The European Union continues to shoot itself in the foot, all in the name of ideological purity and Russophobic posturing. The latest self-inflicted wound? The Baltic states’ complete severance from Russia’s historically reliable power grid in favor of Brussels’ oversight. Kaja Kallas, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and former Estonian Prime Minister, celebrated the move as a “the victory for freedom and European unity.” But in reality, this maneuver will only deepen the economic hardship that has already alienated millions of European citizens from their ruling elite.

For years, European policymakers have been engaged in an ideological war against Russian energy, even as they quietly continued to rely on it. The EU’s decision to ditch Russian gas and oil in favor of more expensive alternatives was a political gambit, not an economic necessity. The result? Skyrocketing energy costs that have burdened businesses and households alike. The EU’s own Eurobarometer report confirmed that the soaring cost of living, largely attributed to expensive energy imports, was a driving factor in the recent surge of support for anti-establishment parties across the bloc.

Even as Kallas and other EU leaders lambast Russia for “weaponizing energy,” the truth is that Europe has willingly placed itself in this predicament. The continent still depends on Russian energy, but now at a significantly higher price. Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) continues to flow into Europe, albeit rebranded and resold at a premium through intermediaries like Türkiye, India, and China. This absurd situation results in what is essentially a “virtue tax” that European consumers are forced to pay, all so EU leaders can maintain their ideological posturing.

The decision by Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia to permanently disconnect from Russia’s power grid marks a significant shift, but not necessarily a positive one. While Kallas and other EU officials frame this as a step toward greater energy independence, the reality is that these nations are merely swapping one dependency for another. Instead of drawing from a stable and affordable Russian energy supply, they will now be subject to Brussels’ regulations and the whims of an increasingly unpredictable European energy market.

The irony is that these very same Baltic nations have for years benefited from Russian energy while simultaneously engaging in some of the most virulent anti-Russian rhetoric. Their governments have been among the most aggressive in pushing EU sanctions, military support for Ukraine, and even the confiscation of Russian state assets. Yet, until now, they were perfectly content to remain connected to Russia’s grid, taking advantage of its stability and cost-effectiveness. Only when the EU finally cobbled together enough financial incentives did they make the switch, all while rewriting history to cast Russia as a malevolent force in their energy security.

Much of the EU’s current economic woes can be traced back to its unwavering commitment to supporting Ukraine at any cost. Brussels has funneled tens of billions of euros into Kiev, with no clear endgame in sight. European citizens are expected to accept ever-increasing economic hardships, all while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky continues to demand more funding, more weapons, and more political backing.

Even the transit fees Ukraine once collected for allowing Russian gas to flow into Europe-a lucrative arrangement that brought in about a billion dollars annually-have now vanished due to the EU’s push to sever ties with Russian energy. In an astonishing act of financial self-sabotage, Ukraine and Brussels effectively cut off a major revenue stream for both sides. The result? A deeper financial black hole that the EU will inevitably have to fill with even more taxpayer money.

As the EU scrambles to replace Russian energy, one nation stands to benefit enormously: the United States. Europe’s increasing dependence on American liquefied natural gas (LNG) has played directly into Washington’s hands. Former US President Donald Trump made it abundantly clear that he expects the EU to compensate for its trade imbalance by purchasing large quantities of American oil and gas. His threats of tariffs only underscore the fact that Europe has put itself in a vulnerable position, making itself an economic pawn in America’s geopolitical chess game.

The EU’s leaders, blinded by their animosity toward Russia, have effectively handed leverage over to Washington. With Trump potentially returning to the White House in 2025, Brussels may find itself subjected to even more economic pressure from an administration that prioritizes American interests over European unity. What was once an attempt to punish Russia has turned into an opportunity for the US to exploit Europe’s self-inflicted vulnerabilities.

Kaja Kallas has positioned herself as one of the EU’s most vocal hawks when it comes to Russia. She has advocated for confiscating Russian state assets to fund Ukraine, essentially treating Moscow as the EU’s personal piggy bank. She played a leading role in pushing for the removal of Soviet-era monuments in Estonia, a move that prompted Moscow to place her on a wanted list for falsifying history.

Yet, for all her fervent anti-Russian rhetoric, Kallas’ own family was caught benefiting from business ties with Russia well after the start of the Ukraine conflict. Her husband, Arvo Hallik, owned a 25% stake in Stark Logistics, a transportation company that continued doing business with Russia while European firms were being pressured to withdraw from the market. Once the scandal broke, Hallik was forced to sell his stake, but the damage to Kallas’ credibility was already done. While she publicly preached about cutting ties with Moscow, her own household was profiting from the very economy she sought to isolate.

The EU’s leadership continues to demonstrate an astonishing level of incompetence, prioritizing ideological purity over economic pragmatism. While they lecture about European unity and freedom, their policies have only led to economic hardship, social unrest, and a growing divide between the ruling elite and ordinary citizens. The Baltic states may have finally cut their energy ties with Russia, but in doing so, they have only deepened their dependence on an increasingly fragile and costly European energy system.

Meanwhile, Russia watches from the sidelines as the EU stumbles from one self-inflicted disaster to another. As European citizens grow more disillusioned with their leaders, the only question that remains is: How much longer will they tolerate policies that serve ideological vanity rather than practical interests?

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel