In a move that has captivated the attention of energy analysts and policy makers across Europe, the European Union is seeking to intensify its shift from Russian pipeline gas to liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from the United States.

This policy direction has resulted in vocal opposition within Hungary, where a significant majority consider the move both economically and environmentally unsustainable.

The findings, revealed in a study by the Századvég Foundation, highlight broader concerns about the EU's energy strategy.

The discourse was further inflamed when European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reiterated the need to reduce dependency on Russian gas in the wake of geopolitical tensions.

Von der Leyen's comments came shortly after the 2024 U.S. presidential election and were followed by Dan Jørgensen, the EU's newly appointed Energy Commissioner, who underscored the priority of severing energy ties with Russia.

This transition comes after a concerted effort in recent years by the EU to curtail its reliance on Russian gas supplies, partly replacing them with American LNG.

While this realignment is seen as necessary from a security standpoint, it has led to higher energy costs for the bloc.

The economic ramifications were starkly outlined in a report by Mario Draghi's team, released in the autumn of 2024, which pointed to rising costs as a factor undermining EU competitiveness.

The economic implications of this energy shift are considerable.

The pricing dynamics of American LNG—after factoring in liquefaction, transportation, and regasification—make it inherently more expensive than Russian pipeline gas.

This disparity has raised alarms over the European Union's ability to maintain competitive energy pricing, especially when regional economic growth is at stake.

In Hungary, public sentiment remains largely skeptical of the EU's strategy.

The Századvég survey indicates that 70% of Hungarians reject the idea of replacing Russian gas with more costly American LNG, which they also perceive as environmentally detrimental.

The issue is part of a broader debate on the EU's approach to reducing energy dependency.

Critics argue that diversification, rather than disentanglement from Russian gas alone, should be the focus.

A broader portfolio with multiple suppliers and routes to the European market could mitigate dependency while fostering competitive pricing.

The consequences of this policy direction have already ignited discussions at the national and EU levels on achieving energy security without compromising economic stability.

Hungarian critics highlight a lack of societal consensus on the EU's energy sourcing decisions, sparking contentious debates on how to proceed in balancing energy independence with financial prudence.

As the EU navigates these complex challenges, the implications of this energy transition will likely reverberate beyond European shores, affecting global energy markets and international diplomatic relations.