Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Business

Yamal gave the Kremlin €7.2 billion in 2025 — how European LNG imports undermine energy resilience and heighten risks for Ukraine

As Brussels postpones a full ban until 2027, European ports have turned Arctic LNG into a regular source of revenue for the Russian Federation. Why this matters for the EU’s security — and for us — we examine the facts.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

January 8, 2026 · 2 min read

Yamal gave the Kremlin €7.2 billion in 2025 — how European LNG imports undermine energy resilience and heighten risks for Ukraine

Data and scale

According to human-rights organization Urgewald and a report in The Guardian, more than 15 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas from Yamal reached EU ports in 2025 — giving Russia about €7.2 billion in revenue. Even despite Brussels' promises to ban such shipments by 2027, volumes have not declined, and the EU's share of global exports from Yamal has risen to 76.1%.

"During 2025, over 15 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas from the Yamal complex reached European terminals — this brought the Russian Federation approximately €7.2 billion."

— Urgewald, human-rights organization / data for The Guardian

Logistics and the role of ports

The Yamal project is critically dependent on European infrastructure: specialized icebreaking tankers of the Arc7 class use EU ports for quick unloading and return to the Arctic. For example, the Belgian port of Zeebrugge received 58 vessels (4.2 million tonnes) in 2025 — more than all Chinese ports combined (51 ships, 3.6 million tonnes). And France became the largest importer — 87 voyages and 6.3 million tonnes to Dunkirk and Montoir.

"European ports give Russia an operational advantage: ice-class tankers quickly return for new loads instead of long voyages to Asia."

— The Guardian (overview of Yamal–EU logistics)

Why this is happening

Three key factors explain the persistence of the flow: first, LNG imports are legally permitted and often economically more profitable for certain European energy companies; second, countries in Central and Eastern Europe still have limited supply diversification; third, the existing infrastructure (terminals, logistical chains) makes the routes short and cost-competitive.

Consequences for the EU and Ukraine

Purchasing Russian LNG today is not only an energy issue but also a geopolitical one. Money flows into the Russian budget in a wartime and political context; logistical dependence complicates the option of swift sanctions; and at the same time it reduces diplomatic pressure that could raise the cost of aggression against neighbours, including Ukraine.

For Ukraine this has several practical consequences: economic pressure on the Kremlin is reduced, international coordination of sanctions becomes more difficult, and the risk grows that energy arguments in negotiations may outweigh political demands to hold the Russian Federation accountable.

What to expect next

The EU's declarations about a planned ban by 2027 face reality: infrastructure and company interests slow the transition. Analysts insist on three practical steps: strengthen supply chain transparency (who insures and services the tankers), agree on timelines and compensation mechanisms for countries dependent on Russian LNG, and accelerate investments in alternative sources and terminals.

The question to partners is simple: are European capitals ready to turn declarations about energy independence into concrete steps before 2027 — or will business logistics and existing interests continue to preserve significant revenues for the Kremlin? The answer will also determine our strategic position.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026