Croatia signed a deal with the United States on Wednesday to boost the expansion of gas pipelines and energy infrastructure throughout the Balkans, a step that could bind the country to long-term reliance on fossil fuels and threaten the EU’s energy and climate objectives.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The agreement, signed in Dubrovnik by US Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković, comes as Zagreb phases out Russian oil and gas in line with EU rules requiring member states to reduce dependence on Moscow after it weaponised energy following the war in Ukraine.
As part of this shift, Croatia has invested in the liquefied natural gas (LNG) floating terminal on the island of Krk, inaugurated in 2021, which supplies Zagreb and southeast European countries such as Italy, Bosnia and Serbia.
US Energy Secretary Wright hailed the new agreement as a “new era of cooperation” between the US Trump administration and Central and Eastern European countries.
“These partnerships are rooted in our mutual support for an energy addition agenda — more jobs, more opportunity, and more investment. All of this is evidenced by the billions of dollars of deals signed today,” said Wright, adding that nations pursuing “common sense energy policies” will see an “extremely bright future”.
But critics of the US investment in Croatia’s Krk LNG terminal point to the environmental risks to the Adriatic, a lack of transparency in planning, and concerns about the project’s long-term economic viability and the risk of stranded assets. They also argue that construction could take at least a decade.
US cements dominance in Croatia and Balkans
Plenkovic has argued that US investment in energy infrastructure in Croatia comes on top of the current 67% of LNG that Zagreb imports from Washington, both for domestic consumption and for other operators in the region.
“We have diversified the roots of supply of gas and oil to the countries of central and eastern Europe, which was a strategic decision that has completely altered the previously fully dependent energy situation on Russian fossil fuels,” Plenkovic told an interview on April 29.
The Croatian Prime Minister justified the country’s decision to strike a deal with the US as a way to “ensure energy security and independence”, citing ongoing geopolitical disruptions with the war against Iran raging on and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Croatia-Bosnia new gas pipeline
Zagreb has also struck a deal with Bosnia to build the long-discussed Southern Interconnection gas pipeline. The deal, reached on the sidelines of the Three Seas Initiative summit in Dubrovnik, is being framed by officials as a breakthrough that could loosen Bosnia’s longstanding dependence on Russian gas.
The planned pipeline would link Bosnia to Croatia’s gas network and, crucially, to the LNG terminal on the island of Krk. The pipeline is expected to strengthen Bosnia’s integration into European energy networks, improve supply stability and potentially attract further infrastructure investment.
Yet the scale of the project, estimated to cost well over a billion euros, has prompted questions about long-term viability, particularly as Europe accelerates its transition toward renewable energy.
The agreement has also exposed tensions with Brussels, as EU officials have raised concerns that elements of the deal—including the prominent role granted to a non-European investor—could conflict with EU market rules and complicate Bosnia’s path to accession.
Environmental woes
Meanwhile, environmental groups warn that such large investments in gas risk entrenching the country’s reliance on fossil fuels at a time when the bloc is pushing for decarbonisation.
In a joint statement spearheaded by the Aarhus Center and the NGO CEE Bankwatch Network, the groups warned that governments in the Western Balkans are being pushed to expand gas infrastructure, including cross-border interconnectors, LNG terminals, and gas-fired power plants.
Such developments, they argue, would lock the region into higher fossil fuel use, increase reliance on imported energy and exacerbate environmental pollution.
“In the midst of yet another fossil fuel crisis, it’s unbelievable that governments are still planning new gas pipelines and power plants. They would cost billions, even before the costs of gas are included, and would likely end up as stranded assets, or be heavily subsidised by taxpayers,” said Pippa Gallop, Campaigner at CEE Bankwatch Network.
