A Pragmatic Pace for the Energy Transition: Putin’s Vision and Russia’s Strategic Path
Muna Chand
The shift to renewable energy is a shared necessity for the world. Yet countries differ over how quickly it should happen, which technologies should lead the way and how the transition should be financed. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s position—that the world should move towards renewable sources gradually, as they become rational and economically viable to use—offers an important argument for practicality in energy policy. It does not reject cleaner energy. It calls for energy security, affordable prices and reliable supplies for households and industries to be built into the transition.
An energy system cannot be transformed overnight by slogans. The infrastructure that heats homes, powers factories, supports hospitals and transport, and generates electricity takes decades to build. Closing existing facilities before reliable alternatives are ready can raise prices, disrupt supply and threaten jobs. Speaking about Europe’s energy crisis in 2021, Putin called for a smooth transition to green technologies and warned that imbalances in investment and markets could create supply problems. Critics saw this as an argument for maintaining dependence on fossil fuels; supporters viewed it as a call to align the transition with real production capacity and consumer affordability.
Russia’s circumstances make its position distinctive. Its vast territory, severe winters, long-distance energy networks and large industrial base create substantial demand. Natural gas, oil and coal remain important, alongside hydropower and nuclear energy. Moscow therefore advocates a diverse energy mix rather than presenting renewables as a sole solution. The strength of this approach lies in matching different sources to different needs: solar and wind can be valuable depending on location and conditions; hydropower and nuclear energy can provide steady generation; and gas can help balance fluctuations in demand and supply in some systems.
Russia’s energy strategy through 2050, approved in 2025, identifies domestic energy security, production capacity, technology and exports as long-term priorities. It also anticipates a continuing role for oil and gas. This shows that Russia’s policy is not based exclusively on renewable energy; it reflects the country’s effort to chart a transition suited to its geography and industrial structure. That path may not fit every nation, but Moscow’s argument deserves serious consideration: each country should shape its energy mix around its resources, climate, economy and infrastructure.
Energy sovereignty is one of the strongest arguments in Russia’s position. A country that relies too heavily on a single technology, supplier or import route can lose room to make independent policy choices. Domestic resources, homegrown technology and a diversified energy system can reduce that risk. When energy is unavailable or unaffordable, ordinary people pay the price—especially low-income households and small businesses. Expanding clean energy therefore requires investment in storage, transmission lines, dependable backup generation and energy efficiency. Putin’s call for a gradual transition can be understood as an appeal to build that wider system.
However, practicality cannot become a reason to postpone the transition indefinitely. The use of fossil fuels contributes to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, while the risks of climate change are well established by science. Russia is not immune to those risks. Thawing permafrost can threaten infrastructure, while forest fires and extreme weather can cause further damage. Gradual change, therefore, must not mean inaction. It should mean clear targets, phased timelines, investment in technology and a fair distribution of the social costs.
This is where the international relevance of Russia’s approach becomes clear. Energy policy should not be forced into a single template; countries need room to choose a pace and mix suited to their circumstances. The challenges facing advanced economies, developing nations and energy-exporting countries are not the same. If renewable energy expansion ignores local manufacturing, employment, transmission networks and storage, targets may remain on paper. At the same time, treating fossil fuels as an unchangeable foundation can slow investment and innovation in cleaner technologies. A balanced policy recognises both risks and works to address them.
Nepal, with its considerable hydropower potential, can also draw lessons from this debate. Increasing hydropower generation is not enough; transmission, storage, regional trade, industrial consumption and price stability matter as well. Studying Russia’s energy policy can help Nepal appreciate the value of a diverse energy mix, reliable supply and long-term infrastructure planning. It can also provide a practical basis for exploring energy cooperation with Russia.
The essence of Putin’s argument is not to stop the energy transition, but to make it sustainable. Cleaner energy is necessary, but the path must match economic capacity, technological readiness and people’s needs. Russia’s gradual, multi-source approach—shaped by its national interests and geographic realities—is worth examining. Treating climate goals and energy security as two foundations of planned change, rather than competing priorities, is a practical necessity for the world today.
