Europe is electrifying — but its armies are still running on fuel.
As the EU pushes forward with its climate agenda, the strategic consequences for defence are being overlooked. Fighter jets, tanks, warships, and mobile air defence systems are all powered by liquid fuels and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Yet Europe is quietly dismantling the infrastructure that supplies them.
Meanwhile, NATO planners are scrambling to build a €21 billion pipeline network stretching from western Germany to the eastern flank. This is a last-ditch effort to ensure fuel reaches the front in a conflict with Russia. It’s a logistical megaproject with Cold War roots and new urgency. And it reveals a dangerous contradiction at the heart of Europe’s green transition.
NATO’s fuel anxiety
Reporting by Der Spiegel has exposed just how precarious NATO’s logistics have become. A single German Patriot missile unit stationed in southeastern Poland consumes up to 10,000 litters of fuel per day, trucked in on civilian roads. That’s manageable in peacetime. It’s unsustainable in wartime.
An internal Bundeswehr memo puts it bluntly: “The need is gigantic.” Kerosene and diesel can’t be flown in at scale. Rail and road networks are too vulnerable. NATO commanders now fear that fuel supply, not weapons or personnel, will be the Alliance’s Achilles heel in a conflict with Russia.
To address this, the alliance plans to extend Cold War-era pipeline networks from Bramsche and Ingolstadt through Poland, the Czech Republic, and into the Baltics. Germany alone is expected to contribute over €3.5 billion to the project. The system would also connect to civilian airports — like Berlin and Hamburg — to ensure kerosene is used and rotated regularly.
But construction could take two decades. Legal challenges, environmental protections, and financing gaps already threaten to derail progress. France is resisting final approval. U.S. political uncertainty clouds future contributions. Even if completed, stored kerosene degrades over time. So, it must be used; it cannot be stockpiled.
The missing piece: low-carbon fuels
NATO’s response to this crisis is oddly nostalgic — more pipelines, more diesel, more kerosene. But this approach misses the wider political objective: full civilian shift to electrification means that the infrastructure for liquid fuels will disappear altogether. No civilian demand means no production, no refining capacity, no distribution — and ultimately, no supply for military operations.
Does this mean we should scrap the energy transition? Of course not. But it does mean we must pursue it with diversification in mind. Electrons are essential for decarbonizing many sectors — but defence still runs on energy-dense molecules. That’s why Europe must preserve and scale liquid fuels, especially sustainable, low-carbon ones, as a critical pillar of energy security and military readiness.Low-carbon liquid fuels — synthetic fuels, e-fuels, and advanced biofuels — offer the same energy density and logistical flexibility as fossil fuels, but without the carbon penalty. Produced from organic waste, renewable electricity, and captured CO₂, they are compatible with existing engines and can be refined and transported through current infrastructure.Unlike electrification, low-carbon fuels can decarbonize military operations without compromising readiness. And unlike fossil fuels, they can be produced domestically, improving Europe’s energy sovereignty and strategic autonomy.But these fuels are not scaling fast enough. EU policy still treats them as a marginal or transitional option — secondary to batteries and hydrogen. That’s a mistake.
Dual-use infrastructure is strategic infrastructure
To square defence readiness with climate goals, Europe must invest now in dual-use fuel infrastructure — systems that serve both civilian and military needs. This includes:- Strategic reserves of low-carbon fuels- Domestic refining capacity compatible with military specifications- Pipelines and depots that connect with NATO logistics- Civil-military coordination on fuel turnover and standardsThis is not a speculative ask — it’s already reflected in the EU’s Readiness 2030 defence roadmap. The plan explicitly highlights the importance of dual-use infrastructure to support mobility, logistics, and military deployments across the EU. But we cannot claim defence readiness under Readiness 2030 if we fail to secure the most basic prerequisite of military power: fuel.Without civilian uptake, even the best-designed military pipeline will sit idle — or worse, store kerosene until it’s unusable. Civilian demand sustains infrastructure. Military logistics depend on it.The cost of silence
Energy policy and defence policy have operated in separate silos for too long. But the war in Ukraine — and NATO’s scramble to backfill its logistics — has made one thing clear: fuel is a weapon. Losing control of its supply, or its infrastructure, is a security risk Europe cannot afford.A climate-neutral Europe must also be a defensible Europe. That means treating low-carbon fuels not as an afterthought, but as a pillar of both energy and security strategy. The alternative is a military that’s ready to move — but nowhere near fuelled to fight.
