NATO-EU failing energy strategy against the ‘Axis of Upheaval’ turns on a DIME

This week, 32 member nations gathered in Washington, D.C., for the annual NATO summit, which  is immensely critical given the array of extensive internal and external challenges.

NATO’s resilience is being tested as the Ukraine war intensifies. With summer offensives looming, NATO is tasked with confronting Russia’s new front, formed around Kherson.

Meanwhile, China is ramping up military tensions around Taiwan and the South China Sea, and the latest posturing from North Korea prompted Japan’s PM to urge tighter cooperation with NATO.

But after years of support, NATO and the EU are now wavering. Viktor Orban, a friend of Putin, assumed the EU presidency in July, threatening Ukraine’s funding, especially if Trump wins the presidency in November. Hungary’s latest move to negotiate an opt-out clause within NATO strategies also signals deep divisions, allowing adversaries to sow dissent.

Facing NATO and the EU is the ‘Axis of Upheaval’ – Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. This coalition uses hybrid warfare to its full capacity, leveraging Diplomacy, Information, Military and Economic (DIME) tools. Unlike NATO, they aren’t bound by international rules, unleashing an array of effective, albeit illegal, activities like Iran’s covert Hezbollah support and North Korea’s nuclear project.

But NATO summit’s core agenda proved uninspiring: more support for Ukraine and higher defence spending  is not a winning stratagem. In his opening remarks, President Biden proclaimed that “NATO is stronger than it’s ever been in its history.” This may be true, but the summit exposed a lack of forward-thinking strategies to counter hybrid warfare, raising doubts about just how long the alliance can maintain its edge. NATO needs to adopt a more dynamic approach, going beyond just asking for more money.

A critical vulnerability which NATO urgently needs to address beyond the summit lies with the energy sector, which has become a new battleground of international conflict. Russia has shown this by withholding energy supplies to ‘unfriendly’ countries, luring neutrals like India with discounted oil, and attacking Ukraine’s energy grid. The International Criminal Court now deems attacks on national energy systems as war crimes, but this hampers the West’s capabilities while Russia and its allies continue ignoring multiple indictments for breaching international law.

Despite these threats, NATO and the EU still lack a unified energy framework. Most member states are confined to bilateral energy agreements, making them vulnerable to foreign adversaries, a harsh lesson learned shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine disrupted energy supplies across Europe.

The EU and NATO are pursuing an ambitious energy transition, aiming to reduce dependence on cheap fuel imports from Russia permanently. While wise in the long run, this leaves Europe vulnerable in the short term. Critical minerals for green technologies like lithium, nickel, cobalt, zinc, silicon and copper are largely controlled by Russia and China.

This exposure is ripe for exploitation through hybrid warfare tactics. Russia and China are well positioned to leverage their resource advantages, hindering Europe’s energy goals. New energy infrastructures and supply chains for critical minerals remain dangerously exposed, threatening not only infrastructure but markets, resource supply, political decisions, and public support.

As such, NATO and the EU urgently need to strengthen cooperation in hybrid warfare and implement complex energy strategies in the short, medium, and long term. After  strong decision making and political will to decide the ‘ways’, what is needed are the ‘means’, a strong financial support to realize this deeper cooperation.

Despite rising nationalist sentiment against European institutional convergence post-EU elections, NATO and the EU can still pursue low-key, cost-effective joint projects. These should include better energy data sharing, a detailed action plan for cooperation on green tech, integrating non-EU energy grids with the EU grid and enhancing international energy trade. Additionally, they could establish a permanent system for demand pooling and joint procurement of fossil fuels and hydrogen from outside sources.

Countries like Bosnia & Herzegovina, Ukraine and Georgia are currently eyeing NATO membership. Maintaining their confidence is vital, but it requires a solid energy strategy. Meanwhile, the ‘Axis of Upheaval’ is expanding its influence, aiming for a continuous perimeter from the Persian Gulf to North Korea and the South China Sea.

The Caucasus region is critical, but this NATO summit has failed to demonstrate a convincing vision of energy to sway Georgia and Armenia, which may erode their interest in full membership.

If NATO and the EU fail to develop a viable energy strategy, the Russia-China-North Korea-Iran alliance will maintain an effective hybrid offensive, causing major disruptions at minimal cost. This threatens NATO and the EU’s economic advantage, making immediate action essential.

But most importantly, we imperil not only Western interests but the broader democratic framework itself.  Without a robust energy strategy and formidable response to aggression, how long can democracy endure?

The views expressed in this #CriticalThinking article reflect those of the author(s) and not of Friends of Europe.