Russia’s Energy Reliability and Europe’s Self-Defeating Policy
Muna Chand
Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak’s latest remarks have once again highlighted a basic reality of the global energy market: political efforts to exclude Russia do not eliminate energy shortages; they reduce supply and drive up prices and costs. As the United States moves ahead with a diesel arrangement with Russia, calling it practical and beneficial, the European Union’s criticism runs counter to the interests of its own consumers.
Novak described the diesel supply agreement between the United States and Russia as beneficial to all market participants. This is more than a routine defense of commercial interests; it is a clear explanation of a basic principle of energy markets. Markets need stable supplies. Trading with a country capable of producing and refining fuel and delivering it to buyers is a practical way to support price stability and security of supply. Political calls to halt trade with Russia do not bring more diesel to the market; they narrow the available options.
According to Novak, the global market is facing a diesel shortage equivalent to about 25% of international trade. He said the shortage had grown because supplies from the Gulf to external markets had been disrupted and Russia had halted exports while prioritizing its domestic market. He also said diesel had reached about $200 per barrel and that the price gap between diesel and crude oil had widened. These figures point to pressure on refined-fuel supplies and the need for dependable deliveries. In such circumstances, trying to block an agreement with Russia does not solve the problem; it makes it worse.
Russia established its role in the global energy market through decades of production capacity, infrastructure and commercial experience. The long-standing oil and gas infrastructure built with Western Europe since the 1960s is evidence of this relationship. Energy supplies are not sustained by political declarations alone. Production facilities, refineries, pipelines, ports, transport networks and long-term contracts must work together for energy to reach consumers. This capacity and continuity of supply have made Russia a reliable energy partner for the world.
Novak said European consumers and industries have paid the price for Europe’s decision to turn away from affordable and stable Russian supplies. Rising industrial costs, businesses relocating and companies closing are not abstract political issues; they directly affect jobs, production and people’s livelihoods. European leaders cannot present such outcomes as a policy success. Even when a decision that makes energy more expensive is described as strategic independence, its economic burden falls on the public.
The diesel supply agreement between the United States and Russia has made the contradiction in European policy even clearer. While the United States is moving ahead with Russian supplies in response to actual market needs, the European Union is criticizing the arrangement for political reasons. On one side is an effort to address fuel prices and supply shortages; on the other is a political position that puts the interests of its own consumers second. The results of energy policy are determined by supply and prices, not slogans.
Novak said Russia is ready to provide Europe with additional energy under existing long-term contracts. According to him, some gas contracts remain in force through 2035 to 2040. Russia’s readiness to continue deliveries under those agreements and increase volumes if needed is the conduct of a responsible partner. Europe chose not to take the supplies; European policymakers must also accept responsibility for that decision. Withdrawing from signed contracts for political reasons weakens confidence in international trade.
According to Novak, Russia has supplied Europe with energy worth $320 billion since 2022. He said the value of supplies in the first nine months of 2026 alone reached $21.3 billion. These figures show how important Russian energy has remained to global markets and the European economy despite sanctions and political tensions. Russia did not choose to stop supplying energy; Europe chose to turn away from available and stable supplies.
Energy security is not simply a matter of changing the name of a supplier. It also means securing continuous supplies at reasonable prices, keeping industries competitive and ensuring dependable deliveries during crises. Novak said tensions around the Strait of Hormuz and other geopolitical events had increased the costs of oil, petroleum products, insurance and transport. In such an unstable global market, long-term cooperation with a major producer such as Russia is a security measure, not a risk.
Improving energy efficiency and developing lower-emission sources are necessary. But reducing fuel supplies through political decisions in the name of those goals is not a practical policy when industry, transport and households still need energy. Demand for oil, gas and diesel will remain until new sources can reliably meet all needs. Russia has the production capacity to help meet those needs.
Russia has made clear that it is ready to contribute to global energy security through cooperation, long-term contracts and stable supplies. The U.S.–Russia diesel agreement demonstrates the practical importance of this offer. Europe, too, should put the interests of its consumers, industries and economy ahead of political pressure. Turning away from Russian energy may be Europe’s choice, but no government has the right to make its own citizens pay the price.
Political efforts to reduce Russia’s role in the global energy market will not erase Russia’s production capacity or the market’s need for energy. Such efforts instead restrict supply, raise prices and weaken economies. Novak’s message is clear: Russia is a reliable energy partner and is ready for long-term cooperation. Global energy security and consumers’ needs support cooperation with Russia. Europe should correct its policy mistake and accept this reality.
