BRUSSELS — The EU will only conduct further releases of oil and diesel reserves after the International Energy Agency has made it clear such a move would not be damaging to the bloc’s energy security, three diplomats familiar with the matter told POLITICO.

The Group of Seven — which includes Italy, Japan, Germany the U.K., France and the U.S. — agreed on Friday to release 100 million barrels of oil and diesel after U.S. officials threatened to ban diesel exports if they didn’t tap stockpiles.

However, the IEA appeared to confirm Wednesday that that release would draw from stocks pledged under an agreement in March and not include additional supplies. In other words, it would not amount to a new release at all, but would simply fulfil prior promises.

In a meeting Wednesday afternoon, EU officials endorsed the position, pledging to defer any future drawdowns “pending a clearer IEA assessment of market conditions and security-of-supply risks,” said one of the diplomats. Countries need to know “how low we can go,” said another.

While diesel prices are high as a result of airstrikes on energy infrastructure in Russia and the Middle East, some EU countries warned that releasing stocks now could leave them vulnerable in the event of a supply crisis.

There remain enough untapped stocks among IEA members to satisfy the pledge to release 100 million barrels.

Of the 400 million barrels pledged in March, 325 million have been released, with some countries releasing “greater volumes than they initially pledged,” the IEA said in a statement following an emergency ministerial meeting. That leaves around 100 million left that countries can still release under that agreement, it added.

It said the fresh commitment would represent a “completion” of that March agreement. The IEA’s 32 members include wealthy European, North American and East Asian countries.

POLITICO reported earlier Wednesday that France and Germany — which hold some of Europe’s most significant stockpiles — had signalled they would release no or minimal supplies on top of those already pledged.

It remains unclear what share of the releases non-EU members of the IEA will accept, after Japan, another member, ruled out any further releases.

Further details on the breakdown of the G7 release will be discussed at a meeting of the IEA’s governing board next week, the second diplomat said.

BRUSSELS — France and Germany said Wednesday that they will release diesel stocks that were already committed in March as part of the G7 pledge to tap stockpiles of oil products, leaving it uncertain as to whether any new barrels will be released in addition, two diplomats familiar with the matter told POLITICO. 

The comments suggest Europe’s promise to U.S. President Donald Trump last week to release millions of barrels of the transport fuel was less generous than it sounded.

The G7 club of rich countries committed Friday to release a “substantial” amount of diesel in the next 20 days to bring down global prices after senior Trump administration officials threatened to impose an export ban on the fuel if European countries didn’t unlock their reserves.

But in a closed-door meeting of EU energy officials Wednesday, the countries acknowledged that the release wouldn’t include new barrels of diesel but rather barrels already pledged under a wider European commitment to release 100 million barrels, two-thirds of which were refined products, the diplomats said. That deal was brokered by the International Energy Agency in March weeks after the outbreak of the war in Iran. 

The exact quantities Germany and France will release remains unclear, but they will represent a portion of the remainder of the stocks committed in March, the diplomats and a German government spokesperson said.

Of the 2.65 million tons of oil, diesel and jet fuel promised, Germany has so far released only 600,000 tons onto the market. It remains unclear how much France has contributed of its own commitment to release 14.6 million barrels of oil products. However, Paris has indicated privately that it still has 8 million barrels left under the March commitment, which it will contribute under the latest push, two other diplomats told POLITICO.

The countries, which boast some of the largest reserves of refined oil products in Europe, have been criticized by the Trump administration for not contributing the full share committed in March. Germany attributes that to weak demand for the barrels, according to a document seen by POLITICO.

It’s not clear whether countries will ultimately decide to commit additional barrels, with one European official telling POLITICO Monday that the fresh commitment “necessarily implied” a fresh release. France on Wednesday signaled it could release 2 million barrels of diesel on top of the quantities agreed in March — as part of the G7 vow to prioritize releases of the motor fuel over the next 20 days — but stopped short of offering a clear commitment, two diplomats said. An extraordinary meeting of the IEA will take place today, two other people familiar with the matter said.

The move came amid confusion from other member countries over who was committing how much and when, with some Eastern European countries like Bulgaria also expressing concern that blowing through reserves to combat prices would leave them exposed in the event of a supply crisis, the people said.

A spokeswoman for Germany’s economy and energy ministry confirmed on Tuesday that Berlin would be releasing no new barrels.

“The G7 has asked the IEA to monitor a swift and complete implementation of the commitments made for March 2026,” the spokeswoman told POLITICO. “Against this background, and taking into account commitments already fulfilled, the obligations are to be implemented through a coordinated release of 100 million barrels via the IEA.”

She added “as of now, no additional quantities” would be released.

Aude le Gentil contributed to this report.

This article has been updated.

EU capitals are quietly preparing for how the bloc should respond to a major hybrid attack that leaves several citizens dead — an outcome that looks increasingly likely, according to five EU diplomats and officials.

But the efforts to prepare are exposing splits on how much of a role the EU should play on security matters, and whether the bloc’s efforts are redundant with NATO.

The talks about a nightmare attack scenario have taken place in recent weeks among EU ambassadors from all 27 countries gathering in “restricted format,” meaning without phones or assistants. Discussions have ramped up since the discovery of an explosives-laden drone at Leipzig airport in August, said the diplomats and officials, who were granted anonymity to discuss the confidential exchanges.

While the EU has discussed such scenarios for years — unveiling a “hybrid toolbox” geared at coordinating responses to cyberattacks, election interference, and sabotage — the latest talks zeroed in on the risk of more serious attacks that cause large-scale casualties. Two diplomats said a meeting among EU ambassadors last Wednesday focused specifically on such examples.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the EU says Moscow has intensified a campaign of cyberattacks, sabotage and other covert operations across the bloc.

“Europe’s democracies are facing a growing number of threats,” European justice Commissioner Michael McGrath told POLITICO. “We are strengthening our capacity to anticipate and detect threats, improve early warning and ensure that Europe can respond quickly and collectively when our democratic resilience is tested.”

The talks among EU diplomats and ministers have focused on deploying emergency response teams, freeing up pockets of EU money to help the affected state, and how EU institution leaders should communicate, one EU official said.

“We have to be prepared for something serious,” a senior EU diplomat said. “Unfortunately, Leipzig showed us that a very serious incident, something that causes multiple casualties, is not out of the question.”

A second EU official added: “Given the scope and scale of Russia’s action there are bound to be casualties sooner than later. It’s sheer luck there haven’t been any yet.”

‘Very confusing’

The bloc is reeling from near-daily reports of so-called hybrid attacks — a label used by the EU and NATO to describe subversive activity that falls below the threshold of a direct act of war. On Tuesday, several sailors were declared missing after their ship was sunk by drones in the Black Sea, according to Bulgarian officials.

This followed the Leipzig airport incident, a suspicious fire at a Polish ground-link station handling Starlink communications, and a plot to plant incendiary devices in commercial transport hubs around the EU and U.K., alongside regular airspace violations.

“It is quite obvious that when Russia is using more and more lethal tools to test our preparedness and willingness to take counter measures, at some point there will be casualties,” said Teija Tiilikainen, director of the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats. “At some point, intentionally or unintentionally, this is what happens.”

If several EU or NATO-member citizens are killed in what appears to be an attack, the pressure to act will be overwhelming on both institutions. “We’re very afraid that at some point an allied life” will be taken, said one NATO diplomat, which will make the “pressure very high” to act.

Yet EU-level discussions are prompting criticism from some capitals that the EU is overstepping its security role and potentially duplicating NATO’s core functions, the transatlantic alliance that has underpinned European security for 80 years.

“It risks being very confusing for decision-makers at all levels,” said Oana Lungescu, a distinguished fellow at RUSI and former spokesperson for NATO. “If there is confusion or duplication, that risks slowing down the decision-making, which has implications because time is always of the essence.”

Another problem is the EU’s lack of secure communications and suspicion that sensitive information shared during ambassador gatherings can be leaked, several diplomats said. Reports that Hungary’s ex-foreign minister shared the contents of leader-level talks with his Russian counterpart only deepened these concerns, leading capitals to restrict truly sensitive information to NATO formats.

“My government is very suspicious of sharing sensitive intelligence in Coreper or even in the leaders’ room,” said a diplomat from an eastern flank state. “It either shows up in the media or goes straight to Moscow.”

Overlapping protocols

The pushback coincides with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s efforts to bolster the bloc’s security credentials.

In her latest State of the European Union speech in Strasbourg, the former German defense minister pitched an “emergency security protocol” to help EU states coordinate in exactly the kind of scenario being discussed. The protocol, along with von der Leyen’s pitch to create a “European Security Council,” is expected to feature in a landmark “European Security Strategy” due out in early November, according to two diplomats.

But several diplomats pushed back, arguing these efforts would take months to set up and potentially duplicate functions that already exist inside the EU.

Instead of creating new formats that add complexity, one senior national diplomat said the EU should double down on the crisis-response tools it already has.

“We’re very uncomfortable about [the] emergency security protocol,” the diplomat said. “We already have mechanisms in place. If there is a crisis, we have the Integrated Political Response (IPCR) that worked very well during the pandemic and other crises.”

Putin doesn’t care

Established under the scope of the Lisbon Treaty, the IPCR allows the holder of the EU’s rotating presidency, at the request of an affected country, to call emergency meetings involving experts from NATO, the U.N., or other international bodies.

In the event of a major hybrid attack, the onus remains on the affected country to decide on the best way forward. France triggered the EU’s Article 42.7 following the 2015 Bataclan attacks, marking the only time the mutual assistance clause has been invoked. However, Lungescu noted this was a “political decision” by Paris that did not lead to major displays of mutual assistance beyond coordinating terror investigations between France and Belgium.

To avoid confusion over who does what during a mass-casualty event, Lungescu said both parties should divide labor: NATO handling intelligence-sharing and military deterrence, and the EU focusing on civilian response.

For Tiilikainen, EU efforts to coordinate responses to hybrid attacks are useful — within limits. However, she noted they are “not comparable with resilience measures at a national level,” such as Finland’s “comprehensive security” approach.

Lungescu also stressed that Moscow makes no distinction between the two organizations. “Frankly, [Russian President Vladimir] Putin doesn’t care whether decisions are taken by Coreper 2 or the NAC,” she added, referring to the meetings of EU ambassadors or NATO’s decision-making body. “This is not how Moscow thinks.”

Victor Jack contributed reporting.

The Axel Springer Global Reporters Network harnesses the resources of the company’s newsrooms to publish ambitious scoops, investigations, interviews, opinion pieces and analysis. It allows journalists — including those from POLITICO, The Telegraph, Business Insider, WELT, BILD, Onet and Fakt — to collaborate on major stories for an international audience of hundreds of millions across platforms: online, print, TV and audio.