Originally published: March 22, 2022
Revised and republished: July 25, 2026

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine exposed the danger of allowing ideological decarbonization to weaken energy security.
Europe’s dependence on Russian natural gas strengthened an authoritarian state and restricted the democratic world’s ability to respond.
This essay examines the relationship between energy independence, fossil fuels, nuclear power, economic sanctions, and the defense of democracy.

Background

On March 22, 2022, the Sankei Shimbun published an important article by Taishi Sugiyama, Senior Research Fellow at the Canon Institute for Global Studies, in its Seiron column.
The article was titled “Energy Policy in Defense of Democracy.”
Sugiyama’s analysis demonstrated that energy policy is not merely an environmental or economic matter.
It is inseparable from national security, foreign policy, industrial strength, and the survival of democracy itself.
His central warning was clear.
The developed democracies had weakened their own energy foundations while continuing to purchase vast quantities of oil and natural gas from authoritarian states.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine revealed the consequences of that contradiction.

Europe’s Dependence Became a Strategic Vulnerability

Before Russia invaded Ukraine, Europe depended on Russia for approximately 40 percent of its natural-gas imports.
That dependence was not created overnight.
European governments had restricted coal use, reduced domestic oil and gas development, and, in several countries, moved away from nuclear power.
Renewable energy was promoted as the central pillar of a new energy system.
Wind and solar power, however, cannot continuously supply electricity regardless of weather conditions.
When wind generation declined, Europe became even more dependent on natural gas.
As Sugiyama memorably described it, Europe had entrusted its energy future to “the wind and Russia.”
This was not merely an economic mistake.
It was a grave security failure.
A country or region that cannot maintain heating, electricity, transportation, and industrial production without resources supplied by an authoritarian state cannot exercise complete political independence.
Europe imposed sanctions on Russia after the invasion.
Yet it found it extremely difficult to stop importing Russian energy.
Russia’s oil and gas revenues continued to provide enormous financial support for the Russian state.
The democratic world was therefore attempting to punish Russia while continuing to purchase the resources that financed it.

Decarbonization Without Energy Security

The problem was not the desire to improve environmental conditions.
Nor was it wrong to develop new energy technologies.
The problem was the elevation of decarbonization into an absolute political objective, pursued without sufficient attention to national security, economic stability, technological limitations, or emergency preparedness.
Energy policy must be judged by several standards at the same time.
It must provide a stable supply.
It must remain affordable for households and industry.
It must protect national independence.
It must be resilient during wars, disasters, and international crises.
It must also reduce environmental harm through realistic and technologically sound measures.
A policy that satisfies only one of these requirements while ignoring the others cannot be called responsible energy policy.
The developed nations reduced their own production while continuing to consume energy at enormous levels.
The resulting gap was filled by imports from Russia and other authoritarian or politically unstable states.
This did not eliminate the use of fossil fuels.
It merely transferred production, profits, employment, and political influence to other countries.

The Strategic Importance of American Energy

The United States possesses vast oil and natural-gas resources.
The expansion of American shale production transformed the country into one of the world’s leading energy producers.
This productive capacity has strategic value far beyond the American economy.
When the United States increases its energy supply, it can reduce global prices, support allied nations, and weaken the market power of authoritarian exporters.
When it deliberately restricts domestic production without first establishing dependable alternatives, the opposite occurs.
Global supplies become tighter.
Prices rise.
Russia and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries gain greater influence.
The financial burden on households and factories increases.
Authoritarian governments receive more revenue for every barrel of oil and every unit of natural gas they export.
Therefore, expanding energy production in the democratic world can itself become a powerful economic sanction against Russia.
A larger supply from the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan’s partners in the Middle East, and other reliable producers would reduce Russia’s energy income more effectively than declarations alone.

Europe’s Forced Reconsideration

Russia’s invasion forced European governments to reconsider policies that had previously been treated as irreversible.
Germany began constructing liquefied-natural-gas terminals and reconsidering the speed at which coal and nuclear facilities should be abandoned.
The United Kingdom again debated the development of domestic shale-gas resources.
Other European countries sought new LNG contracts and extended the operation of existing power stations.
These changes demonstrated that energy realities cannot be abolished by political slogans.
When a serious crisis occurs, governments inevitably return to the fundamental questions.
Can electricity be supplied continuously?
Can homes be heated?
Can factories continue operating?
Can military and transportation systems obtain sufficient fuel?
Can the country survive without depending on a hostile foreign power?
A government that cannot answer these questions has failed in one of its most basic duties.

What Japan Must Learn

Japan imports most of its oil, natural gas, and coal.
It is therefore especially vulnerable to international supply disruptions and price increases.
Japan must not base its future on a simplistic policy of “renewable energy first.”
Renewable energy can play a useful role, but it cannot by itself guarantee continuous and affordable power for a modern industrial country.
Japan must maintain a diversified energy structure.
Safe nuclear reactors should be restarted after proper inspections and necessary improvements.
Coal-fired power stations should not be indiscriminately abolished when they remain essential to supply stability.
High-efficiency coal technology should continue to be developed.
Long-term LNG contracts must be secured.
Oil reserves and emergency fuel supplies must be maintained.
The electrical grid must be strengthened, and energy storage technology must be developed without exaggerating its present capabilities.
Japan must also protect its manufacturing base.
Electricity prices are not an abstract matter.
They determine whether steel, chemicals, semiconductors, machinery, transportation, agriculture, and countless other industries can continue operating in Japan.
Excessive energy costs drive factories overseas, weaken employment, reduce national tax revenue, and increase dependence on foreign production.
Such a policy cannot protect either the environment or the nation.

A Moratorium on Self-Defeating Policies

In 2022, Sugiyama called for “a moratorium on decarbonization.”
That expression did not mean permanently abandoning every effort to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.
It meant suspending policies that were damaging national security, imposing excessive costs on citizens, and strengthening authoritarian energy exporters.
Japan had adopted a target of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by 46 percent by fiscal 2030 compared with fiscal 2013.
Any numerical target, however, must remain subordinate to the survival and security of the nation.
No government should knowingly destabilize electricity supplies, destroy domestic industry, or increase dependence on authoritarian states merely to preserve the appearance of consistency with a previously announced target.
Targets must be revised when circumstances change.
That is not political failure.
It is responsible government.

Energy Sovereignty and the Defense of Democracy

Energy is the foundation of every modern society.
Without energy, hospitals cannot operate.
Water cannot be supplied.
Food cannot be produced and transported.
Factories cannot manufacture goods.
Communications systems cannot function.
National defense cannot be maintained.
A democracy that abandons control over its energy supply eventually abandons part of its political freedom.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine demonstrated that energy dependence can become a weapon.
It also demonstrated that environmental policy, when separated from reality, can strengthen the very dictatorships that democratic governments claim to oppose.
The lesson is not that environmental protection is unnecessary.
The lesson is that environmental policy must never be allowed to destroy energy security.
The free world must produce more of its own energy, develop reliable technologies, maintain nuclear and fossil-fuel capacity where necessary, and reduce its dependence on authoritarian regimes.
Energy independence is not merely an economic advantage.
It is one of the essential foundations of national sovereignty.
To defend democracy, countries must fundamentally reconsider energy policies that have weakened themselves and enriched dictatorships.
Japan cannot be an exception.

Source Note

This essay was prompted by Taishi Sugiyama’s article “Energy Policy in Defense of Democracy,” published in the Seiron column of the Sankei Shimbun on March 22, 2022.
The present text is an independently written analysis and is not a full reproduction or translation of that article.
MIKIO KISARA