Protecting the energy weapon – new tasks for the Russian armed forces?

Energy has become Russia’s most important source of income, and a favoured tool in Russian foreign policy. As the G8 meeting in June 2006 showed, energy security is one of Moscow’s main priorities when it comes to both domestic and foreign policies. Energy security, in the case of Russia, means security of demand, rather than security of supply. In order to secure the uninterrupted flow of energy in the future, Russian energy infrastructure will need a higher level of protection than it has today. The focus of this report is to clarify to what extent the armed forces will provide this security. This issue ties in with the overall aim of the FFI project “Russia’s use of armed force”, which seeks to clarify how Russia under Putin uses armed force. The report shows that the doctrinal provisions for how Russia is to ensure her energy security are unclear, at best. The unclear legislation has led to an ad hoc protection of strategic energy infrastructure, conducted by the various Russian security agencies. The report explores what tasks and procedures the different agencies have in terms of providing energy security. It looks at the Armed Forces, the FSB (Federal security service), the MVD (Interior Ministry), the company “Transnefteprodukt”, and the regional security organisation CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organisation). The findings show that all these organisations are capable of securing Russian energy infrastructure, and that they do it on a case to case basis, rather than as part of a consistent and clearly formulated policy. A number of factors determine to what extent the agencies take on these tasks. The first factor is the importance of the energy tool for the Russian leadership. The report argues that this tool will become more important in the future, as energy exports soar, and accordingly will probably the protection of this tool become equally important. The intertwining interests of the political and industrial elites, especially in the hydrocarbon sector, facilitate the use of state structures for energy security provision. FSB and “Gazprom” interaction makes cooperation in the security sphere more feasible, and state ownership in the energy sector makes other state structures a natural resource pool for armed services. The level of threats to energy infrastructure in Russia will also determine what level of protection is necessary. Threats from foreign or domestic actors determine what is currently being done, and whether new doctrines are necessary to meet future threats. The armed structures’ own attitudes are also determining; the Navy is already reaping benefits from cooperating with the hydrocarbon industry. In sum, these and a number of other factors explored in the report will determine the extent to which Russian armed forces will be involved in securing energy infrastructure in the future. Chances are that this is a growing task for the future armed forces of the Russian Federation.