More than three years after Vladimir Putin’s tanks rolled into Ukraine, the European Commission continues to preside over a regime of make-believe sanctions, unable to prevent its own member states from quietly sustaining the Kremlin’s war machine.
Brussels blusters about solidarity with Kyiv, but behind the curtain of press conferences and grand declarations lies a shocking truth: Russian energy is still flowing into Europe, and with it, the European Union’s credibility bleeds away.
One would expect that in the wake of the largest land war on the continent since 1945, the EU — which loves to market itself as a beacon of “values” — would treat energy sanctions against Moscow as a matter of existential urgency.
Instead, we are confronted with the grotesque spectacle of Commission officials proclaiming victory with every new “package” of sanctions, while pipelines and tankers carry Russian gas, oil and LNG to European ports and power stations. The sanctions may exist on paper, but Europe’s energy dependency persists in reality.
So what exactly is the Commission doing about it? The short answer: issuing headlines. The long answer: nothing of substance. The European Commission, that self-anointed guardian of European unity, has proven itself to be not just feeble, but structurally incapable of meaningful enforcement when faced with the cold calculus of national self-interest.
The numbers speak for themselves. According to data from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, EU countries have paid over €200 billion to Russia for fossil fuels since the full-scale invasion began in February 2022. Even as the bombs fell on Mariupol and Kharkiv, European tankers lined up to fill their holds with Russian crude. Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and above all Hungary have continued to import Russian energy in one form or another, evading or exploiting the gaping loopholes in the EU’s sanctions architecture.
One could be forgiven for thinking the Commission was unaware. But of course, it knows — and chooses to tolerate. Why? Because its lofty ambitions are shackled by a fundamental flaw: the need for unanimity. The EU’s foreign policy, including sanctions, is subject to the requirement that all 27 member states agree. That gives any single leader the power to veto action, no matter how grave the situation.
Enter Viktor Orbán, the Kremlin’s “Trojan Horse in the EU“: Hungary, under Orbán’s rule, has become the reliable blocker of seemingly any measure that might inconvenience Putin.
Budapest has threatened to torpedo sanctions packages, demanded carve-outs for Russian oil via the Druzhba pipeline, and even delayed military aid for Ukraine over unrelated squabbles. Far from being punished, Orbán is courted. The Commission, desperate to avoid open confrontation, folds again and again — in effect subcontracting its Russia policy to the most Russia-friendly regime in the EU.
And it’s not just Hungary. Slovakia’s Robert Fico, newly returned to power, has signalled his distaste for sanctions and military support to Ukraine, even going so far as to suggest a missile strike on Brussels.
In this climate, with pro-Kremlin sympathies entrenched in the Council, Brussels can only do what it does best: issue statements.
It was in this context that the recent EU Today article, “Rethinking Europe: Disestablishing the European Commission to Restore Sovereignty and Democracy”, landed like a thunderclap.
In it a view that is growing bolder in European capitals is presented: that the Commission is not just ineffective, but actively obstructive — a bloated bureaucracy that confuses centralisation with unity and rules-based order with realpolitik. The article argues that sovereignty cannot flourish under the suffocating weight of a Commission that lacks democratic legitimacy yet presumes to dictate continental policy through technocratic fiat.
The irony is striking. The Commission claims to represent the EU’s democratic values while being entirely unelected. Its President, Ursula von der Leyen, has never faced a popular vote. Its Commissioners, nominated behind closed doors, do not answer to voters. And yet this institution presumes to set the moral tone of European affairs, all the while failing to uphold its own standards and over-ruling the will of Parliament. The discrepancy between its lofty pronouncements and pitiful results is not merely embarrassing — it is dangerous.
Nowhere is this more obvious than in energy policy. Take the much-touted REPowerEU plan, unveiled with fanfare in March 2022 to wean the bloc off Russian fossil fuels. It promised “energy sovereignty,” a favourite Brussels buzzword. But look closer, and you see a plan riddled with caveats, contradictions, and delays. LNG imports from Russia were never banned, although discussions about imposing a ban were presented with great fanfare – and then all of a sudden nothing happened.
Pipeline gas has been given exemptions. Coal and nuclear backtracking further muddied the waters. The result? EU countries still imported over 15 billion cubic metres of Russian LNG in 2023, with Spain, France and Belgium among the biggest buyers.
This is not just a failure of ambition; it is a failure of principle. Every cubic metre of Russian gas imported into the EU is another euro for the Kremlin’s war chest. Every ship that docks in Antwerp or Bilbao with Russian oil is a lifeline for an aggressor state. Yet the Commission has made a strategic choice to accept this reality, while distracting the public with meaningless announcements and flimsy legalese.
To be clear, the real power in the EU lies not with the Commission but with the member states. And therein lies the contradiction at the heart of the Brussels model. The Commission postures as an executive, but it lacks the muscle to enforce. It pretends to be a supranational force, but is always hostage to national vetoes. Its legitimacy is claimed rather than earned, and when confronted with real geopolitical stakes, it withers.
If the EU is serious about confronting autocracy, it cannot be paralysed by one or two recalcitrant leaders. Nor can it tolerate a Commission that behaves more like a PR agency than a governing body. The time has come for radical institutional rethink. Either the EU centralises real executive authority in a democratically accountable manner, or it returns powers to member states and abandons the illusion that the Commission can act as Europe’s conscience.
Until then, the status quo will persist. The Commission will continue to churn out empty statements about “standing with Ukraine,” while Russian oil continues to fuel European economies. The credibility of Brussels will remain inversely proportional to the volume of its press releases. And Putin, watching all this with icy satisfaction, will know that as long as Europe remains divided and indecisive, he has little to fear.
History will not judge Europe kindly for this cowardice. Neither will the Ukrainian people, whose fate is partially determined by how much courage Brussels can muster — and how much hypocrisy it is willing to abandon. If the Commission cannot even stop member states from enriching the regime it claims to oppose, then what is it for?
The European Commission has become an empty shell (albeit one containing some 21,700 staff members in its Brussels offices alone) — a creature of appearances. And in matters of war and peace, appearances are not enough.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
European Commission headquarters in Brussels
Read also: Europe talks a good game but won’t back it up. Putin’s bet on Western weakness was right. That he can outlast the moral outrage of comfortable bureaucrats sipping wine at Brussels conferences.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
