Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 343–357 | Cite as

Russia and the Caspian region: challenges for transatlantic energy security?

  • Julia Nanay
  • Karen Smith StegenEmail author
Article

Abstract

The EU and the USA have not always agreed on Europe’s approach to energy security, particularly Europe’s relationship with Russia. But even when transatlantic interests have converged vis-a`-vis Russia or the Caspian region, mere concurrence has not always been sufficient for producing positive outcomes. By analysing in broad-brush strokes the motivations of the EU, the USA and Russia in four arenas — Russian and Caspian oil to world markets and Russian and Caspian gas to the EU — the contradictions and challenges are illuminated. As this analysis demonstrates, success is more likely when the EU member states are unified around a position and the transatlantic partners agree on both objectives and strategies.

Keywords

Russia Caspian Caucasus Central Asia energy security 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Peter Rutland, ‘US Energy Policy and the Former Soviet Union: Parallel Tracks’, in Russian Energy Power and Foreign Relations. Implications for Conflict and Cooperation, ed. Jeronim Perovic, Robert Orttung, and Andreas Wenger (London and New York: Routledge, 2009), 181–200.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Margaret Thatcher Foundation, ‘The Polish Crisis of 1980–1981’, https://doi.org/www.margaretthatcher.org/archive/us-reagan(Poland).asp.
  3. 3.
    Production figures presented by the Russian Federal State Statistics Service, https://doi.org/www.gks.ru.
  4. 4.
    For more see Andreas Heinrich, Julia Kusznir, and Heiko Pleines, ‘Foreign Investment in Russian Oil and Gas’, Post-Communist Economies 14, no. 4 (2002): 495–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    See note 3.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anders Åslund, ‘Comparative Oligarchy: Russia, Ukraine and the United States’, CASE Network Studies and Analyses No. 296 (2005); and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, https://doi.org/www.case-research.eu/upload/publikacja_plik/4931074_SA296last.pdf(accessed September 13, 2012).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    TNK-BP, ‘Sign Pipeline Memorandum — Governments Will Attempt to Clear Away Obstacles for $7 Billion Construction’, TNK-BP News, June 27, 2003, https://doi.org/tnk-bp.ru/en/center/media/2003/06/4695/ (accessed September 13, 2012).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Martha Brill Olcott, Vladimir Putin and the Geopolitics of Oil, Online Paper (Houston: The James A. Backer III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University, 2004), https://doi.org/www.carnegieendowment.org/files/wp-2005-01_olcott_english1.pdf(accessed September 13, 2012).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Andrew Kramer, ‘$13 Billion Sibneft Deal Fulfills Gazprom Quest’, New York Times, September 29, 2005, https://doi.org/www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/business/worldbusiness/29iht-gazprom.html (accessed September 13, 2012).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andrew Kramer, ‘Shell Cedes Control of Sakhalin-2 to Gazprom’, New York Times, December 21, 2006, https://doi.org/www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-shell.3981718.html (accessed September 18, 2012).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Timothy Heritage, ‘New Blow for BP in Russia as Office Raided’, Reuters, August 31, 2011, https://doi.org/www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/31/us-bp-russia-raid-idUSTRE77U1EP20110831 (accessed June 27, 2012).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Julia Nanay, Russian Arctic Strategies and Recent Deals (Washington, DC: Wilson Center Canada Institute, 2012), https://doi.org/www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/NanayArctic7-12-12.pdf (accessed September 17, 2012)Google Scholar
  13. 12a.
    and Jake Rudnitsky and Ilya Khrennikov, ‘Putin Pushes International Oil CEOs for Access to Assets’, Bloomberg News, June 22, 2012, https://doi.org/www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-21/putin-pushes-international-oil-ceos-for-access-to-assets (accessed June 27, 2012).Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    Louise Armitstead, ‘David Cameron: “UK Companies Put Off Russia Because of Corruption”’, Telegraph, September 12, 2011, https://doi.org/www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/global-business/8758532/David-Cameron-UK-companies-put-off-Russia-because-of-corruption. html (accessed September 17, 2012).Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    Karen Smith Stegen, ‘Deconstructing the “Energy Weapon”: Russia’s Threat to Europe as Case Study’, Energy Policy 39, no. 10 (October 2011): 6505–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 15.
    For background, see Leon Fuerth, ‘Oil, Oligarchs and Opportunity: Energy from Central Asia to Europe’, Testimony to the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, June 12, 2008, https://doi.org/www.foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2008/FuerthTestimony080612p.pdf(accessed September 18, 2012). The testimony of the other experts at this hearing is also enlightening.Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    Richard Morningstar, ‘From Pipe Dream to Pipeline: The Realization of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan’, Event Report, Council on Library Resources, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University, May 20, 2003, https://doi.org/belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/12795/from_pipe_dream_to_pipeline.html (accessed September 17, 2012).Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    For example, see Zeyno Baran, ‘The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Implication for Turkey’, in The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Oil Window to the West, ed. S. Frederick Starr and Svante E. Cornell (Washington, DC: Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program, Joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center, 2005), 103–18.Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    Manja Vidic, ‘The EU Institutional Capacity in Securing Energy’, Turkish Policy Quarterly 6, no. 4 (2007): 79–85Google Scholar
  20. 18a.
    and Samuel Lussac, ‘Energy Security in Russian “Near Abroad”: The Case of the South Caucasus’, European Security 19, no. 4 (2010): 607–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 19.
    Richard Youngs, Energy Security: Europe’s New Foreign Policy Challenge (London: Routledge, 2009), 100–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 20.
    Transcript of Replies by Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Igor Ivanov to Journalists’ Questions at Press Conference in UN, New York, September 17, 2002, https://doi.org/www.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/e78a48070f128a7b43256999005bcbb3/86cdf76985bfe27d43256-c3900520212!OpenDocument (accessed September 18, 2012).
  23. 21.
    S. Frederick Starr, ‘The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: School of Modernity’, in The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan: Oil Window to the West, ed. S. Frederick Starr and Svante E. Cornell (Washington, DC: Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program, Joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center, 2005), 14.Google Scholar
  24. 22.
    Smith Stegen, ‘Deconstructing the “Energy Weapon”’, 6505–6.Google Scholar
  25. 23.
    R.E. Ericson, ‘Eurasian Natural Gas Pipelines: The Political Economy of Network Interdependence’, Eurasian Geography and Economics 50, no.1 (2009): 28–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 24.
    Information from the personal archives of the first author, an international energy consultant who travels frequently to the Caspian region.Google Scholar
  27. 25.
    Jan Frederik Braun, ‘EU Energy Policy Under the Treaty of Lisbon Rules: Between a New Policy and Business as Usual’, EPIN Working Papers No. 31 (February 2011): 1–2, https://doi.org/www.ceps.eu/ceps/download/4250(accessed September 13, 2012).Google Scholar
  28. 26.
    ‘Russia: Gazprom Faces European Probe’, PFC Energy Russia and Caspian Service, September 10, 2012.Google Scholar
  29. 27.
    For perspectives on Russia’s tactics, see Helén Henry, ‘The EU’s Energy Security Dilemma with Russia’, POLIS Journal 4 (Winter 2010): 24–31Google Scholar
  30. 27a.
    and Zeyno Baran, ‘Developing a Cohesive EU Approach to Energy Security’, in Europe’s Energy Security: Gazprom’s Dominance and Caspian Supply Alternatives, ed. Svante E. Cornell and Niklas Nilsson (Washington, DC: Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program, Joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center, 2008), 157–68.Google Scholar
  31. 28.
    ‘Commissioner Oettinger Welcomes European Parliament Vote on the Decision on the Intergovernmental Agreements’ Mechanism’, https://doi.org/ec.europa.eu/commission_20102014/oettinger/headlines/news/2012/09/2012091. en.htm (accessed September 18, 2012).
  32. 29.
    ‘Large Countries Oppose Gazprom Deals Scrutiny’, Euractiv.com, September 12, 2012, https://doi.org/www.euractiv.com/energy/largest-eu-countries-oppose-gazp-news-514739(accessed September 17, 2012); and ‘Gazprom Meets its Match, as Brussels Seeks Seat in Gas Talks’, World Gas Intelligence, September 12, 2012.
  33. 30.
    Jozias Van Aartsen, Project of European Interest (Brussels: European Commission, February 2009), https://doi.org/ec.europa.eu/energy/infrastructure/tent_e/doc/axis/2009_axis_link-ing_activity_report_2007_2009.pdf (accessed September 13, 2012).Google Scholar
  34. 31.
    Keith Smith, Russia-Europe Energy Relations: Implications for US Policy, Report (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, February 2010), 11.Google Scholar
  35. 32.
    Vladimir Socor, ‘Interest Growing All-Round in Trans-Anatolia Pipeline Project’, Eurasia Daily Monitor 9, no. 70 (April 9, 2012).Google Scholar
  36. 33.
    ‘Gas Pipeline Deal Sidelines Original Nabucco Project’, Euractiv.com, June 28, 2012, https://doi.org/www.euractiv.com/energy/tanap-gas-pipeline-shelves-nabuc-news-513593(accessed September 13, 2012).
  37. 34.
    From Barack Obama, the President of the United States of America, June 05, 2012, https://doi.org/en.president.az/articles/5134 (accessed September 13, 2012).
  38. 35.
    ‘On Security of Energy Supply and International Cooperation — “The EU Energy Policy: Engaging with Partners Beyond Our Borders”’, European Commission, COM(2011) 539 final, Brussels, September 7, 2011, https://doi.org/register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st13/st13941.en11.pdf (accessed September 17, 2012).
  39. 36.
    ‘Update 1-Gazprom Warns Turkey Over Azeri Gas Pipeline Deal’, Reuters, June 29, 2012, https://doi.org/www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/29/gazprom-turkey-idUSL6E8HT3S220120629(accessed July 2, 2012).
  40. 37.
    For example, see Christina Lin, ‘The Caspian Sea: China’s Silk Road Strategy Converges with Damascus’, China Brief 10, no. 17 (August 19, 2010).Google Scholar
  41. 38.
    Azerbaijan, Turkey, ‘Turkmenistan, EU hold Talks on Gas Supply’, Trend.az, September 3, 2012, https://doi.org/en.trend.az/capital/energy/2061111.html(accessed September 17, 2012).Google Scholar
  42. 39.
    For example, see Youngs, Energy Security; and Frank Umbach, ‘Energy: A Single Voice is needed in Europe for its Future Energy Security’, Geopolitical Information Service (January 30 2012): 1–4.Google Scholar
  43. 40.
    Jessica Matthews, ‘Estranged Partners’, Foreign Policy No. 127 (November/December 2001): 48–53.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PFC EnergyWashington, DCUSA
  2. 2.Jacobs University/Bremer Energie InstitutBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations