The EU’s Energy Addiction Is Prolonging the War in Ukraine

Suppose a man claims loyalty to a besieged neighbor while secretly funding the attackers, insisting all the while that his hands are clean. The contradiction would not only be moral but existential. Yet this is precisely the position Europe finds itself in as it publicly pledges unwavering support for Ukraine while quietly underwriting Russia's capacity to wage war. This is not conjecture or polemic. It is the cold arithmetic of commerce laid bare by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA): in the third year of Russia’s war against Ukraine, the European Union paid more money to Russia for fossil fuels than it gave to Ukraine in aid. The truth is stark. Europe is funding both sides of the war.

It is easy to speak of solidarity. It is harder to forgo comfort. Brussels has indulged in fifteen rounds of sanctions, photo-ops with Zelensky, and rhetorical condemnations of Putin’s aggression. Yet beneath these gestures lies a deeper inertia. The EU, through its insatiable appetite for Russian energy, continues to send Moscow billions of euros, euros that are quickly transubstantiated into bullets, drones, and artillery shells. It is one thing to fail to stop a tyrant. It is another to quietly hand him the means of destruction while decrying his tyranny.

Let us examine the numbers. In the 2024–2025 fiscal year, the EU imported €21.9 billion worth of fossil fuels from Russia. These imports were not static. They expanded. Russian pipeline gas, notably through Turkstream, grew 21 percent year over year, totaling €6.2 billion. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Russia added another €7 billion to the Kremlin's coffers, with volumes up 9 percent. Even nations presumed stalwart in the cause of Ukraine were among the biggest enablers. France increased its Russian LNG imports by 46 percent. The Netherlands, by 81 percent. The cumulative impact is not just material, but moral.

By contrast, financial aid from the EU to Ukraine in that same period stood at €18.7 billion—not insignificant, but notably less than the sum paid to Russia. In other words, Europe gave the arsonist more than it gave the fire brigade. The supposed ethical posture of the European Union, its declarations of democracy and liberty, collapses under the weight of this economic complicity.

To be fair, the European dependency on Russian energy did not materialize ex nihilo. It is the result of decades of policy misjudgment, appeasement, and self-inflicted strategic vulnerability. But what matters now is not how Europe arrived at this juncture, but that it remains unwilling to exit it. The CREA report identifies not merely the existence of trade, but the persistence of active and growing commerce with Russia in sectors directly linked to Kremlin revenues.

Consider the specific exemptions carved out for Hungary, Slovakia, and Czechia, which were permitted to continue importing Russian crude via pipeline, totaling €4.9 billion in 2024 alone. These are not aberrations, but sanctioned transactions. The effect is to fragment the unity Europe claims to possess and to embolden Russia with a steady stream of hard currency.

It is not only through direct imports that Europe fuels Russia. CREA’s analysis shows that the EU, along with its G7 partners, has also indirectly sustained Russian revenues through the importation of refined petroleum products from Indian and Turkish refineries using Russian crude. These laundered imports totaled €18 billion, of which half, €9 billion, came from Russian-origin crude. Of that, €4 billion made its way to Moscow in the form of tax revenues. Here the hypocrisy becomes even more egregious. Not only does Europe fail to cut off the head of the snake, it purchases its venom after it has passed through a foreign middleman.

These refined products, euphemistically rebranded as non-Russian, are the diplomatic equivalent of a fig leaf: the substance remains the same, even if the label has changed. Such laundering is not only a moral dereliction, but a policy failure. The Russian government has proven adept at exploiting these loopholes, developing a fleet of so-called "shadow tankers" operating in murky legal and maritime gray zones. According to CREA, 61 percent of Russia’s seaborne oil exports were transported on these tankers in 2024, totaling €83 billion in value. A significant share of these ships passed through EU waters or engaged in ship-to-ship transfers under the EU’s very nose. Roughly 43 percent of these transfers involved shadow fleet vessels.

When an aggressor adapts faster than its opponents, it gains the upper hand. Russia’s ability to adjust to Western sanctions is not simply a testament to its cunning but a rebuke of the EU’s inconsistency. It is difficult to argue that Europe is doing everything it can to aid Ukraine when it cannot even police its own ports or shipping lanes. The CREA report leaves little ambiguity: despite sanctions and public indignation, the EU’s energy imports from Russia remain largely unchanged. And more damning still, they exceeded the aid given to the nation under siege.

The metaphysical structure of this contradiction is simple: one cannot consistently act in a way that presupposes two mutually exclusive outcomes. One cannot both assist the victim and empower the assailant. Europe’s posture is untenable not merely because it is ineffective, but because it is internally incoherent. If Europe truly supports Ukraine, then it must cease underwriting Russia. If it cannot or will not, then its support is mere theater, a simulacrum of virtue in the age of moral relativism.

And herein lies the most damning element. This is not a war that Europe is merely watching. It is a war it is materially prolonging. Every euro sent to Gazprom is a signal to Moscow that the war effort will not be punished in any meaningful way. Every shipment of LNG received in Rotterdam is a whisper to the Kremlin that Europe can be bought, not with ideology or intimidation, but with convenience.

This strategic incoherence is not only prolonging the war, it is undermining the very diplomatic effort that could end it. President Trump, since returning to office, has floated ceasefire proposals that hinge upon halting foreign aid escalations, solidifying territorial boundaries in contested regions, and refocusing NATO's posture on defense rather than entanglement. Whether one agrees with these proposals is beside the point. What matters is that any peace framework is unworkable so long as Russia enjoys a reliable revenue stream from Europe. Without pressure on the economic tap, there is no incentive for Putin to come to the table.

If Brussels insists on encouraging Zelensky to "stay the course," then Brussels must be prepared to suffer with him. That means an immediate and total cessation of Russian fossil fuel imports. It means energy austerity, economic recalibration, and political courage. Anything less is complicity, purchased in comfort and paid for in Ukrainian blood.

Europe cannot have it both ways. It cannot fund the war and end it. It must choose. And history will remember what it chose.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏.

---

SUMMARY: The CREA report offers extensive evidence supporting the thesis that Europe is, paradoxically, financing both sides of the Ukraine war, by sending aid to Ukraine while simultaneously fueling Russia’s war machine through energy imports. The data show that EU fossil fuel imports from Russia in the third year of the invasion exceeded the financial aid it gave to Ukraine. Here are the key facts and arguments:

1. Europe Sends More Money to Russia for Energy than It Gives to Ukraine

• In the third year of the war (2024–2025), the EU imported €21.9 billion worth of Russian fossil fuels, while only €18.7 billion was sent in financial aid to Ukraine​.

• This includes: €9.6 billion in pipeline gas €7 billion in LNG €4 billion in pipeline oil​

• This means EU energy payments to Russia exceeded its Ukraine aid by over €3 billion, effectively subsidizing both sides of the war.

2. Imports of Russian Gas and LNG Are Growing, Not Shrinking

• Despite 15 rounds of sanctions, Russian pipeline gas flows to the EU continue freely, especially via Turkstream, with a 21% year-on-year increase totaling €6.2 billion​.

• Russian LNG imports into the EU reached €7 billion in the same year, with import volumes rising by 9%​.

• France increased LNG imports by 46%, and the Netherlands by 81%, undermining any illusion of broad European disengagement from Russian energy sources.

3. Loopholes and Exemptions Help Russia Sidestep Sanctions and Enrich Its War Chest

• The EU allowed Hungary, Slovakia, and Czechia to continue importing Russian crude via pipeline, totaling €4.9 billion in the third year alone​.

• G7+ countries (including the EU) also indirectly funded Russia through refined oil imports from Indian and Turkish refineries using Russian crude: €18 billion in total imports €9 billion derived from Russian crude €4 billion in tax revenue flowed back to the Kremlin​

4. Russian Strategic Adaptation and EU Loopholes Sustain Kremlin Revenues

• Russia earned €242 billion globally from fossil fuel exports in the third year of the war, and a staggering €847 billion since the invasion began​.

• The EU’s energy interdependence has weakened its leverage. For instance: Russia circumvented the oil price cap with a ‘shadow fleet’ of 558 tankers, carrying 61% of seaborne oil exports worth €83 billion​ These “shadow” exports passed through EU waters, increasing ecological risk and sanctions evasion. EU Member States even facilitated ship-to-ship transfers of Russian oil, with 43% of such transfers done by shadow tankers in 2024​

5. Official Recognition of the Contradiction

• The report explicitly states: “Despite the threat posed by dependence on Russian energy... EU imports of Russian fossil fuels remain largely unchanged.” “EU imports in the third year surpassed the €18.7 billion of financial aid sent to Ukraine.”​

Conclusion

The CREA report provides a meticulous account of Europe’s ongoing entanglement with Russian energy, one that materially undermines its political support for Ukraine. By importing more Russian energy than the aid it sends to Kyiv, Europe is, in effect, financing both the defense and the destruction of Ukraine. The report is not just a critique of policy hypocrisy, but a damning indictment of Europe's inability, or unwillingness, to sever its economic dependency on an adversary waging war at its doorstep.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏.