Lorenzo Maria Pacini
Should people, tired of years of sanctions, now sit and listen to the ridiculous justifications of the European ruling class?
Energy Relations Between Russia and Europe Before the Sanctions
In recent years, the global energy crisis has become one of the main factors of economic and social instability. The war in Ukraine, international sanctions against Russia, and new conflicts in the Middle East have profoundly altered the balance of the global energy markets. Against this backdrop, a new chapter of tensions is unfolding between the United States and Europe: while Washington has signaled a possible easing of restrictions on Russian oil to stabilize prices, many European leaders remain determined to maintain-and in some cases strengthen-the sanctions regime.
This strategic divergence is fueling a heated political and social debate. On one side are the governments that believe it is necessary to maintain economic pressure on Moscow; on the other, a segment of European public opinion increasingly concerned about the cost of living and the impact of the energy crisis on national economies.
Before the start of the war in Ukraine in 2022 and the subsequent Western sanctions, Europe and Russia had built an extremely close energy relationship over the course of decades. Moscow was one of the main suppliers of natural gas, oil, and coal to the European continent.
In 2021, approximately 40% of the natural gas imported by the European Union came from Russia, while for oil the share was around 25-30%. Some countries, such as Germany, Italy, Austria, and several Central and Eastern European states, depended significantly on Russian supplies to power their industries, generate electricity, and heat homes.
This trade relationship had developed thanks to major energy infrastructure built in previous years: pipelines such as Nord Stream, Yamal-Europe, and Druzhba had directly connected Russian fields to European markets. The system ensured relative price stability and security of supply, which many European governments considered essential for industrial competitiveness.
The economic value of this trade was enormous. According to various analyses, before the sanctions were imposed, the European Union spent tens of billions of euros annually on Russian fossil fuels. Even after the restrictions, some data indicate that European purchases continued to generate substantial revenue for Moscow: in the third year of the war, EU countries still paid approximately 21.9 billion euros for Russian oil and gas.
This economic relationship was not only commercial but also strategic: Europe depended on Russian energy resources, while Russia depended on the European market for a large portion of its revenue.
With the introduction of Western sanctions, however, this balance has gradually dissolved. The European Union has initiated a process to reduce its energy dependence on Moscow, going so far as to plan the phase-out of Russian gas imports by 2027.
The U.S. shift in approach and the absurd European response
In recent months, however, certain international developments have further complicated the situation. Rising energy prices and geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have created new pressures on global oil markets.
President Donald Trump's administration adopted a controversial measure: the United States granted a temporary waiver on sanctions against Russian oil, allowing the delivery of shipments already in transit with the aim of stabilizing international energy prices. The decision was motivated by the need to avoid a further energy shock at a time when the conflict with Iran and tensions in the Strait of Hormuz threatened to drastically reduce global oil supply. Allowing millions of barrels already produced but blocked by sanctions to reach the market was seen by Washington as a way to mitigate the surge in prices.
The U.S. decision was interpreted by many observers as an important political signal, in which the priority would be the stability of energy markets and the protection of the domestic economy from the effects of inflation. A more pragmatic approach to the management of energy sanctions, considering that energy remains one of the most sensitive factors for global economic stability.
The response from many European governments, however, has been highly critical. Indeed, we might even call it irrational. Several leaders have expressed concern that easing energy restrictions could reduce economic pressure on Russia and thus weaken the West's strategy in the Ukrainian conflict.
Leaders of EU institutions have emphasized that maintaining sanctions is essential to limit Moscow's energy revenues, which represent a major source of funding for the Russian economy and the war effort; thus, any easing of restrictions would risk strengthening Russia's position. France, Germany, and other allied countries have argued that the U.S. exemption could weaken the cohesion of the Western front against Moscow. The European position, therefore, remains focused on continuing the strategy of energy decoupling from Russia, even at the cost of facing a period of severe economic instability. And all this despite the blatant failure of the sanctions, the effects of which are felt continuously every day.
The logic of European power structures is sheer madness. For them, it is better to starve the people in the name of war, their blind ideology, and elitist interests.
The economic impact on European citizens
While the confrontation between the United States and the European Union plays out primarily on the geopolitical level, the most tangible effects of the energy crisis are manifesting in the daily lives of eurozone citizens.
We know that in recent years, the prices of fuel, electricity, and household gas have fluctuated sharply, with increases rippling through the entire economic chain of transportation, industrial production, agriculture, and services. The result is a general increase in the prices of many consumer goods. When energy costs rise, so do production and distribution costs, and these price hikes inevitably end up being passed on to consumers. The recent rise in fuel prices-due to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz-has sparked protests and demonstrations, with a growing segment of the public believing that the geopolitical decisions made by governments have been misguided and detrimental to the very survival of entire segments of the population.
Energy-intensive companies, such as steel mills, chemical plants, and manufacturing facilities, are among the hardest hit. In some cases, energy costs have drastically reduced profit margins, forcing some firms to cut production or relocate part of their operations to countries with lower energy prices.
But wait, didn't they want to prepare weapons for war ? How will military companies produce the weapons to fight against the Russian enemy?
War or not, what is happening will not be without long-term consequences. The energy debate is therefore destined to remain one of the central themes of European politics in the coming years. The decisions made today do not concern only foreign policy or international security, but directly influence the cost of living, economic competitiveness, and social stability of European countries. Should people, tired of years of sanctions, now sit and listen to the ridiculous justifications of the European ruling class?
Years ago, Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, a well-known wheeler-dealer banker at the ECB, said, "Do you prefer gas or peace?" justifying the rise in gas prices following sanctions against Russia. Today, this political threat echoes in people's minds, but with slightly different words: "Do you prefer gas or Israel's victory?" And while the people suffer, the ruling elites are raking in the profits.