ROME — In the opera houses of Italy, the drama often lies in sudden reversals: a vow broken, an alliance betrayed, the chorus erupting in disbelief. Europe’s reaction to Washington’s latest energy decision, as explained by Germany’s Der Spiegel, has unfolded with a similar theatrical intensity.
Only months ago, U.S. President Donald Trump was pressing European leaders to stop buying Russian oil, arguing that energy revenues were sustaining Moscow’s war in Ukraine. During a call with European leaders in September 2025, Trump insisted Europe must end purchases of Russian crude because the revenue was “funding the war.”
On March 13, the same administration authorized a temporary waiver allowing the sale of Russian oil already loaded onto tankers — potentially tens of millions of barrels — sparking outrage across European capitals, as reported by The Guardian. According to Paris’ Le Monde, the decision, meant to ease global supply pressures amid a widening Middle East crisis—as Israel and the United States targeted energy sites in Iran which then retaliated with strikes on Israel and Qatar—has been received in Europe not merely as a policy contradiction but as a potential security threat to the continent.
An “operatic” reversal
In true operatic tradition, the collective European chorus is enacting its moral indignation to the temporary waiver. Media outlets such as The Guardian, Politico Europe, and The Financial Times reported that European diplomats described the move as a jarring about-face. Over the past three years, the European Union undertook a costly and politically difficult break from Russian energy, slashing gas imports and committing to phase out Russian fossil fuels entirely.
The strategy was grounded in security concerns. Brussels perceives Russian energy revenues as a direct financial pillar of Moscow’s war effort in Ukraine.
Against that backdrop, the U.S. waiver allowing the sale of Russian oil already in transit has landed with particular force.
“European allies were riled,” Reuters reported, noting the waiver permits oil already at sea to be sold despite sanctions.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz publicly rebuked the decision, warning that it risked weakening pressure on Moscow at a critical moment in the war and compromising the outcome in Ukraine.
Standing firm in his position on the war in Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron warned that global crises should not become “an excuse to ease pressure on Russia.” Emphasizing Macron’s belief, Euronews reported that sanctions remain a central tool of Western security policy for the French president: “The disruption in the Strait of Hormuz and soaring oil prices in no way justify lifting the sanctions imposed on Russia.”
Security fears in Brussels
The strongest language, however, has come from Brussels itself. European officials argue that even limited sanctions relief risks sending the wrong signal.
The European Commission Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis warned that easing sanctions would be “self-defeating,” because it could strengthen Russia financially while the war continues.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also said that returning to Russian fossil fuels is a “strategic blunder” that undermines Europe’s long-term security.
In the European Parliament, President Roberta Metsola echoed similar concerns, emphasizing that Europe must end its reliance on Russian energy entirely. “Europe needs to reduce its energy dependence on Russian gas to zero,” Metsola cautioned, warning that otherwise Europeans will “continue to finance the war directly and indirectly.”
“The security of Europe cannot be compromised by short-term energy calculations,” Metsola told lawmakers, according to parliamentary officials.
Press reaction: “a gift to Moscow.”
European newspapers have framed the episode in unusually stark terms, in rare critical unity
France’s Le Monde described the waiver as “a dangerous weakening of the sanctions architecture.” Germany’s Der Spiegel called the decision “strategically baffling,” arguing that Europe had spent years constructing an energy firewall against Russia only to see it partially dismantled by its closest ally.
In London, the Financial Times warned that the policy could “fracture the sanctions coalition,” raising questions about the durability of Western unity in the economic war against Moscow.
Italy’s Corriere della Sera framed the decision bluntly, writing that allowing Russian oil shipments to proceed “risks financing the very war Europe has spent years trying to contain.”
The mood in Brussels was described as “anger mixed with alarm.”
A clash of strategic priorities
Washington insists the waiver is narrow and temporary, applying only to oil already loaded on ships. The U.S. Treasury says the step is intended to stabilize global markets during a surge in energy prices triggered by escalating tensions in the Middle East. Nonetheless, European leaders fear the broader geopolitical message.
For many in Europe, the question is not simply whether the waiver materially benefits Russia. It is whether it weakens the strategic logic that has guided Western policy since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine: cutting Moscow off from the energy revenues that fund its war.
“If the world starts turning the tap back on for Russia, even temporarily, it would be a grave mistake,” one senior EU diplomat told Reuters on condition of anonymity. The security consequences of that will be felt for years to come.”
The operatic curtain has not yet fallen, but in Europe’s capitals, the audience is tensely considering the long term implications of granting a short term reprieve to Russia.
