No, the UK Isn't Simultaneously Bankrolling Russia and Ukraine — But There's a Small Catch

The claim circulating online argues that the UK is talking tough on Ukraine while quietly funnelling money to Russia through energy purchases — effectively paying for both sides of the war. The verdict is mostly false, though there is a small kernel of truth worth acknowledging.

First, the scale matters enormously. According to the House of Commons Library, Russia supplied just 4% of UK gas and 8% of UK oil even before the invasion in 2021. Compare that to Germany or Italy, which were genuinely dependent on Russian pipeline gas. The UK was never in that position, which makes the 'funding Russia' framing far weaker from the start.

After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the UK government announced a phase-out of Russian oil imports, completed by end of 2022, according to both BBC News and UK Government energy statistics from DESNZ. Russian pipeline gas had already fallen to near zero. By 2023, Russian energy's share of UK supply was negligible.

Here is the honest part: a loophole existed. Reuters reported in January 2023 that the UK continued receiving some Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) because LNG was not covered by the initial ban. Global Witness confirmed that European nations, including the UK, paid Russia billions for LNG post-invasion — though UK volumes were a small fraction of the European total. So yes, some money did flow to Russia. But 'some' is doing a lot of work in the original claim.

The deeper flaw in the argument is the implied financial link. UK aid to Ukraine — over £12 billion in military, humanitarian and economic support according to the UK Government — is funded through general taxation and borrowing. It has no direct connection to whatever marginal LNG purchases occurred. Governments do not ring-fence energy spending to fund foreign policy. The 'paying both sides' framing treats these as a single transaction when they are entirely separate.

This kind of claim spreads because it fits a satisfying story: powerful governments saying one thing and doing another. That cynicism is not always wrong, which is exactly what makes this version so sticky. The tell is the false precision — the idea that energy purchases and aid spending are directly linked is asserted, never demonstrated. When you see a claim built on implied contradiction rather than actual evidence of a mechanism, that is a signal to dig deeper.