SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
We are pushing the planet towards mass species extinction, irreversible biodiversity loss, and socio-economic collapse—a fact that Western elites have tried to bypass or ignore for decades. This war must end. So must our addiction to oil and gas.
There is no more vivid and undeniable proof that Russia is a terrorist state than what we witnessed last week: one of the most prestigious pediatric medical facilities in Ukraine and Europe, Okhmatdyt Children’s Hospital in Kyiv, was turned into rubble by a deliberate and targetedmissile attack on July 8.
While Ukrainians confront the brutality of this act of terror with sorrow and grim determination, we call for solidarity and action to address the root of the problem: the world’s addiction to oil, which finances Putin’s regime and his terror campaigns. This addiction also fuels the escalating trade of fossil fuels, driving the global warming and climate disruption that has killed dozens this week alone in the USA. We are pushing the planet towards mass species extinction, irreversible biodiversity loss, and socio-economic collapse—a fact that Western elites have tried to bypass or ignore for decades.
With the Kremlin's blood oil profits amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars, Putin is attempting to build a zombie USSR by funnelling revenues from these exports into his war economy and strengthening totalitarian state control.
Encouraged by impunity and fueled by ongoing flows of Western cash despite sanctions, Putin continues to escalate his terror campaign against Europe and his war against the people of Ukraine. However, his empire can be reduced to rubble with one decisive action: if the West finally heeds the call of its scientists and activists to end its dependency on dirty energy.
Despite sanctions, Russia is selling increasing amounts of oil. Every day, Russia receives over $300 million from crude oil exports alone and around $700 million from all fossil fuels combined. Russia’s federal budget, which has a record allocation to the military this year, relies on these revenues for half of its income.
If the West makes a strategic move to end its dependency on dirty energy, as urged by its scientists and citizen activists for decades, Putin will lose his strongest weapon
Despite sanctions Russia is selling increasingly more oil. Every single day Russia receives more than $300 million from crude oil exports alone and around $700 million from all fossil fuels. Russia’s federal budget, which shows record allocation to the military this year, relies on those streams for half of its income.
In a single day, Russia fired 38 missiles at Ukraine. The X-101 missile, that hit Okhmatdit Child Hospital in the center of Kyiv, cost around $13 million each. The missile attack on the hospital’s dialysis department, left at least 4 dead andmore than 50 injured, including doctors and children. The hospital now lies in ruins. As a result of Russia's latest wave of massive missile strikes on July 8, at least 37 people were killed and 170 were wounded, affecting Dnipro, Kryvyi Rih, and the Donetsk region.
The total cost of the children's hospital attack was estimated by Forbes at $200-250 million, roughly the equivalent of what Russia makes in one day from its crude oil exports. Putin is building a violent and expansionist Russia by funneling blood-oil revenues into his war economy and strengthening totalitarian state control, while destabilizing all democracies he can.
In spring 2022, following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing global energy crisis triggered by it,the International Energy Agency (IEA) proposed specific actions to governments to reduce oil demand significantly. Recommendations were made to switch to clean energy, which is now cheaper on average than fossil fuels, helps solve the climate crisis, and will save trillions of dollars in preventing climate-caused extreme weather catastrophes.
However, the USA and G7 governments did almost nothing to reduce oil demand, and in fact, continue heavily subsidising fossil fuels. Meanwhile, Big Oil capitalized on the turmoil to reap record profits, while also redoubling lobbying efforts, taking legal action against activists, and continuing disinformation campaigns in the media. Some important turning points were missed, and we are now in an even more desperate position than in 2022.
We must state clearly that the American and G7 countries' refusal to follow the IEA’s recommendations on reducing oil demand, combined with their failure to enforce sanctions against Russian oil, is contributing to the deliberate mass murder of civilians and children in Ukraine.
More than two years into the war, Europe and the UK remain among the top contributors to funding the Russian war machine due to incomplete sanctions, lack of enforcement, and lack of political will. The USA has given much support, but has only used limited sanctions, while American companies like Halliburton and SLB have, in fact, sent equipment to Russia to help keep Putin's bloody oil pumping.
Today, Russian blood oil proliferates to new markets, and the shadow tanker fleet endangers the world’s oceans and seas with looming threats of major spills, that can lead to environmental disasters across Europe's coastal regions.
America, still acting as a leader of the free democratic world, must acknowledge that our planet is speeding down a highway to hell. The response to the terrorist attack on Okhmadit Children's Hospital marks a symbolic and crucial turning point: Will we let petro-dictator Putin get away with his crimes, condemning our children and future generations to the doom of new wars and the abyss of runaway climate change? Or will we stand up and fight for a better world, free from fossil fuel addiction?
If the West makes a strategic move to end its dependency on dirty energy, as urged by its scientists and citizen activists for decades, Putin will lose his strongest weapon, and his authoritarian and brutal projects can be reduced to rubble.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s, the world saw a remarkable reduction in global CO2 emissions, contributing positively to global climate. This precedent illustrates that dismantling a fossil-fuel-dependent economy can lead to substantial environmental benefits. Phasing out Russian fossil fuels from the global energy mix is not only a geopolitical necessity to curb Putin’s war machine but also a critical step towards achieving energy security and the decarbonization needed to limit global warming.
The US and all other G7 governments must take decisive action to implement structural policies that reduce oil demand and replace Russian oil imports (which are ongoing through refining loopholes) with domestic clean energy alternatives. This includes enforcing stringent sanctions, closing loopholes in existing measures, and investing in renewable energy infrastructure. Embracing electric vehicles, improving public transportation, and incentivizing energy efficiency are essential steps toward breaking free from the grip of fossil fuel addiction.
The current situation demands a united and resolute response from the U.S. and the free world. We cannot afford to repeat past mistakes, where short-term economic interests overshadowed the need for structural shifts to clean energy. The ongoing war in Ukraine and the escalating global climate crisis are intertwined, and addressing one requires addressing the other.
The attack on Okhmatdyt Children’s Hospital is a stark reminder of the human cost of inaction. As long as we fund Putin’s war machine through our reliance on Russian oil, we are complicit in the atrocities against innocent civilians and children. It is time to stand up for a world free from the stranglehold of Big Oil and its devastating impacts on our environment and future.
Leaders of the free world must acknowledge that the path to a sustainable and secure future lies in ending our dependence on fossil fuels. By learning from the collapse of the Soviet Union, we can understand the transformative power of dismantling a fossil fuel-driven economy. The need for bold, structural changes in energy policy is urgent. Together, we can turn the tide against the axis of modern political evil and pave the way for a cleaner, safer, and more equitable world for future generations.
A full Western embargo on liquefied national gas would send a clear message: Europe will not be a party to Russia’s aggression.
Because of the full-scale war against Ukraine, the EU is now actively seeking to reduce its reliance on Russian LNG suppliers, including Novatek. However, some vested corporations with continued interests in doing LNG business with Russia propel the scare that supposedly China can save Novatek from US/EU sanctions if the Western export route for Russian LNG is closed. This is categorically false and misleading for several economic and political reasons.
From a superficial first glance, China, undeniably a major LNG consumer, might seem like a natural savior for Novatek among impeding Western sanctions. However, unlike Europe’s historically high gas prices in 2022, which benefited Novatek, the Chinese market is known for being fiercely competitive, with much lower average gas/LNG prices. Unlike Europe where Russians could in the past act in a seller's market, China has always ensured that it has a plethora of piped and LNG suppliers (Central Asian states, Burma, various LNG suppliers ranging from the US, Australia to Qatar and many others).
China imports LNG from more than 20 countries and Russia’s share is marginal. Australia ranks as the largest supplier with a 40% market share, followed by Qatar with 11%. Looking at the long-term LNG contracts announced by Chinese companies analyzed by Nikkei, Russia will not be one of the main suppliers either. It appears Beijing is more prone to sign long-term LNG deals with countries other than Russia to win some favors from Washington D.C., Doha, Canberra, and Kuala Lumpur based on balanced considerations geopolitically and energy-security-wise.
Billions of euros and dollars continue to flow to the Kremlin via Novatek as it still sends LNG to Europe and China. This hard currency provides a lifeline for Russia’s war machine and hybrid warfare which is now waged not only against Ukraine, but indirectly against Europe.
China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) has set the goal of ensuring that the self-sufficiency of natural gas supply should be no less than 50% in its annual policy papers. NEA and its officials have emphasized on numerous occasions that a sufficiently high rate of natural gas self-sufficiency is crucial for China's energy security and that it is a long-standing principle that will be upheld. This means that China's appetite for imported gas (whether piped or LNG) will not be big in the medium to long term. According to the China Natural Gas Development Report 2023, the country’s natural gas consumption was 364.6 bcm in 2022, while 217.8 bcm of it came from domestic production. This means that China's natural gas self-sufficiency rate was close to 60%.
If one just looks at the map, one could also see a problem with logistics. Shipping LNG to Europe from Russia’s Arctic projects is a relatively short journey compared to the vast distances involved in reaching China. These longer distances translate to higher transportation costs for Novatek, further squeezing profit margins.
Regardless of choosing the Red Sea or taking the Arctic route, the logistical and time costs of getting Russian LNG into China are much higher than for pipeline gas. This makes China inherently less interested in Russian LNG. Last summer, Gazprom made the first delivery of LNG to China from a port near St. Petersburg via the Arctic Northern Sea Route as receding ice sheets rendered the route more viable, but it still took nearly a month.
China’s LNG infrastructure is concentrated along its eastern coast, far from the major gas consumption centers in the north and central regions, making the journey longer for LNG tankers even when they reach China’s territorial waters. This necessitates additional pipelines or costly coastal transportation, again adding to Novatek’s LNG price tag. That is another reason why China has traditionally preferred to get mostly Russian piped gas rather than LNG as the gas fields that feed Russian export pipelines to China are much closer than Novatek’s LNG production sites.
In fact, all past track record for piped and LNG gas shows that China is using Russia as a sort of a swing supplier, on a residual basis and structures deals with the Russian counterparts from a position of strength, exploiting Russian logistical, political, and economic limitations and exposures. Moreover, for both oil and gas Beijing has always acted from a position of strength vis-a-vis Russian suppliers even at the time of China’s rising demand, combining commercial logic with security and political interests.
Which brings us to the point that not only China is skillfully using the market environment (buyer’s market) to its advantage, it is also carefully weighing its political and security needs which leave Novatek and Russians in general in a poor negotiating position. Unlike Europe, which was historically a seller’s market, keeping the upper hand and commercial rationale in negotiations is always following first and foremost Communist Party's line. Despite all the rhetoric on friendship, China has always preferred to keep all Russian energy suppliers—Gazprom, Rosneft, and Novatek—on a short leash where they had to agree to much worse prices and other conditions then they could get in Europe.
Meanwhile, China has developed much stronger gas relations with established LNG suppliers like Qatar, the U.S., and Australia not only because it makes sense commercially but also because the Chinese government wants to diversify their supply sources and routes of delivery and they see a benefit in having mutually beneficial projects in this strategic industry. These non-Russian players have well-developed infrastructure, cutting edge technology, and long-term contracts with Chinese buyers, making it extremely difficult for Novatek to gain a significant and long-term foothold. And importantly for Beijing, what these players don't have are massive western sanctions, technological lag, and harsh Arctic conditions with production centers on the other side of Eurasia.
At the end of the day big binding long term contracts—not verbal assurances of friendship by Chinese officials or Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) by Chinese energy companies—talk volumes of China’s actual scale of interest in Novatek’s LNG supply. The interest is there but as to a residual supplier, one of many “backup” options. According to recent Russian figures derived from the Chinese customs Russian LNG supply to China increased last year to 8 million tons from 6.5 year-on-year. Even if that is true, the way Russian propaganda is spinning it is an exaggeration, these are still small volumes for China (given its import requirements of around 90 millionn tons) and not a way to diversify from Europe. Thus, it is counterproductive and misleading for Western stakeholders to help Russia spin this as a successful ability for Novatek "to substitute the West for the East."
As for frequent exaggerated projections of Chinese future demand for Russian LNG from 2030, they are mostly not taken seriously by any independent and commercially minded investors in energy majors or other gas market players who mostly do not place their financial commitments beyond the 3–5-year horizon. The overwhelming number of long-term projections for supposed big demand for Russian gas have been traditionally exaggerated by select western corporate or institutional analysts. There are many reasons for that, but most important is a constant desire to exaggerate Russia's energy importance either by vested corporate and partisan interests in the West or by gullible but not knowledgeable outsiders or lobbyists in the press.
Given real limitations of the Chinese market for Novatek’s LNG and the potential for further sanctions, a full Western embargo on Russian LNG emerges as a much more effective strategy for both European energy security and crippling the Kremlin’s war chest. Full embargo does not require overly complicated measures. Industry analysis by Razom We Stand and Uregwald shows targeted sanctions against ice-class Russian LNG tankers and sanctions against the provision of shipping services, insurance, and any other financial services for the export of Russian LNG can alone choke all Novatek’s LNG exports. The past two years of reduced Russian gas imports to Europe already showed that the EU can easily survive without Novatek’s LNG and not upset its energy supply in any dramatic way.
Meanwhile, billions of euros and dollars continue to flow to the Kremlin via Novatek as it still sends LNG to Europe and China. This hard currency provides a lifeline for Russia’s war machine and hybrid warfare which is now waged not only against Ukraine, but indirectly against Europe. The EU is literally subsidizing the Kremlin via Novatek LNG to undermine its own security and democratic institutions. A complete embargo would not give breathing space for Novatek in China but in Europe it would positively accelerate EU’s diversification efforts away from Russian gas altogether. It would incentivize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects and would significantly reduce income stream to the Kremlin, making it harder for Russia to sustain its aggressive actions against Ukraine and Europe. A full Western embargo sends a clear message: Europe will not be a party to Russia’s aggression, and it is willing to pay the price for its freedom and security.Nations should actively advocate for the diversification of energy sources and the establishment of sustainable transportation routes that do not hinge on potential shifts in the geopolitical landscape.
With the ongoing costly Russian war on Ukraine, and Russia's central funding of that war coming from its fossil fuel exports, we examine here those exports specifically on the Black Sea.
Russian energy exports also contribute to catastrophic climate disruption costing trillions, but for those bearing the brunt of their bullets, bombs, and rockets in Ukraine, drying up Russia's war chest is the top priority.
In a strategic move starting December 5, 2022, the European Union implemented a sea route ban on Russian oil imports, reshaping the global oil landscape. Yet, rather than achieving a seamless transition, this embargo has sparked intricate manoeuvres, especially in the Black Sea, casting shadows on the efficacy of sanctions and Europe's energy security.
The E.U.'s embargo to curtail Russia's energy export revenues and support Ukraine in its struggle has triggered seismic shifts in the global oil market. The Black Sea, once a crucial route for Russian oil exports, has become a stage for intricate manoeuvres in energy policy.
Together, the E.U., alongside the United States and G7 counterparts, established a mechanism to cap the price of Russian oil exported to non-sanctioning countries. This mechanism includes a ban on maritime services for the transportation of Russian oil to third countries and insurance for cargo if their price exceeds a specific limit—a "ceiling" or price cap. The E.U. has set this ceiling at $60 per barrel.
Despite the embargo, the trade in oil persists, and the politics and economics of the Black Sea are becoming increasingly pivotal to the region.
This move, aimed at curbing Russia's revenues from energy exports and supporting Ukraine in the ongoing war, has set the stage for a complex dance in energy policy. As a result of the E.U. and G7 embargo on Russian oil imports via sea routes, the Black Sea was transformed into a hub of strategic importance. Despite the restrictions, Russian oil continued to enter the world markets through four key shipping points: Novorossiysk, Taman, Tuapse, and ship-to-ship transfer.
The volumes of transportation through these ports since the embargo indicate that the Black Sea remained a vital channel for Russian oil exports. These manoeuvres, often facilitated by both European and non-European shipowners, caused considerable concern among politicians and experts, as they undermined the effectiveness of the sanctions and raised new questions about the security of Europe's energy supply.
Although the embargo was supposed to stop Russian crude oil exports, they are vulnerable to restrictions, according to the Black Sea News and the Institute for Black Sea Strategic Studies.
Who transported Russian crude oil from Black Sea ports after the E.U. and G7 embargo was imposed.
(Image: Black Sea News)
Between December 2022 to December 2023, 47.5 million tons of oil were exported from the Black Sea, of which 41.09%—19.6 million tons—were transported by European shipowners. Even with the restrictions, ships from non-European countries and even from Russia continued to transport oil.
Since March 2023, non-European shipowners have significantly increased their transportation volumes and become major players in the transportation industry. Notably, Greek companies topped the list, transporting 36.53% of oil, followed by Russian companies with 24.77%. After the announcement of the 11th E.U. sanctions package on June 21, 2023, five Greek companies were recognized as sponsors of war. This led to a decrease in the transportation of Greek tankers, but later the figures rose again.The tendency for Greek companies to be replaced by other shipowners, especially from "flag of convenience" countries and Russia, was noticeable. In 2023, Russian companies once again surged to the forefront, transporting 42% of oil, underscoring the need for vigilant oversight to prevent sanctions circumvention and mitigate geopolitical tensions. Despite the embargo, the trade in oil persists, and the politics and economics of the Black Sea are becoming increasingly pivotal to the region.
The situation involving the transportation of Russian oil through the Black Sea under the E.U. and G7 embargo carries potentially serious consequences for energy security and geopolitical stability. Primarily, it presents a risk of violating sanctions and undermining general political coordination between countries. Actions taken by shipowners to circumvent the sanctions may instigate new economic and political conflicts, escalating tensions in the region and jeopardizing economic stability.
Given this situation, the European Union and the G7 countries must urgently implement measures to ensure compliance with sanctions and fortify the international legal order. Developing a collective strategy that considers all facets of energy security and geopolitical challenges is crucial. Efforts should be directed toward finding effective mechanisms to identify and prevent the circumvention of sanctions, thereby averting violations of international norms and rules.
Moreover, nations should actively advocate for the diversification of energy sources and the establishment of sustainable transportation routes that do not hinge on potential shifts in the geopolitical landscape. This approach will enhance the resilience of the energy sector and diminish susceptibility to external influences. A clean energy buildout will also help meet climate reduction targets and save up to $178 trillion in climate catastrophe costs by 2070 according to The Wall Street Journal.
Given the critical importance of energy security and geopolitical stability, immediate action and collaborative efforts are imperative to ensure a peaceful and stable global energy landscape.