Nearly four years into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a striking contradiction defines Europe’s role in the conflict. The European Union, Ukraine’s largest backer in military and humanitarian aid, continues to pour billions of euros into Moscow’s coffers through ongoing purchases of Russian energy.
Despite cutting dependency on Russian oil and gas by roughly 90% since 2022, EU nations still imported over €11 billion worth of Russian energy in just the first eight months of 2025. A Reuters analysis using data from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) reveals that seven EU countries, including pro-Ukraine states like France, the Netherlands, and Belgium, have actually increased their imports this year.
Key Issues
Double-Funding the War: The EU’s aid to Ukraine totals €167 billion, but since 2022, it has spent over €213 billion on Russian energy effectively financing both sides of the war.
Energy Dependency vs. Moral Stance: While the EU banned most Russian oil, it continues to rely heavily on liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports. France, Spain, and Belgium serve as key LNG entry points, with much of the gas later redirected to other EU states.
Corporate Contracts and Loopholes: Major European firms including TotalEnergies, Shell, Naturgy, and SEFE remain tied to long-term contracts with Russia’s Yamal project that stretch into the 2030s or 2040s. Without formal EU sanctions, they claim they are legally bound to continue imports.
Divergent EU Unity: Countries like Hungary and Slovakia, openly friendly with the Kremlin, continue to import pipeline gas. Meanwhile, pro-Ukraine nations cite “market obligations” as justification for their own continued purchases.
Why It Matters
This paradox strikes at the heart of Europe’s moral credibility. While leaders like Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz champion Ukraine’s defense, their nations’ ports and corporations are keeping Russia’s energy trade alive. According to CREA analysts, these revenues remain the largest single source of funding for Moscow’s war effort effectively sustaining the very aggression Europe vows to defeat.
As one analyst put it bluntly: “The Kremlin is quite literally getting funded to continue deploying troops in Ukraine.”
Global and Political Reactions
U.S. President Donald Trump publicly rebuked European leaders at the UN General Assembly last month, accusing them of hypocrisy: “They’re buying oil and gas from Russia while fighting Russia. It’s embarrassing.”
European officials have largely defended themselves by citing contractual obligations and the slow pace of legislative action. The European Commission aims to ban Russian LNG by 2027, but critics say that’s far too late giving Moscow another two years of steady income from Europe’s energy markets.
Implications
Strategic: Europe’s partial retreat risks prolonging Russia’s war and undermines Western sanctions’ effectiveness.
Economic: Replacing Russian gas entirely with U.S. LNG could deepen European dependence on Washington at a time when the U.S. is increasingly using tariffs and trade leverage as geopolitical tools.
Political: The contradiction fuels domestic backlash within Europe, empowering far-right and populist parties that accuse governments of “moral grandstanding abroad while funding war profiteers at home.”
Analysis
Europe’s energy dilemma exposes the limits of moral politics in a globalized economy. The EU’s rhetoric of unity and justice collides with the reality of energy pragmatism where contractual commitments, corporate interests, and market stability often outweigh ethical consistency.
Until Europe severs its last financial link to Russian gas, every tanker docking at a European port will symbolize a moral and strategic failure. The war may be fought in Ukraine, but the money that sustains it still flows through Europe’s pipelines and ports.
With information from Reuters.
