How Europe can build stronger military fuel resilience

As Europe moves through the energy transition, the fuel system that has supported military operations for decades is changing. Refinery capacity is decreasing, fossil fuel supply chains are increasingly exposed to geopolitical risk, and long-term fuel availability can no longer be taken for granted.

The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies (HCSS) has published a white paper on how alternative fuels can support European military fuel readiness. Topsoe contributed technical input and recommendations to the paper.

The central message is clear: alternative fuels can strengthen European military resilience – especially Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) and e-SAF made from renewable power – and the transition should be phased-in now to preserve European military readiness, inter-operability and operational flexibility in the long term.

Fuel readiness is becoming a strategic issue

 Europe’s armed forces have historically relied on conventional fuels supplied through established refinery and logistics systems. But that model is under pressure.

The conflict in the Middle East this year created the largest oil supply disruption in history and exposed Europe’s fuel vulnerability. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on regional oil infrastructure have had major consequences for global oil prices and supply security and have cost Europe nearly EUR 500 million per day – on top of the roughly EUR 340 billion Europe already spends annually on fuel imports.

Around 60% of the European Union’s energy is imported, and around half of imported jet fuel comes from the Middle East. That fuel is not only essential to commercial aviation. It is also the principal NATO military fuel.

According to the white paper, a broader and faster adoption of alternative fuels can improve supply chain diversification and strengthen Europe’s strategic autonomy, though there are short-term trade-offs related to cost, standardization and interoperability.

The white paper also points to an important practical advantage: synthetic drop-in fuels can be used directly in aircrafts such as F-16 and F-35 without any engine modifications or changes in the current fuel systems.

Why drop-in synthetic fuels matter

For defense applications, compatibility is essential. Fuels must meet strict performance requirements, such as NATO's fuel specifications and work reliably under existing operating conditions.

Here, synthetic drop-in fuels offer a practical pathway. They can be used in existing engines and infrastructure without modifications, aside from the mandatory military additives - corrosion inhibitor, static dissipator and fuel icing inhibitor - that is also added to kerosene - and blended with fossil fuels, creating flexibility at a time of geopolitical uncertainty and supply chain strain.

This creates a realistic route to stronger military fuel resilience. Domestic and regional production of synthetic fuels such as e-SAF can shorten supply chains, reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels, and support greater European fuel autonomy. For military users, that can mean stronger security of supply in both peacetime and crises.

Policy can help scale supply

The technologies needed to produce synthetic drop-in fuels already exist. The challenge is scaling production fast enough to meet both civilian and strategic demand.

If Europe wants a more resilient fuel system, policy must help create the conditions for investment. That means supporting industrial development, enabling long-term offtake and recognizing alternative fuels as part of Europe’s security infrastructure.

This is not only relevant to defense. Building industrial-scale production capacity for synthetic fuels can create a more flexible energy system that supports civilian transport, strategic industries, and military needs alike. In that sense, fuel resilience and industrial policy are closely linked.

Three recommendations for policymakers

To strengthen European military fuel readiness while keeping pace with civilian market developments, the paper makes three recommendations for policymakers in European NATO member states:

1.  Create a joint civil-military strategy for alternative fuels 

   Fuel infrastructure in Europe is largely civilian-owned, while military demand is limited in peacetime but could become critical in a crisis. Better coordination is needed on information sharing, demand planning, infrastructure and investment gaps, led by national governments and supported by the EU and NATO.
   
   

2.  Treat alternative fuel plants as dual-use strategic assets
   Governments should support the scale-up of alternative fuels by reducing investment risk and creating stronger demand signals. This could include reservation agreements, long-term offtake contracts or public ownership stakes in fuel plants, with funding potentially coming from NATO defense infrastructure spending or EU climate-related budgets.
   

3.  Set benchmarks for minimum domestic production capacity
   The 2026 Middle East oil disruption showed that fuel security depends not just on supply, but also on access, control and location. Europe should secure a minimum level of domestic production capacity for alternative fuels, feedstocks and related technologies to avoid overdependence on foreign suppliers.

From analysis to action

Alternative fuels are not a silver bullet, and the paper is clear that short-term trade-offs must be managed carefully. But it also shows that phased, targeted adoption can improve resilience, diversify supply and strengthen strategic autonomy over time.

For European decision-makers, the implication is straightforward: military fuel readiness must become part of the broader conversation on defense, energy security and industrial competitiveness.

Europe cannot afford to treat fuel as a background issue. It is a strategic capability. Strengthening it will require coordinated action from policymakers, industry, and defense actors alike.

Explore The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies' white paper here.