[en] Sweden’s energy policy is frequently portrayed as a model of sustainability in Europe. Nevertheless, as Kaijser et al. (2012) demonstrated it, the Swedish energy choices aren’t only guided by environmental considerations but are also strongly influenced by geopolitical issues. Crimea’s annexation and the multiplication of airspace incursions by Russian planes since 2014 have fostered the development of the New Cold War discourse in Swedish political debates. The activities of Sweden’s great eastern neighbor became a recurring topic in every political controversy and particularly in the debate over the country’s future energy choices. The fear of Russia is a traditional political theme in Sweden. Critics on Russian authoritarianism increased in Sweden after Vladimir Putin reelection in 2009. These reproaches reached a new climax during the 2014 general and European elections which took place in the middle of the Ukrainian crisis. This paper aims at understanding how and why the fear of Russia shapes the debate over the country’s energy policy. Based on the methodology of radical geopolitics, our research relies on three field studies done in Stockholm before, during and after the elections. This paper is organized as follows. Firstly, we demonstrate that the concerns over the country’s potential dependence on Russian gas imports increased in 2014 partly due to the reorganization of the European pipeline system. Then, we underline that Sweden elaborated its energy policy to minimize the influence of Russia in the Baltic states in two ways. Firstly, it encouraged their integration in the Nord Pool, a common energy market. Secondly, it promotes the construction of new energy export infrastructure. We suggest that these strategies are reinforced by a discourse presenting electricity exports as a tool to develop the Swedish Soft Power in the Baltic region. Finally, we argue that the fear of Russia increased in 2014 because the New Cold War narrative was deliberately used by political parties during the campaign to defend their program.