Europe remains vulnerable to geopolitical shocks from distant regions and, despite investing in renewable energy, oil continues to be a central element of the European economy, believes the president of the Intelligent Energy Association (AEI), Dumitru Chisăliță.
In an analysis sent on Saturday, the energy specialist presented how other EU countries are protecting the population and the economy from rising fuel prices.
“Europe’s response shows one key thing: the continent remains vulnerable to geopolitical shocks from far-flung regions. While the energy transition and investment in renewable energy are in full swing, oil continues to be a central element of the European economy. The crisis of March 2026 is thus a new reminder of this dependence. The measures adopted by governments can mitigate the short-term effects, but they do not solve the structural problem. As long as transport and a large part of industry depend on fossil fuels, every major geopolitical tension will have a direct impact on Europeans’ pockets,” said Chisăliță.
According to him, the first two weeks of March this year “brought Europe back to a situation that many leaders hoped to have left behind: the brutal volatility of the energy market.” Thus, the rise in oil prices to nearly $120 per barrel, fueled by the conflict in the Middle East and the risks to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, forced European governments to react quickly to avoid a new spiral in fuel prices.
“Europe’s response was pragmatic, but also fragmented. In the absence of immediate coordinated intervention at the European Union level, states resorted to classic national instruments: price caps, tax reductions, market control and security measures for oil transportation. The first reaction came from the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe, where governments chose direct intervention in the market. Hungary, Croatia and Slovenia imposed caps on fuel prices or maintained control mechanisms to limit rapid increases. The political logic is clear: fuel is not just an economic product, but a major social factor. The sharp increase in the price of gasoline or diesel is immediately transmitted to the cost of transportation, food and basic goods,” Chisăliță shows, according to Agerpres.
He says that, however, price caps are a double-edged sword. In the short term, they protect the population and transporters. In the long term, however, it can distort the market and discourage supply, especially if the difference between the real and the capped price becomes too large. For this reason, such measures are almost always temporary, the specialist argues.
In this context, he mentioned two special measures taken by some European authorities: the state-owned oil company in Poland reduced margins on its own initiative, and in Denmark, walking, cycling and public transport are promoted.
The second strategy, much more widespread in Western Europe, was the reduction of taxes and excise duties, notes Chisăliță. Thus, Portugal offered fuel discounts, and Italy discussed mechanisms for variable excise duties or temporary reductions. Romania has also analyzed the reduction of excise duties to prevent the psychological threshold of 10 lei per liter from being exceeded.
In the specialist’s opinion, this solution has the advantage of directly intervening on the final price without completely distorting the market. The disadvantage, however, is fiscal, believes the AEI president, because fuels represent a major source of income for state budgets. “Any reduction in excise duties means lower revenues for the state, at a time when many European governments are already facing high budget deficits,” explained the energy specialist.
According to him, in parallel, some states have tried to send a clear political signal to energy companies. France has intensified controls at gas stations to identify possible speculative price increases, and Italy has discussed the possibility of taxing excessive profits of energy sector companies. These measures also have a symbolic dimension because they show public opinion that governments do not allow a geopolitical crisis to become an opportunity for excessive profit, adds Chisăliță.
At the European level, the reaction has been more cautious, the analyst noted. The European Union has monitored the situation and emphasized that member states have approximately 85-90 days of strategic oil reserves. For now, Brussels has not decided to release these reserves, considering that global supplies are not yet in danger.
“IEA member countries should normally hold reserves equivalent to at least 90 days of oil imports, precisely in order to be able to intervene in such crises,” the AEI president said.
At the same time, some European states have also acted strategically. The UK, Germany and Italy have cooperated to protect commercial oil transport in the Strait of Hormuz area, one of the world’s most important energy routes. Approximately a fifth of the oil traded globally passes through this area, and any disruption would have immediate effects on the markets.
“Europe has shown that it can react quickly. The question that remains is whether it can become sufficiently energy independent so that such crises no longer produce major economic and social shocks,” the AEI president concluded.