Pipeline Politics

By Janusz Bugajski
Energy has become one of the most powerful international weapons. Whoever controls the extraction, distribution, and supply of vital energy sources is in a position to become a global superpower. This is Russia’s primary objective under President Putin’s leadership.
There are two principal objectives in Russia’s global energy strategy. First, it seeks to use its energy supplies and its growing control over energy infrastructure in neighboring states to re-establish and expand Russia’s political influence and strategic dominance. This will enable Moscow to challenge American unipolarity in various important regions.
Second, Russia is determined to diversify its energy outlets in order not to be dependent on any specific transit country to transport and sell its energy. Thereby it can dictate prices to individual capitals and terminate supplies to specific states as a form of exerting political pressure.
In this geo-strategic context, the planned pipeline due to bypass the Bosphorus and cut across Greece and Bulgaria will primarily benefit Moscow’s political interests. It will undercut attempts by the East European states to limit their dependence on Russian energy by building routes from the Caspian Basin that bypass Russia.
The Balkan countries must also be careful in allowing Russia to own strategic infrastructure across their territories. According to Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, Moscow reserves the right to conduct military strikes where it sees direct threats to Russia’s territory or its strategic and economic assets in other countries.
Unfortunately, the EU has not considered energy security as a high priority despite the warnings of several Central European states. Numerous steps could be taken to ensure the diversification of supply sources and routes and thereby lessen the dangers of disruption and blackmail.
A common EU-U.S. energy policy needs to be devised to determine long-term energy supplies. Russian control over energy routes from the Caspian basin will undermine American interests throughout the Middle East and Central Asian by giving Moscow strong political leverage over these states. A trans-Atlantic energy security pact can oblige members of both NATO and the EU to pool their resources during a crisis to prevent the political manipulation of energy resources.
Negotiations must be intensified with Central Asian countries and energy transit states for the construction of westbound pipelines in order to bypass Russia. These include the Kazakhstan-Azerbaijan oil pipeline and the Turkmenistan-Azerbaijan gas pipeline that would link Central Asia with Europe through Turkey. Work must also be intensified on the Nabucco pipeline project to pump Iranian and Central Asian gas to the Balkans and beyond.
EU member states must also aim to ensure European control and supervision over energy transportation systems, strategic storage sites, refineries, and other critical infrastructures. This can involve better storage coordination between EU states and enhanced monitoring of energy supply and consumption across the region. The Union must also take steps to promote full transparency and fair competition in Russia’s energy investments.
Additionally, there needs to be better international cooperation in upgrading energy infrastructure, increasing the efficiency of energy usage, resolving cross-regional ecological problems, improving communication between government and business, devising a system of early warning concerning potential cuts in energy supplies, and improving public education in energy conservation.
Both the U.S. and the EU do have considerable leverage with Russia because Moscow needs Western capital to increase energy extraction and modernize its energy infrastructure. This leverage should be used strategically to ensure that Russia ratifies the EU-Russia Energy Charter that was supposed to ensure fair competition and transparency in energy policy and avoid the monopolization of supplies and infrastructure.
Europe’s energy dependence on an increasingly imperialistic Russia will prove disastrous when dealing with a country where the West exerts minimal political influence, where democracy has been thwarted by the state, and where the Kremlin’s global ambitions are much broader than those of any tyrant in the Middle East.