by Dr. Samuel Furfari
The Dutch Ministry of Defense has published its Energy Security Roadmap, a national strategy to ensure that its armed forces have reliable energy supplies. While produced by a single NATO member, the document reflects a broader reality: Energy security is inseparable from military power.
The “roadmap” defines energy security as the continuous availability of reliable and affordable energy for both peacetime activities and military operations. It explicitly references NATO’s “single fuel policy,” which standardizes military logistics around liquid fossil fuels, particularly kerosene, to guarantee interoperability between allied forces. Currently, more than 95% of Dutch military aircraft, ships, and vehicles are powered by hydrocarbons.
Nonetheless, the European Union’s (EU’s) decarbonization proponents continue to demonize fossil fuels and advance wind and solar technologies that account globally for slightly more than 3% of energy supplies after two decades of subsidies. Even the Dutch document pays homage to EU decarbonization, but the need for liquid hydrocarbons will not be satisfied by climate rhetoric.
The bottom line for U.S. policymakers is that EU energy policy must be considered in assessing the continent’s defense capability.
The significance of the Dutch security document extends beyond military logistics. It is a wakeup call that energy is not simply an environmental or economic issue. It is fundamentally an issue of national security. Armed forces, industrial production, transportation networks, and critical infrastructure all depend on abundant and reliable energy. Without it, military readiness, economic strength, and national autonomy decline.
Throughout history, energy has been the foundation of state power. Nations with secure access to affordable energy possess stronger economies, greater military capabilities, and more freedom of action. Nations dependent on external suppliers expose themselves to coercion and worse.
Global energy trends reinforce these facts. According to the 2026 Statistical Review of World Energy, 86% of global primary energy consumption was fed by fossil fuels. Despite growth in renewable technologies, the world remains overwhelmingly reliant on oil, natural gas, and coal. Many major powers are adapting to this reality, as the Brussels bureaucracy seems to ignore it.
China, for example, is expanding renewable generation while simultaneously building new coal capacity and securing control over supply chains for strategic minerals. This strategy prioritizes energy availability and resilience as foundations of national power. China is strengthening both its economic position and its long-term security.
This intersection of energy policy with defense capability may be an existential crack in the EU’s “green” facade. The European Union remains heavily dependent on imported energy and critical raw materials, while many industries face significantly higher energy costs than competitors in the United States and Asia. Rising costs have contributed to pressures on steel, chemicals, and manufacturing, industries that form the backbone of a nation’s defense.
Armies require fuel, but they also need steel, chemicals, machinery, shipbuilding capacity, electronics, and advanced manufacturing. A nation that struggles to sustain competitive industrial production will have difficulty producing tanks, munitions, drones, aircraft, and warships at the scale required in a crisis.
As the EU has demonized fossil fuels in the name of climate policy, industrial electricity prices have risen to about twice U.S. levels and about 50% above China’s. Last year, steel output fell to its lowest level since 1960. ThyssenKrupp is cutting 11,000 jobs from its steel division, and that is just one example. This deindustrialization is incompatible with a robust defenseand sovereignty.
NATO’s military capabilities depend not only on budgets and troop numbers but also on the energy supplies and industrial foundation that support them. The Dutch strategy implicitly recognizes that operational readiness begins with energy security.
The United States has reinforced its strategic position through abundant domestic oil and gas production, which supports both economic growth and projection of military power. Meanwhile, Europe refuses to take full advantage of domestic energy reserves, clinging to economically destructive policies that can only undermine the security of the West.
The lesson of the Dutch Energy Security Roadmap is that energy security is a prerequisite of national security. An alliance that seeks to deter adversaries and maintain sovereignty cannot afford to overlook that connection.
Dr. Samuel Furfari has been teaching energy geopolitics since 2003 and served as an official at the Directorate-General for Energy of the European Commission for 36 years. He is the author of more than 20 books on energy policy and geopolitics.
This commentary was first published at Daily Signal August 26.
“Currently, more than 95% of Dutch military aircraft, ships, and vehicles are powered by hydrocarbons.”
What powers the remainder of <5%? Do the Dutch operate any nuclear-powered ships? Do they have fleets of EVs for military staff? Are they counting battery-powered drones as aircraft?
Ethanol
Isn’t that still hydrocarbons?
No. It is classified as alchol.
By definition, a hydrocarbon is a chemical compound made of only carbon and hydrogen atoms.
Right you are.
Jeff doesn’t like me because I think Naomi Oreskes is ugly. I couldn’t consume enough ethanol to make me think otherwise.
I wouldn’t say she’s ugly necessarily, however I do wonder if she uses the Nimbus 2000 or the Firebolt as her mode of transport.
Naomi Oreshkes is actually Hollywood actor Ted Raimi(brother of the Evil Dead/Spiderman director ) with a curly wig.
Could have played an orc in Lord of the Rings…. without needing makeup.
No, I don’t like you because of your childish need to type it out for no reason at all. Like bringing up her name here just to say it. I couldn’t care less what you think.
Thanks, I stand corrected.
That national defense requires liquid fuels is self evident. All Europeans, not just the Dutch, therefore have a fundamental defense problem. As does Japan and Taiwan. For example the total fuel stockpile in Japan (both public and private) is only about 200 days consumption without wartime usage increases. If I know that, China also knows that. And Biden was foolish to draw down the SPR for political reasons.
Trump is still drawing down the SPR.
SPR is at ~ 300 million barrels of a total of just over 700 million.
Trump is not “still” drawing down the SPR. The last draw down was last March.
How comes US reserves reached the lowest level in 44 years 3 days ago,
if the last draw down was half a year ago?
Evaporation?
And how comes the last draw down happened BEFORE the Hormuz crisis?
The downdraw stopped when the Oil shortage started????
As the operational minimum is considered to be between 250-300 mio, (dunno why ; maybe natural storage reasons)
300 mio doesn’t sound so good.
The operational minimum is for fundamental storage reasons. The SPR is stored in ‘solution dug’ deep Gulf Coast salt dome caverns. There are 60. They range in depth from about 2000 to 4000 feet deep (caverns averaging about 2000 feet high) and are each about 250-300 feet in diameter. They were originally filled by pumping crude in, while pumping the ‘solution dug’ saltwater out. Below 250-300 mb, these salt caverns risk collapsing because they are now otherwise about 60% hollow and ‘empty’. If ever really strategically needed, that might not matter. But to lose all the SPR infrastructure and have to start over otherwise would be very unwise.
Another problem I wrote about in ebook “The Arts of Truth”. When originally sized, SPR was for that time indeed strategic. But with the many decades of US economic and military growth since, the SPR is more ‘tactical’ than ‘strategic’ even when full—which it most decidedly isn’t.
The point is the drawdown didn’t stop with Biden. March wasn’t that long ago.
Over the last two decades, Europe’s politicians, Canada’s politicians, and Australia’s politicians have made decisions which — for all practical purposes — have the ultimate effect of surrendering their energy, their industrial, and their economic security to the Chinese.
It is not likely these European, Canadian, and Australian politicians will change course. And even if they did change course tomorrow afternoon, another two decades of hard work would be needed to put their energy and economic security positions back where these were at the end of the 1990’s.
All good points with one nit.
Your unqualified “two decades.”
That is an opinion or a guess.
Given how things work it could be 4 decades unless a dedicated leader with full backing is in charge in which case it could be quicker.
Yet they wage a ressource war in the middle east, kidnap leaders from oil producing countries and threaten allies like canada and denmark to gain access to their ressources. All while US citizens pay premium at the gas station and in the supermarket to support these adventures.
There is also the ressource curse theory…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
Almost like what republicans are doing (or at least try to).
As Ukraine and Iran show, renewables are energy security for europe.
https://www.eib.org/en/stories/europe-clean-energy-transition-energy-security-supply-shocks-eu
Wind and solar make up only a small part of the EU’s energy.
The main reason they have reduce the coal consumption is because they have decimated their industries with extreme electricity prices that teeter on the edge of collapse, and shipped much of the manufacturing to China nd India.
Imagine falling for the primary energy fallacy
https://knowledge.energyinst.org/new-energy-world/article?id=139309
Could be you
So, you want to deny energy use.. while talking about energy security.
How dumb is that. !
Petrol price in the US are far cheaper than in the EU or basically anywhere, for that matter.
.
Apart from Hong Kong, it looks like the countries paying the premium prices are all in the EU. !
Imagine finding out trumps misadventures driving up gas prices for everyone
Imagine finding out about different taxation
Couldn’t be you
Europe, including the UK, is a basket case
I’ve been reading about World War Two. The thing that really stands out for me is the US contribution of supplies and logistics. There is no substitute for the advantage of superior supply and logistics. Without abundant and affordable energy that advantage would never be possible. It is the same today as in the 1940s.
Without the enormous contribution of 400000 trucks and jeeps, 14000 warplanes, 13000 tanks, as well as masses of material by the USA to the USSR in WW2 the Eastern front would have had significant problems in pursuing the war.
Yes but our technology is different from the 1940s
“Energy security is inseparable from military power.”
This is the obvious about which the anti-carbon promoters were and still are ignorant. Eventually they may discover the modern US navy … “Roughly 40–45% of the U.S. Navy’s major combatant fleet is nuclear‑powered, but 100% of its submarines and all of its aircraft carriers use nuclear propulsion.” (Copilot AI)
The Navy gave up sail boats ages ago. The anti-carbon promoters are building windmills anywhere they can find a few million dollars and a puff of wind.