Four billion euros a year. That is what Russia stands to lose from the European Union’s decision to ban its coal, announced April 9. It is the first time the bloc has targeted Russian energy over the war in Ukraine. But put that number next to another: 850 million dollars a day. That is what the EU pays Russia for oil and natural gas. The coal ban is a symbolic step. The real fight over energy sanctions has barely begun.
The math is brutal. Coal accounts for just 3.5 percent of Russia’s total exports. Only a quarter of that coal goes to the EU. The ban, once it takes full effect in three months, will cost Moscow roughly $4.4 billion annually. That is real money. It is not a game. But it is a fraction of the $310 billion a year Europe pours into Russia’s oil and gas sector. The EU gets 40 percent of its natural gas and 25 percent of its oil from Russia. Cutting those off would hit Putin’s war chest far harder. It would also risk a severe recession in Europe. The 27 member states could not agree to do it.
Coal was the easy target. Europe can replace Russian coal in a few months, analysts say. The U.S. and other suppliers are ready. The impact on the European economy is limited. And the ban only applies to new contracts. That gave EU governments room to say yes. Commodities analyst Barbara Lambrecht at Commerzbank noted that a coal embargo was politically viable precisely because it is delayed and narrow. It breaks the taboo on severing energy ties. But it does not break the European economy.
Oil and gas are a different beast. They are the core of the relationship. Europe pays Russia $20 million a day for coal. It pays $850 million a day for oil and gas. That is a 42-to-1 ratio. The U.S., which imports little Russian oil and no gas, banned both. Europe cannot. It is too dependent. European Council President Charles Michel said he believes measures on oil and even on gas will come eventually. But he did not say when. The debate is still open. The coalition is still fragile.
The coal ban will fuel inflation. That is certain. Europe is already dealing with record-high prices. Adding a ban on a commodity, even a replaceable one like coal, does not help. But the alternative is doing nothing. And the political pressure to act is immense. The war in Ukraine is in its second month. Bodies are being found in streets. Sanctions are the primary tool the West has short of direct military intervention. Coal is a start. It is a signal. It is not a solution.
Russia’s war chest is built on oil and gas revenues. Those revenues keep flowing. The EU is still the biggest customer. Every day of delay means another $850 million to Moscow. The coal ban is a crack in the dam. But the dam itself is still standing. The question now is whether Europe can find the will to go further. The answer, for now, is no. The coal ban is what the 27 countries could agree on. It is what they did. It is not what they need to do.
