1 / 10

Europe-Russia Energy Relations: Security in Diversity?

Europe-Russia Energy Relations: Security in Diversity?. Dr. Andrew Monaghan, Research Consultant, NATO Defence College. Introduction. Russia in European thinking Russia as “the problem” Diversity as the answer? Conclusions European thinking reactive

brennan-chang
Download Presentation

Europe-Russia Energy Relations: Security in Diversity?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Europe-Russia Energy Relations: Security in Diversity? Dr. Andrew Monaghan, Research Consultant, NATO Defence College

  2. Introduction • Russia in European thinking • Russia as “the problem” • Diversity as the answer? • Conclusions • European thinking reactive • Russia often taken out of context strategically

  3. Russia in European Thinking • Russia is the gravitational focus for European thinking • Evolution in thought • Politically unreliable • Oct 2005, Jan 2006, Dec/Jan 2007 • Sustainability • Gas deficit • Liberal/monopoly • Bureaucratic improvement/political deterioration • Energy security dilemma

  4. Russia as “the problem” • Energy “Superpower”? • Political idea without a strategy • Unclear “national interests” • Gazprom strategy ≠ Russian strategy • Incoherence & Competition • Gazprom vs. Rosneft; Gazprom vs. State • Shady “re-nationalisation” • Gas deficit • Domestic consumption/foreign contracts

  5. Responses • Reactive • Veto, ECT ratification, diversification NATO • Veto, ECT • Cohesion of members • Negotiating against Russia’s “natural advantages”

  6. Energy Insecurity Responses • Diversify? • Already diverse – energy type, source, route • Complicates policy making & consensus • To where? • Iran? Nigeria • Energy Security Dilemma • Sources & Markets

  7. Energy Insecurity Responses • NATO • January 2006 (USA/Ukraine) • September 2006 Seminar • Riga Summit • Strategic Concept • Military security: NATO’s energy supply • Shortage of other options in answer to perceived threat • EU & IEA not responsive & supportive enough • Bring in US diplomatic weight

  8. NATO & energy security • US & Turkey involvement • Political links to the wider world: PfP & ICI, NRC • IPAP: Azerbaijan • Military dimension • Infrastructure security • Naval protection • Civil Defence & emergency management

  9. NATO & Energy Insecurity • The “whole chain” BUT: • Does not address the key issues: investment • Military alliance involvement creates concerns abroad • Political dimension of energy security: confidence • A global thematic rather than regional diplomatic role

  10. Conclusions • Energy security is a primarily POLITICAL issue – is enough resource base • Tension between existing and reliable resources • Responses so far REACTIVE & undermining energy security • Key responses are domestic – efficiency & investment • NATO has a global energy security role, albeit focused & explicitly addressed • Consumer, Producer & Transit often the same; NATO understands “the chain”

More Related