The critical cog in Putin’s machine and how British firms help to keep Russian gas flowing into Europe
This is the story of how an obscure company based in an office block on a quiet street in Glasgow became an accessory in Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine. It is the story of how Europe and Russia remain locked in a tense relationship of economic dependence, even as they supposedly cut their ties. It is the story of the uncomfortable truth behind why the cost of living crisis came to an end.
But before all of that, it is the story of a ship – a very unusual ship indeed.
If you ever spot the Yakov Gakkel as it sails through the English Channel or the Irish Sea (I first set eyes on it in the Channel but at the time of writing it was sailing northwards, about 20 miles off the coast of Anglesey) you might not find it all that remarkable.
At first glance it looks like many of the other large, nondescript tankers and cargo vessels passing these shores. Its profile is dominated by an enormous blue prow which reaches high out of the water and ends, 50 metres further back, at its unexpectedly angular stern.
Yet the ship’s slightly odd shape – all hull and barely any deck – is the first clue about what makes the Yakov Gakkel so special. Because this is one of the world’s most advanced liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers, with an unusual trick up its sleeve.
The Yakov Gakkel tanker
LNG tankers are extraordinary ships, with insides so cleverly engineered they are capable of holding vast amounts of natural gas at temperatures of approximately −163C.
For all that the world is embracing renewable energy, natural gas remains one of the most important energy sources, essential for much of Europe’s heating and power, not to mention its industries. For the time being, there is no cheap way of making many industrial products, from glass and paper to critical chemicals and fertilisers, without gas.
Once upon a time, moving natural gas from one part of the world to another necessitated sending it down long, expensive, vulnerable pipelines, meaning only countries with a physical connection to gas producers could receive this vital fuel. But LNG tankers like the Yakov Gakkel are part of the answer to this problem, since they allow gas producers to send it by sea to anywhere with a terminal capable of turning their supercooled methane back into the gas we use to heat our homes and power our grids.
Politicians in Europe promised to end the continent’s reliance on Russian gas
But the Yakov Gakkel can also do something most other LNG tankers cannot, for that enormous blue double hull allows it to carve through ice, enabling it to travel up into the Arctic Circle and back even in the depths of winter.
And that is precisely what this ship does, more or less constantly: travelling back and forth between Siberia and Europe, through winter and summer, bringing copious volumes of gas from Russia to Europe. It is part of the explanation for how Europe never ran out of gas, even after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
This is not, it’s worth saying, the conventional wisdom. Back when Russia invaded Ukraine, European policymakers declared they planned to eliminate the continent’s reliance on Russian gas – which accounted for roughly a third of their supplies before 2022.
And many assumed that had already happened – especially after the Nord Stream pipeline, the single biggest source of European gas imports, was sabotaged in late 2022. But while volumes of Russian pipeline gas into Europe have dropped dramatically, the amount of Russian LNG coming into Europe has risen to record levels.
LNG tankers sail between Siberia and various ports in Europe, including Zeebrugge
Russia helps Europe replenish gas stores
Today, Europe still depends on Russia for around 15% of its gas, an ever-growing proportion of which now comes in via the sealanes, on tankers like the Yakov Gakkel. And while the US has stepped in to make up some of the volumes lost when those pipelines stopped, only last month Russia overtook the US to become the second biggest provider of gas to the continent. It’s further evidence that those LNG volumes carried on ships through the North Sea, the Irish Sea and the English Channel, are increasing, rather than falling.
This Russian gas has helped Europe replenish its gas stores, it has helped keep the continent’s heavy industry going throughout the Ukraine war. And this dependence has not come cheap: the total amount Europe has paid Russia for LNG since 2022 comes to around €10bn.
The continued presence of Russian gas running through European grids is at least part of the explanation for why European energy prices have fallen so sharply since those post-invasion highs. Back then, many in the market were pricing in a complete end of Russian gas supply to Europe – something that would have had disastrous consequences. But it never actually happened.
Perhaps this explains why the continent’s politicians have, so far, stopped short of banning imports of Russian gas: they are aware that their economy would struggle to withstand another sharp spike in inflation – which would almost certainly eventuate if it stopped taking Russian gas altogether.
Russian gas has helped keep Europe’s heavy industry going throughout the Ukraine war
This week, European leaders agreed to stop allowing Russia to use its ports to “trans-ship” its LNG – essentially acting as a stop-off point towards other destinations. However, those transshipments account for only a fraction – at most a quarter – of the Russian gas coming in on tankers to Europe. The vast majority ends up in Belgium, France and Spain, heating European homes, fuelling power stations and powering machinery in factories.
While European leaders have imposed wide-ranging sanctions and price caps on shipments of oil, no such controls exist for liquefied natural gas. So the Yakov Gakkel and a fleet of LNG tankers carry on sailing between Siberia and various ports in Europe – Zeebrugge, Dunkirk, Montoir and Bilbao – keeping the continent supplied with the Russian hydrocarbons it still cannot live without.
British firm’s role in lucrative trade
But there is another reason why this ship is particularly unique, for the Yakov Gakkel – this critical cog in the financial machine that helps finance the Russian regime – is actually part-owned and operated by a British company.
That brings us back to a street overlooking the Clyde in Glasgow, where, in a glass-fronted office block, you will find the operational headquarters of a company called Seapeak. The chances are you haven’t heard of Seapeak before, but this business owns and operates a fleet of LNG tankers all across the world.
That fleet includes the Yakov Gakkel and four other LNG icebreakers that ply this Siberian trade. That a British company might be facilitating this lucrative trade for Russia might come as a surprise, but there is nothing illegal about this: the sanctions regime on Russia just turns out to be significantly more porous than you might have thought.
We tried repeatedly to speak to Seapeak – to ask them about the Yakov Gakkel and whether they felt it was appropriate – given the UK has forsworn LNG imports – that a British company and British workers are helping administer this Russian trade. We sent emails with questions. However, they did not respond to our calls or our emails.
When, after weeks of efforts to get a response, I visited their offices in Glasgow, I was met by a security guard who told me Seapeak would not see me without an appointment (which they were refusing to give me). Eventually I was told that if I would not leave they would call the police.
A security guard at Seapeak’s offices in Glasgow said no one was available to speak to Sky News
Seapeak is not the only British company helping keep Russian gas flowing. While British insurers are banned from protecting oil tankers carrying Russian crude, there’s no equivalent sanction on Russian LNG ships, with the upshot that many of these tankers are insured by British companies operating out of the Square Mile.
We spent some time tracking another icebreaking tanker, the Vladimir Rusanov, as it approached Zeebrugge. It is insured by the UK P&I Club, which also insures a number of other LNG carriers.
In a statement, it said: “The UK Club takes great care to observe all applicable sanctions regulations in relation to Russian energy cargoes, but the direct carriage of LNG from Yamal to Zeebrugge, and provision of insurance services for such carriage, is not presently sanctioned. If the EU and G7 nations were to change their policy… the Club would of course comply by adjusting or withdrawing its services, as necessary.”
The Vladimir Rusanov off the coast of Zeebrugge
The transport of Russian gas into Europe – its dependence on British operators and insurers – is only one small example of the loopholes and omissions in the UK sanctions regime. But while government ministers have expressed concern about the effectiveness of the broader sanctions regime, there is still scant evidence they intend to tighten up this corner of it.
Before the election was called the Treasury Select Committee was in the middle of collecting evidence for its own inquiry into the regime, which was expected to focus on insurers of vessels taking Russian goods. However, the inquiry was wound up prematurely when the election was called in May.
Read more on Sky News:
EU sanctions target Russian gas for first time
Russian oil still seeping into the UK
In the meantime, ships like the Yakov Gakkel carry on taking billions of cubic metres of gas from the gas fields of Yamal in Siberia down to Europe, in exchange for billions of euros. And those and other hydrocarbon revenues are one of the main explanations for how Russia is able to produce more missiles and weapons than the Ukrainians.
So Europe carries on fuelling its industry and its power and heating grids with molecules of gas coming from Siberian gasfields, while assuring itself it’s doing everything it can to fight Vladimir Putin.
It is, in short, a discomforting situation. But given the alternative is to induce another cost of living crisis, there is little appetite in Europe to change things.
World
Is this what the beginning of a war looks like? How the US threat around Venezuela is shaping up
Is this what the beginning of a war looks like?
In the deep blue waters of the Caribbean, visible from space, an unremarkable grey smudge.
The USS Gerald R Ford seen off the US Virgin Islands on 1 December. Credit: Copernicus
But this is the USS Gerald R Ford: the largest, most deadly aircraft carrier in the world. And it is only part of an armada, apparently set on Venezuela.
The Gerald R Ford, USS Winston S Churchill, USS Mahan and USS Bainbridge in the Atlantic on 13 November. Source: US Department of Defense
From being able to count on one hand the number of warships and boats in the Caribbean, since August we can see the build-up of the number, and variety of ships under US command.
And that’s only at sea – air power has also been deployed, with bombers flying over the Caribbean, and even along the Venezuelan coast, as recently as this week.
A Boeing B-52H Stratofortress near Venezuelan coast from Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, on 3 December. Credit: FlightRadar24
Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro told crowds his country has endured 22 weeks of aggression from the US and Donald Trump.
Things could be about to get worse.
So let’s rewind those 22 weeks to understand how we got here…
‘Drug boat’ strike
On 2 September, the White House posted on X that it had conducted a strike against so-called “narcoterrorists” shipping fentanyl to the US, without providing direct evidence of the alleged crime.
Sky’s Data & Forensics unit has verified that in the past four months since strikes began, 23 boats have been targeted in 22 strikes, killing 87 people.
Read more: The US-Venezuela crisis explained
The latest was on 4 December, after which US Southern Command announced it had conducted another strike on an alleged drug smuggling boat in the eastern Pacific.
It was the first such strike since 15 November and since the defence secretary, sometimes referred to as secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, came under scrutiny for an alleged “second strike” in an earlier attack.
The US says it carried out the action because of drugs – and there has been some evidence to support its assertion.
The Dominican Republic said it had recovered the contents of one boat hit by a strike – a huge haul of cocaine.
Legal issues
Whatever the cargo, though, there are serious, disputed legal issues.
Firstly, it is contested whether by designating the people on the boats as narcoterrorists, it makes them lawful military targets – or whether the strikes are in fact extra judicial murders of civilians at sea.
And more specifically… well, let’s go back to that very first video, of the very first strike.
What this footage doesn’t show is what came afterwards – an alleged “second strike” that targeted people in the water posing no apparent threat.
That has created a crisis for Hegseth.
Speaking at a cabinet meeting last week, the defence secretary said he did not see that there were survivors in the water when the second strike was ordered and launched in early September, saying that “the thing was on fire”.
And the 4 December strike shows this strategy isn’t over.
The strikes are just part of the story, as warships and planes have headed toward the region in huge numbers.
Drugs or oil?
Some have said this isn’t about drugs at all, but oil.
Venezuela has lots – the world’s largest proven reserves.
Speaking to the faithful on Fox News, Republican congresswoman – and Trump supporter – Maria Salazar said access to Venezuela would be a “field day” for American oil companies.
And Maduro himself has taken up that theme. A few days later, he wrote this letter to OPEC – which represents major oil producing nations – to “address the growing and illegal threats made by the government of the United States against Venezuela”.
That’s how Maduro has framed this – a plan by the US “to seize Venezuela’s vast oil reserves… through lethal military force”.
Lethal military force – an understatement when you think of the armada lying in wait.
And it may be called upon soon. Trump on Tuesday said he’s preparing to take these strikes from international waters on to Venezuelan territory.
Maduro has complained of 22 weeks of “aggression”. There may be many more to come.
Additional reporting by Sophia Massam, junior digital investigations journalist.
The Data X Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.
Donald Trump’s bruising assessment of Europe as “weak” and “decaying” is a bitter blow to nations already reeling from the release of his national security strategy.
At the end of the 45-minute interview with Politico, EU leaders might be forgiven for thinking, with friends like these, who needs enemies?
“Europe doesn’t know what to do,” Trump said, “They want to be politically correct, and it makes them weak.”
Trump meets leaders from Ukraine, Germany, France, the UK, Italy, and Finland, as well as the EU and NATO, in August Pic: Reuters
On the contrary, I would imagine some choice words were being uttered in European capitals as they waded through the string of insults.
What has Trump said?
First up, the US president criticised European leaders for failing to end the war between Russia and Ukraine.
“They talk but they don’t produce. And the war just keeps going on and on,” he said.
The fact that the Russians have shown no real commitment to stopping the invasion they started is not mentioned.
Instead, the blame is laid squarely at the feet of Ukraine and its allies in Europe.
“I think if I weren’t president, we would have had World War III,” Trump suggested, while concluding that Moscow is in the stronger position.
Trump meeting European leaders in the Oval Office in August. Pic: @RapidResponse47
Does he have a point?
Critics claim that the White House has emboldened the Kremlin and brought Putin in from the cold with a summit and photo opportunities.
Trump highlights the fact that his return to office forced many European NATO members to increase defence spending drastically.
On this, he is correct – the growing insecurity around how long America can be relied on has brought security into sharp focus.
But the release of the new US national security strategy has only added to the feelings of unease.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Tuesday claimed some of its contents were unacceptable from a European point of view.
“I see no need for America to want to save democracy in Europe. If it was necessary to save it, we would manage it on our own,” he told a news conference in Rhineland-Palatinate, the German state where Trump’s paternal grandfather was born.
Meeting between, left to right, Keir Starmer of the UK, Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, Emmanuel Macron of France, Donald Tusk of Poland, and Friedrich Merz of Germany. Pic: AP
The leader of the EU’s biggest power also said the new US strategy was not a surprise and largely chimed with the vice president’s speech at the Munich Security Conference in February.
For this reason, Merz reiterated that Europe and Germany must become more independent of America for their security policies.
However, he noted, “I say in my discussions with the Americans, ‘America first’ is fine, but America alone cannot be in your interests.”
For his part, while Trump said he liked most of Europe’s current leaders, he warned they were “destroying” their countries with their migration policies.
He said: “Europe is a different place, and if it keeps going the way it’s going, Europe will not be…in my opinion, many of those countries will not be viable countries any longer. Their immigration policy is a disaster”.
He added: “Most European nations… they’re decaying.”
Read more:
Analysis: Putin preparing for more war, not less
White House: Europe ‘unrecognisable in 20 years or less’
Again, the comments echoed his security strategy, which warned immigration risked “civilisation erasure” in Europe.
There’s no doubt immigration is a major concern for many of the continent’s leaders and voters.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Zelenskyy meets European leaders
However, irregular crossings into the EU fell 22% in the first 10 months of 2025 according to Frontex, a fact which seems to have passed the president and his team by.
“Within a few decades at the latest, certain Nato members will become majority non-European”, his security document warned.
It also suggested “cultivating resistance” in Europe “to restore former greatness” leading to speculation about how America might intervene in European politics.
Trump appeared to add further clarification on Tuesday, saying while he did not “want to run Europe”, he would consider “endorsing” his preferred candidates in future elections.
👉 Tap to follow Trump100 wherever you get your podcasts👈
This comment will also ruffle feathers on the continent where the European Council President has already warned Trump’s administration against interfering in Europe’s affairs.
“Allies do not threaten to interfere in the domestic political choices of their allies,” Antonio Costa said on Monday.
“The US cannot replace Europe in what its vision is of free expression… Europe must be sovereign.”
So, what will happen now, and how will Europe’s leaders respond?
If you are hoping for a showdown, you will likely be disappointed.
Like him or loathe him, Europe’s leaders need Trump.
They need the might of America and want to try to secure continued support for Ukraine.
While the next few days will be filled with politely scripted statements or rejections of the president’s comments, most of his allies know on this occasion they are probably best to grin and bear it.
World
‘Cheap ceasefire’ between Ukraine and Russia would create ‘expensive peace’ for Europe, Norway’s foreign minister warns
A “cheap ceasefire” between Ukraine and Russia – with Kyiv forced to surrender land – would create an “expensive peace” for the whole of Europe, Norway’s foreign minister has warned.
Espen Barth Eide explained this could mean security challenges for generations, with the continent’s whole future “on the line”.
It was why Ukraine, its European allies and the US should seek to agree a common position when trying to secure a settlement with Vladimir Putin, the top Norwegian diplomat told Sky News in an interview during a visit to London on Tuesday.
Ukraine war latest: Trump says Putin has upper hand in peace talks
“I very much hope that we will have peace in Ukraine and nobody wants that more than the Ukrainians themselves,” Mr Eide said.
“But I am worried that we might push this to what in quotation marks is a ‘cheap ceasefire’, which will lead to a very expensive peace.”
Explaining what he meant, Mr Eide said a post-war era follows every conflict – big or small.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Inside Ukraine’s underground military HQ
How that plays out typically depends upon the conditions under which the fighting stopped.
“If you are not careful, you will lock in certain things that it will be hard to overcome,” he said.
“So if we leave with deep uncertainties, or if we allow a kind of a new Yalta, a new Iron Curtain, to descend on Europe as we come to peace in Ukraine, that’s problematic for the whole of Europe. So our future is very much on the line here.”
He said this mattered most for Ukrainians – but the outcome of the war will also affect the future of his country, the UK and the rest of the continent.
“This has to be taken more seriously… It’s a conflict in Europe, it has global consequences, but it’s fundamentally a war in our continent and the way it’s solved matters to our coming generations,” the Norwegian foreign minister said.
Russia ‘will know very well how to exploit vagueness’
Asked what he meant by a cheap ceasefire, he said: “If Ukraine is forced to give up territory that it currently militarily holds, I think that would be very problematic.
“If restrictions are imposed on future sovereignty. If there’s vagueness on what was actually agreed that can be exploited. I think our Russian neighbours will know very well how to exploit that vagueness in order to keep a small flame burning to annoy us in the future.”
Progress being made on peace talks
Referring to the latest round of peace talks, initiated by Donald Trump, Mr Eide signalled that progress was being made from an initial 28-point peace plan proposed a couple of weeks ago by the United States that favoured Moscow over Kyiv.
That document included a requirement for the Ukrainian side to give up territory it still holds in eastern Ukraine to Russia and Mr Eide described it as “problematic in many aspects”.
But he said: “I think we’ve now had a good conversation between Ukraine, leading European countries and the US on how to adapt and develop that into something which might be a good platform for Ukraine and its allies to go to Russia with.
“We still don’t know the Russian response, but what I do know is the more we are in agreement as the West, the better Ukraine will stand.”
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024