Normalizing relations with Russia would send a dangerous signal—that aggression pays off, that Europe’s commitments to Ukraine are negotiable. What this really suggests is that De Wever is prioritizing short-term economic relief over long-term stability and justice.
The Historical Echo
A detail that I find especially interesting is De Wever’s reference to the U.S. and its alleged closeness to Putin. This is a curious narrative, given that the U.S. has been one of Ukraine’s strongest supporters. It’s also a distraction from the real issue: Russia’s maximalist demands. As Lithuania’s Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys pointed out, Russia’s 2021 demands were not just about Ukraine—they were about dismantling NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe. If you consider this, De Wever’s proposal isn’t just about energy; it’s about acquiescing to a broader Russian agenda. What makes this particularly fascinating is how it echoes historical appeasement strategies—and we all know how those ended.
The Cost of Weakness
Belgium’s Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot was right to call out De Wever’s stance as a sign of weakness. Easing pressure on Russia now would be giving Putin exactly what he wants: a fractured Europe, willing to sacrifice its principles for temporary relief. But here’s the thing—there is no such thing as a temporary sacrifice when it comes to authoritarian regimes. Every concession is a step toward further exploitation. In my opinion, Europe’s unity and resolve are its greatest strengths. To undermine them for the sake of cheap energy is not just naive; it’s dangerous.
The Broader Implications
If Europe were to follow De Wever’s advice, the consequences would extend far beyond energy prices. It would embolden not just Russia, but other authoritarian regimes, signaling that aggression and coercion are viable strategies. It would also undermine the EU’s credibility as a global actor. What many people don’t realize is that this isn’t just about Ukraine or Belgium—it’s about the rules-based international order. Personally, I think the EU’s decision to phase out Russian energy by 2027, though challenging, is a necessary step toward energy sovereignty and moral integrity.
The Way Forward
De Wever’s proposal is a siren call—tempting but ultimately destructive. Europe’s path forward lies not in returning to the past, but in investing in renewable energy, diversifying its sources, and strengthening its unity. Yes, it will be difficult. Yes, it will take time. But the alternative is far worse. If you ask me, the real ‘common sense’ here is recognizing that freedom and security are worth more than cheap gas.
Final Thoughts
De Wever’s stance is a reminder of how easily pragmatism can slip into complacency. It’s also a testament to the enduring allure of quick fixes in the face of complex problems. But as history has shown, quick fixes rarely fix anything—they just delay the reckoning. Europe’s challenge is not to find a way back to the old normal, but to build a new one. And that starts with saying no to dangerous compromises, no matter how tempting they may seem.
