5 - Energy Security Shifts within the Larger Security Framework:
What Lies Ahead (panel)
At the time planning commenced for this Research Symposium under SAS-190, we came to the realization that the topic of Energy Security remains dependent on two evolving variables. The first evolving variable involves the divergence of geopolitical worldview between energy suppliers and consumers. The situation between Russia and Ukraine still impacts three pipelines to Europe: Dzuba, Yamal-Europe and Nord Stream 2. The second evolving variable is dependent on the first. These are the transportation nodes – both land and maritime, which connect the Caucasus, Eastern and Western Europe. From here in November 2024 looking forward, each potential geopolitical permutation, both good or bad, temporary or permanent, carries with it a different set of priorities and challenges. The significance of each permutation is that it impacts Energy Security differently. As a result, this panel brings together a “triangle” of perspectives. This triangle consists of experts representing the National Security, Military, and Diplomatic spheres of thinking. Although these spheres interact with each other, the underlying approaches used by each could not be more different. This panel offers us a glimpse into how each side of the triangle perceives, plans and directs the changes that ultimately impact suppliers and consumers within the Energy Security ecosystem.
Energy Security is central to the economic vibrancy of a nation, the region it resides in and the global supply chain it supports. Unfortunately, the differences between suppliers of energy and consumers, in terms of governance and interstate relations, could not be more pronounced. When the potential disruption of energy was first contemplated, the NATO Science and Technology Office (STO) embraced this challenge. By bringing together numerous academics and key government stakeholders, there was widespread acknowledgement that key geopolitical and worldview differences existed at each end of the supply chain. Although the prospect of threatening to withhold energy supply was seen as strategic opportunism at best, these concerns were realized in the worst possible way – in an open conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Russia attempted to coerce Western acceptance of their annexation of neighbouring Ukraine despite the latter being a sovereign country. Today, the status quo of the last three years appears to be shifting yet again. However welcome the potential cessation of hostilities may be, how stark is the difference between a temporary cessation to a more permanent one? In other words, the supply of energy is dependent on the fine balance between conditions, sanctions and potential reparations. If we have any indicators in November, what will this new sense of normalcy look like?
This panel brings together a “triangle” of experts who can provide such insight. The panel members will articulate what may lie ahead in terms of the overall Security framework within which Energy Security resides. This triangle represents the National Security, Military, and Diplomatic spheres that will enact any potential changes to what we are experiencing today.
Our first panel member represents National Security. Prof. Dr. Iulian CHIFU is uniquely qualified having just left his post as National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister of Romania. Romania will play a critical role in what follows in the region. Romania overcame the same type of past that others in the region have yet to come to terms with. It is a valued member of the NATO coalition and offers first-hand insight into the actions of neighboring actors in the region. Its unique geography also makes it a critical ally in implementing any new initiative to lessen hostilities, expand trade and restore what was lost for three years. To its East, there is the Black Sea where the flow of goods such as fuel and food will remain critical. Of particular note is the proposed TurkStream pipeline from Russia to Eastern Europe and Türkiye. From their North, significant numbers of Ukrainians came South seeking sanctuary. Despite the challenges of such numbers, Romania has performed admirably. At some point, the refugees will try to return on the same routes as much needed humanitarian supplies and materiel. Also in the North, there are neighbors with futures just as challenging, as Moldova and Transnistria each have their own aspirations and worldview.
The second panel member, LTG (Ret.) Colby BROADWATER of the United States is also unique. A senior military commander will only send their most trusted leader to talk to local leaders, inspect the area and make an honest assessment of what a future military action there requires. Very few Flag Officers have done this more than once. When also taking into consideration those that have also worked with multiple militaries transitioning from Communism, then we are only left with one. Whether it is Europe, the Middle East or Asia, LTG (Ret.) Colby Broadwater was this leader. His last assignments were Chief of Staff – U.S. European Command, Deputy Commanding General - Joint Headquarters Center (NATO) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff – Pentagon. The significance of his military experience is articulating how the mission varies with the type of agreement to be implemented.
The third panel member, Prof. Dr. Oliver STEWARD is an International Relations Scholar from the United Kingdom. Prof. Dr. Steward is a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House in London. For the purposes of this panel, his interests are intelligence, espionage, war studies and maritime strategy. His research focus for the last three years has been Russian Grand Strategy in their war with Ukraine. Last year in 2023, his presentation at the International Expert Conference in Poland was “Russo-Ukrainian War 2022-2023. Origins, causes, course and effects” [Paper title: “The Changing Nature of Russian Grand Strategy in Relation to the War in Ukraine”]. With stability and ultimately Energy Security in the balance, Russian, Ukrainian and international interests will ultimately reach an understanding and a formal accord. The question that remains is the fragility of each type of accord and the potential of backsliding towards the resumption of hostilities.
