Suchergebnisse

The main purpose of this paper is to find out what is the impact of geoenergetic processes in Central and Eastern European countries on Lithuanian geoenergetics. In order to do this, several tasks were accomplished. First, theoretical model of geoenergetic interaction between states was constructed. This model is grounded on the causal relations between states-consumers of energy resources, transit states and states-producers in ceteris paribus conditions. The main outcome of this model is the conclusion that the comparative geoenergetic power of states depends on the quantity of actors in each part of geoenergetic chain of states-producers, states-consumers and transit states. The more actors exercise the same geoenergetic role, the less comparative power each of them has in relations with other actors, which perform different geoenergetic role. Second, the geoenergetic position of Central and Eastern European countries was identified. These countries are important actors in transporting energy resources from the East to the West, therefore, in geoenergetic relations with other countries they perform the role of transit states. However, despite being important transit states, they are dependent on one main energy supplier – Russia. Therefore, their comparative geoenergetic power is limited because of the lack of geoenergetic actors in the suppliers' part of geoenergetic chain. Third, Russian energy policy in Central and Eastern European countries was analyzed. There are tendencies, which indicate, that Russia applies different strategies of its energy policy in different Central and Eastern European countries. The strategy of geostrategic isolation is applied in Baltic states and Poland. Russia's strategy in Belarus and Ukraine is based on the aim to take over the transit infrastructure of these countries. Also, Russia is trying to keep its geoenergetic influence in Moldova. Finally, the strategy of geoenergetic involvement is applied in Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia. Fourth, the tendencies of geoenergetic competition and cooperation in Central and Eastern European countries are analyzed. The conclusion that currently geostrategic competition is more typical for these countries than cooperation was made. The analysis of this paper showed that the main strategic role of Central and Eastern European countries is of potential geostrategic partners for diversifying their energy resources and looking for alternative routes for their energy imports. Also, Central and Eastern European countries could potentially be reliable strategic partners in pressing the European Union to create common and firm policy of energy security. The assumption that currently the most advantageous strategy for Lithuania is an initiation of creating strong geoenergetic alliance of transit strates in Central and Eastern Europe, according to this paper, is wrong. First, this alliance is hardly possible because of the tendencies of competition between Central and Eastern European countries. Second, among the opposing actors would be not only Russia, but also Western European countries, which would seek alternative routes for their energy imports from Russia avoiding this geoenergetic alliance. Third, the perspectives for Lithuania to become strong transit state in this alliance are low, because of the Russian strategy to isolate Lithuania as a transit country by cutting the flow of energy resources through this country and creating projects of alternative transit routes. Fourth, the geoenergetic influence of Russia in the region of Central and Eastern European countries is strong enough to persuade some countries in this region into becoming its geoenergetic allies. Currently, the best strategy for Lithuania would be the transformation from the state transporting energy resources from Russia to Western Europe to importing state in cooperation with other states-importers in Western Europe, along with the diversification of energy suppliers.

The main purpose of this paper is to find out what is the impact of geoenergetic processes in Central and Eastern European countries on Lithuanian geoenergetics. In order to do this, several tasks were accomplished. First, theoretical model of geoenergetic interaction between states was constructed. This model is grounded on the causal relations between states-consumers of energy resources, transit states and states-producers in ceteris paribus conditions. The main outcome of this model is the conclusion that the comparative geoenergetic power of states depends on the quantity of actors in each part of geoenergetic chain of states-producers, states-consumers and transit states. The more actors exercise the same geoenergetic role, the less comparative power each of them has in relations with other actors, which perform different geoenergetic role. Second, the geoenergetic position of Central and Eastern European countries was identified. These countries are important actors in transporting energy resources from the East to the West, therefore, in geoenergetic relations with other countries they perform the role of transit states. However, despite being important transit states, they are dependent on one main energy supplier – Russia. Therefore, their comparative geoenergetic power is limited because of the lack of geoenergetic actors in the suppliers' part of geoenergetic chain. Third, Russian energy policy in Central and Eastern European countries was analyzed. There are tendencies, which indicate, that Russia applies different strategies of its energy policy in different Central and Eastern European countries. The strategy of geostrategic isolation is applied in Baltic states and Poland. Russia's strategy in Belarus and Ukraine is based on the aim to take over the transit infrastructure of these countries. Also, Russia is trying to keep its geoenergetic influence in Moldova. Finally, the strategy of geoenergetic involvement is applied in Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia. Fourth, the tendencies of geoenergetic competition and cooperation in Central and Eastern European countries are analyzed. The conclusion that currently geostrategic competition is more typical for these countries than cooperation was made. The analysis of this paper showed that the main strategic role of Central and Eastern European countries is of potential geostrategic partners for diversifying their energy resources and looking for alternative routes for their energy imports. Also, Central and Eastern European countries could potentially be reliable strategic partners in pressing the European Union to create common and firm policy of energy security. The assumption that currently the most advantageous strategy for Lithuania is an initiation of creating strong geoenergetic alliance of transit strates in Central and Eastern Europe, according to this paper, is wrong. First, this alliance is hardly possible because of the tendencies of competition between Central and Eastern European countries. Second, among the opposing actors would be not only Russia, but also Western European countries, which would seek alternative routes for their energy imports from Russia avoiding this geoenergetic alliance. Third, the perspectives for Lithuania to become strong transit state in this alliance are low, because of the Russian strategy to isolate Lithuania as a transit country by cutting the flow of energy resources through this country and creating projects of alternative transit routes. Fourth, the geoenergetic influence of Russia in the region of Central and Eastern European countries is strong enough to persuade some countries in this region into becoming its geoenergetic allies. Currently, the best strategy for Lithuania would be the transformation from the state transporting energy resources from Russia to Western Europe to importing state in cooperation with other states-importers in Western Europe, along with the diversification of energy suppliers.

Die Ereignisse im Zusammenhang mit Russlands illegaler Annexion der Krim haben einem Begriff zu Popularität verholfen, den man bis dahin nur in Spezialistenkreisen kannte: hybride Kriegführung. (Europäische Sicherheit & Technik / SWP)