As European leaders have declared their intent to play a pivotal role in supporting Ukraine against Russia, their actual energy practices tell a different story.
Just The News reported that a key concern is Europe’s substantial dependency on Russian oil and gas, which considerably funds Moscow's wartime economy despite sanctions and political rhetoric against the Kremlin.
Despite vocal support for Ukraine, Europe's substantial purchases of Russian oil and gas highlight a contradiction that both funds Russia's war efforts and underscores European military weaknesses.
The initial support for Ukraine by European nations, notably France and the UK, included promises to enhance their military spending and direct involvement.
Both countries have expressed commitments to not just financial support but also an increase in troops and resources dedicated to supporting Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression.
Despite these claims towards greater autonomy and support, European countries continue to import large quantities of oil and gas from Russia.
Even after significant sanctions were imposed post-2022, the imports of fossil fuels have only seen a slight decrease. According to the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, Europe spent more on Russian fossil fuels in 2024 than their total financial aid to Ukraine.
Vaibhav Raghunandan from the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air criticized this dependency: “Purchasing Russian fossil fuels is, quite plainly, akin to sending financial aid to the Kremlin and enabling its invasion. [It’s] a practice that must stop immediately to secure not just Ukraine’s future, but also Europe’s energy security,” he stated.
This significant financial flow undercuts the European stance of supporting Ukraine and exposes a critical vulnerability in European energy strategies.
Historical data and recent analyses indicate a worrying trend in the military capabilities of major European powers like France and the UK. Since the end of the Cold War, both nations have seen substantial reductions in their military readiness and capability.
This decline complicates their ability to fulfill their promises of increased support and deployment to conflict zones such as Ukraine.
Michael Shurkin from the RAND Corporation highlighted these issues specifically about France, noting, "[The] French military—now indisputably the most capable in Western Europe—could do a lot of things very well. But it also lacked the depth and the mass to do anything on a large scale for any length of time before it simply ran out of stuff.”
The UK’s commitment was articulated by Sir Keir Starmer in The Telegraph, where he emphasized the UK's readiness to "play a leading role in accelerating work on security guarantees for Ukraine."
This includes not only financial and logistical support but potentially deploying British troops if necessary. Yet, experts like Kenton White and Lord Richard Dannatt have expressed skepticism about the actual capacity of Britain to sustain such commitments due to shortages in troops, supplies, and equipment.
“We haven’t got the numbers and we haven’t got the equipment to put a large force onto the ground for an extended period at the present moment,” Lord Dannatt remarked.
This sentiment underlines a crucial aspect of modern military strategy: the need for not just initial deployment but sustained operational support, which currently seems beyond the capacity of the UK’s armed forces.
The ongoing crisis and the evident gap between intentions and capabilities might urge European nations to rethink their energy policies and military strategies.
Moving away from Russian energy dependencies to more sustainable alternatives could also bolster Europe's geopolitical stance and provide a more robust backing for Ukraine. With strategic adjustments, Europe could potentially align its economic practices with its political commitments, ensuring greater contribution to regional security and stability.