Master's Thesis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Taser or a shock collar? Energy as a weapon and interdependence in the Ukraine crisis 2014-2015. Dennis Palij Bråten Master’s Thesis Department of Political Science UNIVERSITETET I OSLO Vår 2017 [23.05.2017] Number of words: 45 985 II Taser or shock collar? Energy as a weapon and interdependence in the Ukraine crisis 2014-2015. Dennis Palij Bråten Master’s Thesis Department of Political Science UNIVERSITETET I OSLO Vår 2017 [23.05.2017] Number of words: 45 985 III © Dennis Palij Bråten 2017 Taser or shock collar? Energy as a weapon and interdependence in the Ukraine crisis 2014- 2015. Dennis Palij Bråten http://www.duo.uio.no/ Trykk: Reprosentralen, Universitetet i Oslo IV Abstract The thesis seeks to advance the understanding of the ‘energy weapon’, by providing explanations on how and under what conditions states can use energy as a tool in conflicts. The literature on the topic is filled with several controversies, stemming mainly from the divides between realist and liberalist theories in International Relations. Thus, research that may contribute to the debate, -will help us to gain a more profound understanding of International Relations as well. The thesis suggests that the research has generally avoided the ‘hybrid’ mode of conflict when studying these questions. The study concentrates on the context of the Ukraine Crisis, since this conflict has been said to incorporate hybrid characteristics and includes an ‘energy weapon’ in the form of Crimean ‘blackout’ in November 2015. The thesis begins by reviewing the concept of the ‘energy weapon’ itself alongside the theoretical traditions that guide different views. In this part, the thesis also introduces the concepts of ‘hybrid warfare’, ‘energy security’, and ‘securitization’, which help to conduct the analysis. The analysis is conducted through explaining-outcome process tracing studying the period from annexation of Crimea in 2014 to Desember 2015. The findings suggest that the ‘energy weapon’ use and conditions are supported by a variety of factors, some general and some context-specific. The Crimean ‘blackout’ turned out be an instance of ‘energy weapon’, but spurred by non-state actors. However, also several other ‘energy weapons’ were identified during the investigation. The findings suggest that the ‘energy weapon’ turns out to be more of a “shock collar” than a “taser”. Interdependence, mode of conflict, and ‘securitization’ rhetoric are presented as the most important aspects that should be included in the debate on energy as a tool in conflicts. V VI Preface This thesis came about during a fascinating course at the University of Oslo, called International Energy Politics. After learning more about the subject, I became increasingly captivated by the different ways energy issues were managed by states and shaped international relations. Having a background from Ukraine with family in Russia, the ongoing conflict quickly received my attention. Accordingly, the master thesis allowed me to combine a study of this conflict with my interest in energy politics. From the assumption that I knew a great deal, I quickly realized that my knowledge was very limited, encouraging me to continue the research and expose activities behind the scenes. After this journey, I can definitely say to have gained some knowledge. I am thankful for having the opportunity to share these discoveries with others. The process has not always been painless. Therefore, I would like to praise my life partner, Eva Lena, who has always been there supporting me. Each day, you inspire me to improve and reach higher goals. For that, I am forever grateful. I would also like to thank my family and friends, who have been invaluably helpful and enabled me to reach this milestone. Special thanks should be given to my skillful and charismatic advisor, Kacper Szulecki. The thesis would not have been possible without you and your passionate approach to the subject. Your help and expertise have guided me and provided amazing assistance. God knows how many times you surprised me with a great, fast, late-night response. I wish you all the best and hope that many students will have the opportunity to be educated by you in the years to come. All errors are exclusively my own. VII VIII Table of contents 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2 Theory and framework ........................................................................................................ 6 2.1 Role of energy in conflicts ........................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 The energy weapon .............................................................................................. 7 2.1.2 Energy as part of hybrid warfare .......................................................................... 9 2.2 Energy security .......................................................................................................... 10 2.3 Securitization of energy ............................................................................................. 15 2.4 Energy and Security in International Relations ......................................................... 18 2.4.1 The Realist view ................................................................................................. 19 2.4.2 The Liberal view ................................................................................................ 24 2.4.3 An alternative view ............................................................................................ 26 3 Research design ................................................................................................................ 29 3.1 Methodological basis ................................................................................................. 30 3.2 Process-tracing ........................................................................................................... 32 3.3 Textual analysis of rhetoric and actions .................................................................... 35 3.3.1 Reflection regarding data sources ...................................................................... 37 3.4 Other challenges and normative consideration .......................................................... 39 3.4.1 Evidentiary sources, triangulation, and credibility ............................................. 40 3.4.2 Positionality and normative concerns ................................................................ 41 3.5 Operationalization and evidence ............................................................................... 41 3.5.1 The four tests ...................................................................................................... 46 4 Background ....................................................................................................................... 49 4.1 A short introduction ................................................................................................... 50 4.2 State actors and agency .............................................................................................. 52 4.2.1 Third parties and non-state actors ...................................................................... 53 4.3 Post-Soviet Legacies, Ukraine’s current electricity system and vulnerabilities ........ 56 4.3.1 Nuclear-based electricity .................................................................................... 61 4.3.2 Coal-based electricity ......................................................................................... 61 4.3.3 Natural gas-based electricity .............................................................................. 63 4.3.4 Electricity infrastructure ..................................................................................... 64 4.3.5 Electricity governance and corruption ............................................................... 66 4.3.6 Crimea as a special circumstance ....................................................................... 68 5 Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 72 IX 5.1 Layout of the chapter ................................................................................................. 72 5.2 Unclear intents and ambiguous securitization ........................................................... 72 5.2.1 Discussion of the evidence ................................................................................. 79 5.3 Fluctuating interdependence, more energy incidents ................................................ 80 5.3.1 Discussion of the evidence ................................................................................. 89 5.4 Increasing security but maintaining the ‘bond’ ......................................................... 91 5.4.1 Discussion of the evidence ................................................................................. 97 5.5 Third party involvement and breaking ‘bonds’ ......................................................... 98 5.6 Discussion and main findings .................................................................................. 112 5.6.1 Practical implications ....................................................................................... 118 6 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................