Download EU-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
• Russia often taken out of context
strategically
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
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
Responses
• Reactive
• Veto, ECT ratification, diversification NATO
• Veto, ECT
– Cohesion of members
– Negotiating against Russia’s “natural
advantages”
Energy Insecurity Responses
• Diversify?
– Already diverse – energy type, source, route
– Complicates policy making & consensus
• To where?
– Iran? Nigeria
• Energy Security Dilemma
– Sources & Markets
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
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
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
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”