Geopolitics and Energy Corridors: Which Powers Move the Valves?

Published on: April 30, 2025

Category: opinions

Geopolitics and Energy Corridors: The Strategic Chessboard of Pipelines

Energy corridors, particularly oil and gas pipelines, are among the most important strategic assets in global politics. Far from being just infrastructure for resource transportation, they represent levers of power, influence, and sometimes even coercion. In the contemporary world, the construction and operation of pipelines such as Nord Stream, TurkStream, and others have become central to the geopolitical games between major powers like Russia, the United States, China, and the European Union. The flows of hydrocarbons beneath the earth often mirror the invisible currents of international diplomacy, competition, and rivalry.

The Historical Context of Energy Corridors

The use of energy resources as a tool of statecraft is not a new phenomenon. Even during the early 20th century, control over oil fields and transport routes was a major factor in both world wars and the subsequent Cold War. The Suez Crisis of 1956, for instance, highlighted the vulnerability of European energy supplies and the strategic importance of transit chokepoints. The construction of the Druzhba pipeline in the 1960s, connecting the Soviet Union to Central and Eastern Europe, was both an economic and a political project, designed to bind the Eastern Bloc together and secure Soviet influence over its neighbors.

As the global economy became increasingly dependent on oil and gas, the importance of secure, reliable, and politically stable energy corridors grew. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo in 1973 demonstrated how energy could be weaponized, causing economic turmoil in the West. Since then, both consumers and producers have sought to diversify their supply routes and partners, giving rise to a complex web of pipelines, liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, and alternative energy projects.

Nord Stream: A Pipeline Shaping European Geopolitics

Perhaps no project exemplifies the intersection of energy and geopolitics more than the Nord Stream pipelines. Running under the Baltic Sea from Russia directly to Germany, Nord Stream 1 became operational in 2011, with Nord Stream 2 completed but not operational as of 2024 due to political tensions. The pipelines were designed to double the capacity of direct Russian gas exports to Germany, bypassing traditional transit countries like Ukraine and Poland.

For Russia, Nord Stream is a strategic asset. By circumventing transit states, Moscow increases its leverage over both its customers and its neighbors. For Germany, the pipeline promises a stable and relatively cheap supply of natural gas, crucial for its industrial base and energy transition plans. However, Nord Stream has been fiercely opposed by the United States, Poland, Ukraine, and the Baltic states, who argue that it increases European dependence on Russian energy and undermines the security of Eastern Europe.

The controversy surrounding Nord Stream intensified after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent conflict in eastern Ukraine. The United States imposed sanctions on companies involved in the construction of Nord Stream 2, citing the need to protect European energy security. The pipeline became a symbol of the broader struggle between Russia and the West, with energy consumers in Europe caught in the crossfire.

TurkStream and the Southern Gas Corridor: Diversification or Domination?

While Nord Stream represents Russia’s northern route to Europe, TurkStream is its southern counterpart. Launched in 2020, TurkStream runs under the Black Sea from Russia to Turkey, with branches extending to southeastern Europe. The project replaced the canceled South Stream pipeline, which was blocked by the European Union due to regulatory concerns and political opposition.

TurkStream allows Russia to maintain its role as a dominant gas supplier to southeastern Europe while bypassing Ukraine, which had long been the main transit country for Russian gas. For Turkey, the pipeline enhances its position as an energy hub, giving it greater influence over regional energy flows. At the same time, the European Union has promoted the Southern Gas Corridor, a series of pipelines bringing Azerbaijani gas to Europe via Turkey, as a means of reducing dependence on Russian supplies.

The competition between these projects highlights the complex interplay between energy security, economic interests, and geopolitical rivalries. While diversification of supply routes is often presented as a means of enhancing resilience, it can also reinforce the dominance of certain suppliers or transit countries, depending on the broader political context.

The United States: From LNG Exports to Sanctions Policy

The United States has emerged as a key player in the geopolitics of energy corridors, particularly in the last decade. The shale revolution transformed the U.S. from a net importer of energy to one of the world’s leading producers of oil and natural gas. This shift has enabled Washington to pursue a more assertive energy diplomacy, promoting American LNG exports as an alternative to Russian pipeline gas in Europe and Asia.

U.S. policy has combined commercial promotion with geopolitical leverage. By supporting the construction of LNG terminals in countries like Poland and Lithuania, the U.S. has sought to weaken Russia’s grip over European energy markets. At the same time, Washington has used sanctions as a tool to block or delay competing pipeline projects, most notably Nord Stream 2. These actions have been justified on the grounds of energy security, but they also serve American commercial interests by opening new markets for U.S. exporters.

The growing role of LNG in global trade has introduced new dynamics into the energy chessboard. Unlike pipelines, which are fixed and require long-term commitments, LNG cargoes can be redirected to different markets based on price and demand. This flexibility has made it harder for traditional pipeline suppliers to use energy as a political weapon, but it has also increased competition and volatility in global gas markets.

China: Securing Supply and Expanding Influence

China’s rise as a global economic powerhouse has been accompanied by a relentless quest for energy security. As the world’s largest importer of oil and a major consumer of natural gas, Beijing has invested heavily in the construction of pipelines, LNG terminals, and strategic reserves. The Power of Siberia pipeline, launched in 2019, connects Russian gas fields to northeastern China, providing a crucial alternative to seaborne imports that could be disrupted in the event of a conflict in the South China Sea.

China has also pursued pipeline projects in Central Asia, notably the Central Asia-China gas pipeline, which brings Turkmen, Uzbek, and Kazakh gas to Chinese markets. These projects not only secure energy supplies but also expand Beijing’s influence in the region, supporting its broader Belt and Road Initiative. By financing and building infrastructure in neighboring countries, China is able to shape the economic and political landscape to its advantage.

Chinese companies have also become major players in global energy markets, investing in upstream production, refining, and distribution networks. This expansion has sometimes brought Beijing into competition with other major powers, particularly in regions like Africa and the Middle East, where energy resources are both abundant and contested.

Europe: Between Dependence and Diversification

Europe’s energy landscape is shaped by a delicate balance between dependence on external suppliers and efforts to diversify sources and routes. The European Union has long sought to reduce its reliance on Russian gas, which accounts for around 40% of its imports. Initiatives such as the Southern Gas Corridor, the construction of LNG terminals, and the promotion of renewable energy are all part of this strategy.

However, the reality is more complex. Some member states, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, remain heavily dependent on Russian supplies due to geography and existing infrastructure. Germany, the EU’s largest economy, has pursued its own approach, balancing its energy needs with political and economic relations with Moscow. The result is a patchwork of national policies, often at odds with broader EU objectives.

The transition to renewable energy adds another layer of complexity. While the EU has set ambitious targets for decarbonization, the shift away from coal and nuclear power has increased demand for natural gas as a bridging fuel. This has, in some cases, deepened dependence on external suppliers, even as efforts to diversify continue.

Transit Countries: The Double-Edged Sword of Geography

Countries that lie along major energy corridors often find themselves in a position of both opportunity and vulnerability. Transit fees can provide significant revenue, and the presence of pipelines can enhance a country’s strategic importance. However, reliance on transit also exposes these states to geopolitical risks, as disputes between suppliers and consumers can spill over into their territory.

Ukraine is a prime example. For decades, it served as the main transit route for Russian gas to Europe, earning billions of dollars in fees. However, repeated disputes with Moscow, including gas cutoffs in 2006 and 2009, underscored the risks of dependence. The construction of bypass pipelines like Nord Stream and TurkStream has reduced Ukraine’s leverage and revenue, while increasing its vulnerability to Russian pressure.

Other transit countries, such as Belarus, Turkey, and the Balkan states, have sought to maximize their strategic position by negotiating favorable terms with both suppliers and consumers. However, their ability to do so depends on the broader geopolitical context and the availability of alternative routes.

Energy Corridors as Instruments of State Power

Energy corridors are not just economic assets; they are instruments of state power. Control over the flow of oil and gas can be used to reward allies, punish adversaries, or influence the behavior of third parties. This is particularly evident in the use of supply disruptions, price manipulation, and long-term contracts with restrictive terms.

Russia has been accused of using energy as a weapon, particularly in its dealings with former Soviet states and the European Union. However, other actors have also leveraged their position in the energy system for political gain. The United States has used sanctions to block competitors and promote its own exports. China has used infrastructure investment to expand its influence and secure access to resources.

The interplay between energy and geopolitics is further complicated by the emergence of new technologies and the transition to a low-carbon economy. The rise of renewable energy, electric vehicles, and energy storage promises to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and the geopolitical risks associated with them. However, the transition itself creates new vulnerabilities, as the supply chains for critical minerals and technologies are often concentrated in a few countries.

The Shadow Economy and Security Risks

The vast sums of money involved in energy corridors have also given rise to a shadow economy of corruption, smuggling, and illicit trade. In some regions, the construction and operation of pipelines have been accompanied by allegations of bribery, money laundering, and organized crime. The opaque nature of energy contracts and the involvement of state-owned enterprises make oversight difficult, creating opportunities for abuse.

Security risks are another major concern. Pipelines are vulnerable to sabotage, terrorism, and cyberattacks. The explosion of the Nord Stream pipelines in 2022 demonstrated the potential for disruption, whether through state or non-state actors. Protecting critical infrastructure has become a priority for governments and companies alike, leading to increased investment in surveillance, physical security, and resilience measures.

Environmental and Social Impacts

The construction and operation of energy corridors have significant environmental and social impacts. Pipelines can disrupt ecosystems, threaten biodiversity, and contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. In some cases, local communities have opposed projects due to concerns about land rights, water pollution, and safety. Balancing the need for energy security with environmental protection is an ongoing challenge, particularly as public awareness of climate change increases.

International standards and best practices have been developed to mitigate these impacts, but implementation is often uneven. The involvement of multiple countries, companies, and regulatory regimes can complicate efforts to ensure transparency, accountability, and environmental stewardship.

The Future of Energy Corridors: Uncertainty and Transformation

The future of energy corridors is shaped by a multitude of factors, including technological innovation, shifting demand, and evolving geopolitical dynamics. The transition to renewable energy and the electrification of transport are likely to reduce the importance of oil and gas pipelines over time. However, the legacy infrastructure will remain relevant for decades, particularly in regions where alternatives are limited.

New forms of energy corridors are also emerging, such as hydrogen pipelines and high-voltage electricity interconnectors. These projects are being promoted as part of the transition to a low-carbon economy, but they raise their own set of geopolitical and technical challenges. The control of critical minerals, rare earth elements, and battery technologies is becoming increasingly important, with countries vying for access and influence.

As the global energy system evolves, the interplay between economics, politics, and security will continue to shape the development and operation of energy corridors. The stakes are high, not only for governments and corporations but also for ordinary citizens, who ultimately bear the costs and risks of these complex systems.

Case Studies: Key Pipelines and Their Geopolitical Impact

• Nord Stream (Russia–Germany): Directly connects Russian gas fields to Germany, bypassing transit countries and increasing Russia’s influence over European energy markets.
• TurkStream (Russia–Turkey): Strengthens Russia’s position in southeastern Europe and enhances Turkey’s role as an energy hub.
• Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP): Part of the Southern Gas Corridor, bringing Azerbaijani gas to Europe and reducing dependence on Russia.
• Power of Siberia (Russia–China): Diversifies Russian exports and secures Chinese energy supplies, deepening the partnership between Moscow and Beijing.
• Central Asia–China Gas Pipeline: Connects Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan to China, boosting Beijing’s influence in Central Asia.

Energy Corridors and the Global Balance of Power

The struggle for control over energy corridors is a defining feature of contemporary geopolitics. Pipelines and other infrastructure projects are not merely economic ventures; they are instruments of national strategy, used to shape alliances, deter adversaries, and project power. The interplay between suppliers, consumers, and transit countries creates a complex web of interests and rivalries, with profound implications for global stability and security.

As the world moves toward a more diversified and sustainable energy system, the geopolitical significance of traditional energy corridors may diminish, but new forms of competition and cooperation will emerge. The management of this transition will require careful diplomacy, robust institutions, and a willingness to address the underlying sources of conflict and vulnerability.