Certainly there is Baltic energy dependence on Russia; but it is far from clear what it means. While the energy discourse is highly securitized, it is worthwhile to look at it from another, namely economical perspective:
The article argues that the dependence cited is mutual: gas is traded in a long-term contract market, huge investments in infrastructure result in long-term mutual dependence. Russia as a supplier is especially interested in demand security and is eager to deliver gas on the lucrative European market.
So, exaggerated, historically grounded fears of a Russian supremacy in the Baltic, of political extortions through the “gas weapon” don’t have a basis in the economy-dominated reality. Instead, Baltic States and Russia should cooperate for mutual gain.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Geopolitics and the energy security discourse
3. Reality bites: What Baltic energy dependence really means
Research Objectives and Themes
This essay investigates whether the energy dependence of the Baltic Sea Region on Russian natural gas constitutes a genuine security threat, critically examining the prevailing discourse fueled by political rhetoric and think-tank narratives.
- Critical analysis of the geopolitics of energy security.
- Deconstruction of the "Russian threat" narrative in the Baltic states.
- Evaluation of statistical dependence on Russian gas.
- Examination of the economic and structural realities of the gas market.
- Assessment of mutual economic dependence between the EU and Russia.
Excerpt from the Book
Reality bites: What Baltic energy dependence really means
First of all it is necessary to test the validity of the arguments put forward in the above mentioned security discourse. To begin with, is the dependence of the Baltic states and Poland really that big as the above cited figures imply? At the second look the figures themselves don’t point in this direction. Poland has a much lesser dependence on Russian gas imports than Latvia and Lithuania, and Estonia’s dependence is really insignificant and much less than that of Germany (37 % per cent in 2006) or France (20 % per cent) for example.
But, as the critics would answer, the dependence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania is rising. Still, it is rising because of EU’s own actions and not because of the Russians. So, the closure of the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant in Lithuania 2008, which provided for 78,4 % per cent of the countries total electricity production - so it was much more important than gas - and exported large amounts of electricity to Latvia, was closed in December 2009 because of EU-legislation (Maigre 2010, p. 3). Equally, in Estonia the percentage of oil-shale – which has dominated the country’s energy supply – is going to decline because Tallinn has to fulfil EU-directives which envision a drop in the Union’s emissions to protect the climate. So, electricity imports from Russia probable will rise in the next years (Maigre 2010, p. 3).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction establishes the context of the perceived energy threat in the Baltic Sea Region and defines the central research question regarding the actual security risks of Russian gas dependence.
2. Geopolitics and the energy security discourse: This chapter analyzes how think-tanks and political actors construct a narrative of Russian aggression based on historical fears and specific gas consumption statistics.
3. Reality bites: What Baltic energy dependence really means: The final chapter challenges the security narrative by highlighting the economic realities of the gas market, the role of EU legislation, and the stabilizing nature of mutual economic dependence.
Keywords
Energy security, Baltic Sea Region, Russia, Gazprom, Geopolitics, Natural gas, Security discourse, EU-Russia relations, Economic dependence, Nord Stream, Energy policy, Infrastructure, Sovereignty.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this essay?
The essay explores the validity of the widely held belief that energy dependence on Russia represents a significant security threat to the Baltic states and Poland.
What are the primary themes discussed in the paper?
The paper focuses on geopolitical narratives, the role of think-tanks in shaping energy security discourse, statistical analyses of gas dependence, and the economic realities of the regional gas market.
What is the main research question?
The central question is: Is the dependence on Russian gas a security threat for the states of the Baltic Sea Region?
What scientific perspective does the author adopt?
The author applies a critical view of geopolitics, treating security arguments as discursive practices rather than purely objective, natural geostrategic facts.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body examines the "Russian danger" narrative, evaluates the actual dependence percentages, and contrasts political fears with the technical and economic constraints of the long-term gas market.
Which keywords best describe this research?
Key terms include energy security, geopolitics, Russia, Baltic Sea Region, Gazprom, and economic dependence.
How does the author view the role of long-term contracts?
The author argues that long-term contracts and fixed infrastructure create a system of mutual economic dependence that makes energy-based political extortion unlikely.
What impact does EU legislation have on energy imports?
The author notes that EU-led environmental and energy policies, such as the closure of the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant, have actually increased the necessity for electricity imports from Russia in some Baltic states.
- Citar trabajo
- M.A. Anton Friesen (Autor), 2010, Energy and Security in the Baltic Sea Region, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/213677
