As xwdv points out, it's implied, inescapably, by two points:
1) it blames the EU, somehow, instead of Russia
2) if by some magical thinking one avoids blaming Russia somehow, the only other possible thing the EU could have done wrong is to have not somehow built a lot more of its own fossil-fuel infrastructure and production, earlier. Which isn't really a strong argument, but if you're trying really hard to avoid admitting that Russia is the problem, and you have a bone to pick about relying more on fossil fuels, that's the only trick in the bag.
Russia is the primary problem. The secondary problem - as it pertains to the energy context - was the EU's (affluent Europe more broadly) wide failure to understand or accept what Russia is (and what consequences the Russian culture would inevitably produce again for Europe, namely wars of conquest against their neighbors).
If they'd actually done the thing everyone is blaming it on (ie. spend vastly more on renewables than fossil fuels or nuclear) it wouldn't be a problem
1) it blames the EU, somehow, instead of Russia
2) if by some magical thinking one avoids blaming Russia somehow, the only other possible thing the EU could have done wrong is to have not somehow built a lot more of its own fossil-fuel infrastructure and production, earlier. Which isn't really a strong argument, but if you're trying really hard to avoid admitting that Russia is the problem, and you have a bone to pick about relying more on fossil fuels, that's the only trick in the bag.