Global energy security enters new era as wars expose hidden vulnerabilities

The Russia-Ukraine and US-Iran conflicts are exposing weaknesses in the global energy system that extend far beyond the supply of oil and gas, according to an analysis published by Oilprice.com. The crises are highlighting how energy security is increasingly intertwined with financial stability, transportation networks, military protection, technology and geopolitical relationships.

The Russia-Ukraine war demonstrated the risks of Europe's dependence on concentrated pipeline supplies, while the US-Iran conflict has highlighted the vulnerability of global energy flows to maritime chokepoints. The Strait of Hormuz, in particular, has emerged as a critical pressure point, with the International Energy Agency describing the disruption caused by the conflict as the largest oil-supply disruption in its history, affecting roughly 20 million barrels per day of crude oil and refined products.

Oilprice.com argues that these developments could mark the beginning of a new phase of globalisation. Rather than pursuing complete economic or energy independence, countries are likely to focus on strategic autonomy — diversifying suppliers, developing alternative transportation routes, strengthening domestic capabilities and reducing exposure to individual geopolitical or financial pressure points.

Europe trades pipeline dependence for a more global system

Europe provides one of the clearest examples of this transition. Russian gas once accounted for more than 40% of EU gas demand between 2018 and 2021. Following Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent reduction in pipeline supplies, Europe sharply expanded its reliance on alternative sources, particularly LNG.

According to the analysis, the US share of EU LNG imports increased from about 29% in 2021 to 53% in 2025. The shift has reduced Europe's direct dependence on Russian pipelines, but it has not eliminated external vulnerability. Instead, Europe's energy system is now more closely connected to global LNG markets, shipping capacity and international prices.

This distinction is important: diversification can reduce the risks associated with one supplier without removing dependence on the wider global energy system.

China faces a different vulnerability

China's energy strategy has increasingly sought to reduce direct exposure to the United States. Beijing has expanded domestic production, increased strategic reserves, strengthened energy ties with Russia and Central Asia, expanded renewables and accelerated transport electrification.

Yet Oilprice.com notes that China remains highly exposed to Middle Eastern energy flows and maritime chokepoints. About 89% of crude oil and condensate passing through the Strait of Hormuz in the first half of 2025 was destined for Asian markets, while China, India, Japan and South Korea accounted for about 74% of those flows. Almost 90% of LNG exports passing through Hormuz in 2025 were also destined for Asia.

The result is a strategic paradox: reducing dependence on one major supplier does not eliminate vulnerability if energy still has to pass through routes exposed to geopolitical disruption.

Energy wealth does not guarantee autonomy

The same issue applies to the Gulf states. Despite possessing some of the world's largest oil and gas reserves, Middle Eastern energy producers remain heavily dependent on external security relationships and technologies. The analysis cites SIPRI data showing that 54% of major arms imported by Middle Eastern states between 2021 and 2025 came from the United States.

For these countries, energy security therefore involves more than production capacity. Alternative export routes, strategic storage, domestic refining and petrochemicals, technological capabilities, diversified security relationships and financial reserves can all contribute to resilience.

From efficiency to resilience

The broader economic consequences of energy disruptions are equally significant. Higher oil and gas prices can feed into aviation, shipping, manufacturing, chemicals, fertilisers, agriculture and household consumption. Oilprice.com points to the experience of Spirit Airlines, where sharply higher jet-fuel prices added pressure to an already financially troubled company before it ceased operations in May 2026.

The analysis ultimately suggests that the central shift in global energy policy may be from efficiency toward resilience. The vulnerabilities of the 1990s were closely associated with financial dependence, the 2000s with concentrated energy supplies, the 2010s with the growing geopolitical role of US energy power, and the 2020s with interconnected supply chains and strategic chokepoints.

Complete economic separation remains unrealistic. Instead, the emerging model is one of redundancy: multiple suppliers, alternative routes, strategic reserves, diversified financial mechanisms, domestic technology and broader diplomatic partnerships.

As the piece concludes, the future of energy security may depend less on who possesses the largest reserves and more on who has the greatest number of options for getting energy to consumers when geopolitical relationships suddenly change.

By Sabina Mammadli