Efforts by US energy companies to expand their influence in the Western Balkans have raised concerns within the European Union that the region could become dependent on American fossil fuels—just as it strives to meet green energy targets and integrate into the bloc, Politico reports.
Albania, Kosovo, and Bosnia and Herzegovina have shown interest in purchasing large quantities of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the US or developing infrastructure to facilitate natural gas supplies. These countries argue that American natural gas is needed for the transition period—to reduce reliance on Russian gas, phase out coal, and eventually switch to renewable energy sources, all of which are key steps toward EU accession.
EU officials, however, question the necessity and desirability of these proposed projects, given that natural gas is currently barely used in these countries. Saturating the market with natural gas supplies could lock the region into long-term usage and increase dependence on energy imports. The EU has set ambitious targets to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and new member states are expected to align with these goals. Increased natural gas imports jeopardize these climate objectives.
Meanwhile, the US natural gas sector is seizing the opportunity presented by the EU’s rapid move away from Russian natural gas, compounded by tensions in the international market—exacerbated by the conflict involving Iran—which have limited the scope for finding alternative suppliers. Furthermore, the doctrine of the US administration under President Donald Trump aims to secure dominance in the energy market. Speaking at a forum in Vienna, András Hujber, the EU’s energy diplomacy lead for the Western Balkans, noted that countries seeking EU membership have committed to phasing out fossil fuels. In this context, importing natural gas into the region would conflict with critical decarbonization goals. He added that deals with the US would go beyond what is necessary to replace Russian gas and would increase the region’s carbon emissions.
Hujber emphasized that gas should not be introduced into markets where it was not previously used.
Huijbers referred to the initial agreement between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Washington, which envisaged the construction of a pipeline from the island of Krk in the Adriatic Sea. The project has been controversial since the Bosnian parliament passed a law earlier this year designating AAFS—a small company led by individuals close to Trump—as the main pipeline operator. In addition to concerns regarding carbon emissions, this has raised suspicions of potential corruption.
EU officials have indicated that this could jeopardize Bosnia’s bid to join the bloc. On the 22nd of September, Hujber stated that the EU ambassador had sent official letters highlighting the project’s potential risks. He added that the European Commission plans to monitor developments but did not disclose what measures might be taken.
Sarajevo’s decision has drawn condemnation from the Energy Community. This initiative helps countries aspiring to join the EU (including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Kosovo, Serbia, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, and Macedonia) align their regulations with the bloc’s laws; however, deeper US involvement in the region threatens this process. Artur Lorkowski, Director of the Energy Community, stated that the message to Bosnia is that while EU legislation promoted by the Community does not dictate who the supplier must be, it is essential to ensure a level playing field within the regulatory framework. In other words, the Community does not want Bosnia to be an exception or to enjoy privileged market access.
None of the deals with the US have yet been ratified.
The Bosnian connection requires approval from the country’s upper house, while the Albanian deal—structured as a 20-year agreement involving Greece and the US company Venture Global—currently exists only as a memorandum of understanding and is awaiting the results of an assessment. Kosovo, too, has not yet made a definitive decision. Serbia and North Macedonia could also receive US natural gas via the Greek connection.
A representative of the US Department of Energy did not directly answer questions regarding the transparency of the potential deals but noted that they would foster regional stability, lower energy prices, strengthen trade, and bring prosperity. Despite EU disapproval, officials from Balkan countries have stated that deals with the US are necessary to align with the EU’s transition to green energy. This transition will require significant natural gas reserves to meet basic energy needs once coal usage is phased out or when less predictable energy sources fail to supply the required amount of power.
In Albania, a large part of the energy sector relies on hydroelectric power plants; however, their operation is becoming unpredictable due to climate change, as river water levels are often insufficient. This creates a need for natural gas. Currently, only 1.8% of the country’s energy is generated using natural gas.
Moving away from Russian natural gas has created a gap in the market. Bosnia has only one gas pipeline supplying gas from Russia, meaning there is no alternative in an emergency situation. A representative from the Ministry of Energy of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that the “Southern Interconnection” project is not intended to make the country dependent on natural gas; rather, it aims to end reliance on a single supply route and source, thereby enhancing the country’s energy security. She added that natural gas is a transition fuel, not the ultimate goal of energy policy.
Read also: Significant dissatisfaction brews over the lifting of EU sanctions on Russian billionaires
US efforts to supply gas to Balkan nations have alarmed Brussels
