By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite the European Union’s efforts to reduce reliance, seven member states increased their Russian energy imports in 2025. These imports, totaling over 11 billion euros in the first eight months, include substantial increases from France and the Netherlands. This contradicts the EU’s broader goal and has drawn criticism, particularly from the United States, who deem the continued purchases as funding the ongoing war. Much of the trade involves liquefied natural gas, and long-term contracts with major energy firms perpetuate the reliance, which is viewed as a “form of self-sabotage” by experts.
Read the original article here
Seven EU states have increased their imports of Russian energy in 2025, Reuters reports, and this has definitely sparked a conversation. It’s a bit of a head-scratcher, isn’t it? The European Union, aiming to wean itself off Russian fossil fuels, and yet, here we are, with seven member states apparently doing the opposite.
In the first eight months of 2025, over 11 billion euros ($12.7 billion) worth of Russian energy was imported by the EU. This is despite a significant reduction in dependence since 2022, a very important fact to remember. France is a key player in this, experiencing a substantial 40% year-on-year jump in imports. The Netherlands isn’t far behind, with imports skyrocketing by 72%. Belgium, Croatia, Romania, Portugal, and Hungary also saw increases, with Hungary’s rise being 11%.
Hungary and Slovakia are still major buyers of Russian oil and gas, accounting for a substantial portion of the bloc’s energy bill. Vaibhav Raghunandan from the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) calls this “a form of self-sabotage,” and it is hard to disagree. Given that Russia’s energy revenue is its primary funding source for the war, it does seem counterintuitive.
France’s energy ministry points out that its increased imports are partly due to its role as a transit hub, supplying other European countries. Market data suggests some of this gas is being forwarded to Germany. The Dutch government has also mentioned it supports EU plans to phase out Russian energy, but existing contracts make this a slow process.
A significant portion of this trade involves liquefied natural gas (LNG). LNG now makes up nearly half of all EU oil and gas purchases from Russia. Major energy companies like TotalEnergies, Shell, and Gunvor are locked into long-term contracts, some extending well into the 2030s and 2040s.
The United States has been very vocal in its criticism of this trend. U.S. President Donald Trump, speaking at the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, urged European nations to immediately stop buying energy from Russia, calling it “inexcusable.” He argued that NATO allies are essentially funding the war they oppose.
There’s a strong sentiment that this is a case of hypocrisy. Some point out that while the EU is reducing its overall dependence, the fact that some countries are increasing imports is a problem. Then again, there’s also the perspective that Europe’s manufacturing industry is dependent on cheap Russian energy to compete globally. It is also important to remember that Europe is not a country and its members have very different needs. Portugal, for example, doesn’t have oil or LNG reserves.
Europe’s lack of natural resources compared to many other parts of the world is a major factor. Some believe Europe should have focused on developing its own energy sources, like nuclear power, coal-fired power plants with carbon capture technology, or expanding its capacity for photovoltaic and hydroelectric energy.
The point is, for some, the situation is far more nuanced than the headlines might suggest. Some countries are in a bind, they have a reliance on existing contracts, legal ramifications of abandoning them and they don’t have readily available alternatives. There’s a lot of debate about the best path forward.
The Dutch government, as an example, is legally bound to fulfil existing contracts, so any phase-out is a process that can’t happen overnight. This might seem to reflect a dependence on existing systems and supply chains, not necessarily a lack of commitment to the wider cause. Some commentators feel it would be a mistake to cut off Russia’s cheap energy supply, advocating instead for a strategic transition.
Many find it difficult to replace these volumes of energy so quickly and suggest that diversifying supply and not increasing purchases from Russia in the first place is the better route. Others focus on the fact that Europe is reducing its imports overall, while some other countries are buying more and suggest focusing on that as a more pressing matter.
It’s worth noting that legal frameworks play a crucial role. Current EU law doesn’t ban Russian LNG, and private contracts are legally binding. Violating these contracts would incur massive financial penalties. A full EU-wide ban is planned for 2026–2028. The situation is complex, and while there’s widespread agreement on the need to reduce reliance on Russian energy, the methods and timing are clearly up for debate.