India in the energy great game: Safeguarding strategic autonomy and leading the Global South

The complex global geopolitics can also be seen in the context of growing competition among state and non-state actors to acquire scarce energy resources and critical minerals. Whether it is the Russia-Ukraine war or the current geopolitical stalemate in West Asia, Africa, or Latin America, the same holds true in the context of resource geopolitics. The same can also be seen in the historical developments of global geopolitics. When coal became a major fuel in the 19th century, it contributed to protracted warfare on the European continent. It may be added that, as with oil and gas, competition for critical minerals plays a crucial role in shaping the present global order.

Over the last couple of years, especially in the post-Covid era, there has been a perception among analysts and policymakers globally that conventional energy sources such as oil, gas, and coal have lost their dominance. This is especially true in the context of a faster energy transition and the global economic slowdown at the onset of the pandemic. However, this slowdown can be described as temporary; just a few years later, the conventional energy source bounced back in the international energy market, as it had in the 20th century. In this context, there is a need to examine energy security and global geopolitics holistically. Two important issues need to be addressed while examining the above issues.

More from Opinion

These are:

a) How far are issues associated with energy security shaping global geopolitics?

b) Are the existing global energy governance structures effective in addressing the energy crisis and facilitating the global energy transition?

Energy Security in a Historical Perspective

If one looks at the evolving global geopolitics of the late 19th and 20th centuries, it can be said that resources, such as oil and gas, play an important role in shaping it. As scholarly studies suggest, the historical rivalry among the three major European powers, namely, Great Britain, France and Germany, has been fought among themselves to secure coal, which was a precious metal at that point for these countries in terms of their modernisation process. In fact, some of the geopolitical doctrines which evolved in the 19th century are associated with the quest for resources. It is not only the European coalfields that are the epicentres of geopolitical competition; later, the same extended to other parts of the world. Along with coal, the discovery of oil fundamentally changed the global energy geopolitics. The exploration of oil in the US, Azerbaijan (then under Tsarist Russian rule), and India completely changed the geopolitical narrative of global order.

In this context, the Baku oil and its growing demand propelled global powers to compete with each other at that time (including non-state actors like the Noble Brothers and Rothschild), paving the way for growing competition among state and non-state actors. One may note that during the First World War, Germany’s efforts to capture Baku oil were aimed at protecting its strategic interests. During the war, Germany received Turkey's support and attacked the Baku Oil Field. However, Tsarist Russia received support from the British forces then operating in Persia (present-day Iran) and repulsed the attack. This was done to protect the Baku oil fields. Incidentally, after the joint attack by the British and Russian forces, Germany retreated and subsequently lost the war. The First World War is also known as the "Kerosene War”, as this resource was the prime driver of global geopolitics at the time. The same can also be considered from a famous statement made by Winston Churchill in 1913, where he underlined that “safety and certainty of oil lie in variety and variety alone."

The major point one can infer from Churchill’s definition is that he advocated diversifying British energy from coal to oil and sought to secure control over territories with abundant energy reserves. In fact, the need for oil propelled Great Britain at that time to control a vast tract of territory in Asia and Africa. Thus, the British endeavour to control a vast tract of land can be seen in the context of its strategy to bring raw cotton from faraway places beyond the European continent to feed its industrial activities in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution.

One important inference one can draw from the above historical narrative is that the correlation among major elements like resources, the role of external state and non-state actors, and the market played a key role in defining the global geopolitics at various phases of the evolution of international relations. Another key factor that needs attention here is the role of information technology as a major driver of state power in international relations. The same can also be seen in the context of the post-First World War era. It is pertinent to add that West Asian geopolitics changed substantially in the aftermath of the war.

In fact, one of the key factors contributing to the changing geopolitical equation in this part of the world was the fall of the Ottoman Empire, as well as the desire of European powers such as France and England to control newly discovered oil resources. The territorial reorganisation of Iraq, by bringing the Kurdish region, which was under Ottoman Turkey's control at that time, into Iraq, contributed to a tectonic shift in the geopolitics of West Asia. The San Remo conference, which took place in Italy in 1920, redrew the geopolitical map of this part of the world. As has been argued, one of the major factors driving the realignment of the West Asian region at that time was energy.

In this context, it is apt to quote a policy document published by the British government titled “Petroleum situation in the British Empire and the Mesopotamia and Persian oilfields”, where emphasis was placed on controlling the energy resources of this part of the world. As the report stated, "It is evident that the power that controls the oil lands of Persia and Mesopotamia will control the source of supply of the majority of the liquid fuel of the future." It further adds, “Britain must therefore, at all costs, retain hold on the Persian and Mesopotamian oilfields.” A more or less similar argument was given by French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau. Clemenceau, who stated that “One drop of oil is worth one drop of blood of our soldier."

The above report, as well as Clemenceau's statement, underscores the importance of energy in global geopolitics. As resources acted as a catalyst in shaping the foreign policy behaviour of the respective European countries, which were vying to control West Asia's energy resources. It is a fact that both France and Great Britain emphasised the domination of West Asia's energy resources through military force.

In this context, three forms of development occurred within the framework of an incipient energy order, which require further explanation. These are: a) efforts on the part of major European powers, including the US, to capture more and more resources in the form of oil. b) The shortage faced by Germany in access to energy resources; c) as in the First World War, in the 1930s, Germany also faced a major oil shortage, as the bulk of the energy it used to import from major European countries, including Romania, and also Great Britain, and when it signed an agreement with the Soviet Union in 1939, better known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Through this Pact, Germany secured Soviet oil for a few years until the war broke out between the two in 1941.

In this context, it is appropriate to mention the strategic conduct of Germany and Japan during the Second World War. Hitler realised that to win the war, he needed to secure more oil-rich regions. In this context, one can notice Germany’s attack on Romania and the attempted attack on the oil fields of the Soviet Union. Germany suffered a defeat at the hands of the Soviet Union in the famous Battle of Stalingrad in 1942-43. At the same time, Hitler’s attack on the Romanian oil field was unsuccessful in 1943. Another ally of Germany, Japan, waged a war against the US in 1941 to secure Pearl Harbour’s oil but was defeated in the process. In this context, it is apt to concur with historians' view that both Germany and Japan suffered heavy defeats during the Second World War due to a shortage of oil. Thus, the strategic development testifies that oil, as a resource, acted as a catalytic factor in shaping the course of the war.

A closer examination of the First and Second World Wars demonstrates that the major powers at that point realised the importance of securing energy in their quest for global domination. In fact, in the post-Second World War period, the global order was shaped not only by ideological faultlines between the then Soviet Union and the US but also by their competition to secure control over resources. One factor that propelled the US to become a great power was its ability to control resources located in different regions of the world, including West Asia. In fact, Great Britain soon lost its dominance in global politics and was overtaken by the US. The intensity of oil as a catalytic factor is evident even during the Cold War era.

Energy Security and the Cold War Geopolitics

Energy played a major role in shaping Cold War geopolitics despite the fact that it was an ideological division which created much upheaval in the global arena. One important aspect that needs to be underlined here is that while in the pre-1945 era, the region of West Asia occupied an important position in the global energy framework because of its abundance of oil, in the post-1945 era, many other energy-rich regions like Latin America, Africa and other parts of Asia became the hotspots of global geopolitics. In fact, many of the conflicts that shook global geopolitics during the Cold War era were rooted in the distribution and control of resources.

For instance, the Suez Crisis of 1956 brought the Soviet Union and the United States into opposing camps. In fact, the present West Asian imbroglio can be traced back to the 1956 Suez Crisis. Just after the Suez Crisis, which in fact gave the US an opportunity to meddle in West Asian geopolitics, new fault lines in this part of the world came out in the form of the Arab-Israeli divide. Soon after the Suez Crisis, two major crises that further polarised global geopolitics were the 1960 OPEC Crisis and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Through OPEC, the energy-producing countries, like Venezuela, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc., wanted to checkmate the monopolistic practices of the oil companies of Western countries. It is a fact that oil companies from Western countries used to hegemonise the oil resources of the Global South. The formation of OPEC is a step toward ensuring an equitable global order because it brought oil producers into an institutional framework to regulate their activities in the international arena.

Another incident which brought the world to the brink of war between the two superpowers at that point in time was the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Though the Soviet deployment of missiles in Cuba was the moot point of conflict, the real issue was the nationalisation of oil industries in Cuba, which hampered the energy interests of oil conglomerates of the United States.

It is necessary to underline that, towards the latter part of the 20th century, some of the major conflicts occurred in oil-rich regions. Take, for instance, the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, which can be considered as a replay of the 1957 Suez Crisis, and the Yom Kippur War in 1973. The immediate fallout of these wars led to Arab countries uniting, and they employed energy resources as a rallying point in the fight against Western countries. Thus, it can be stated that Arab countries use energy as a potent strategic weapon in conducting their respective foreign policies.

This strategic development has also demonstrated that energy and its security implications can play a substantive role in altering the structure of international relations. The OPEC crisis, the subsequent rise in oil prices, and the security concerns that followed further heightened the global security crisis. The oil-importing countries thus became more vulnerable. While Western countries faced rough weather following the oil crisis, the Soviet Union at that time took advantage of the energy crisis and engaged in a new form of engagement with West Asia, known as the “Arms for Oil” engagement.

The basic premise of this engagement was a barter system in which the Soviet Union imported energy from energy-rich West Asian countries in exchange for arms. This form of barter engagement suited the interests of both and provided a win-win situation for all. It may be recalled that the Soviet Union at that time imported energy from West Asian countries, largely to export it to European countries. This helped the Soviet Union to overcome the financial crisis at that time.

In a nutshell, the basic postulates of Cold War geopolitics, as well as the nature of militarisation, were largely guided by the demand and supply of energy. Thus, in line with neo-realist postulates, it can be stated that structural factors, in the form of an asymmetric distribution of energy, played a key role in shaping the nature of international relations.

Another important aspect that needs to be underlined here is that, as scholarly studies suggest, the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, which gave the Soviet Union an upper hand in Iranian politics, and the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979 have an energy dimension. By overthrowing the US-supported Pahlavi regime, considered closer to the US, the Soviet Union gained a place in the Iranian oil sector. Thus, the Iranian crisis of 1979 paved the way for a new form of geopolitical realignment in West Asia.

At the same time, the Soviet Union sought to secure its energy supply from northern Afghanistan to overcome its internal energy crisis. The Soviet planners believed that by importing energy from Afghanistan, they could generate enough surplus energy to export to the international market.

The intensification of resource acquisition, such as oil and gas, further accelerated in the 1980s. This can be stated in the context of a marked increase in conflicts over resource securitisation. At the same time, the global powers at that time, such as the Soviet Union and the US, poked their noses into some of these conflicts, which paved the way for their spillover. This is also a period where the US outlined its new energy strategy aimed at bringing the entirety of West Asia into its orbit when the President of the US, Jimmy Carter, outlined his strategic doctrine, where he prioritised the energy interests of the US in the aftermath of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, as well as development in Iran. He stated, “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

Soon after the doctrine was enunciated, the US Administration under Carter also beefed up its presence in this part of the world through CENTCOM and sought to become more actively involved. This includes supporting Iraq in its war against Iran, as well as beefing up its military presence in Egypt and Greece. Some of these moves are aimed at bringing the US to the centre stage of global geopolitics and containing Soviet influence in this part of the world. At the same time, the Soviet efforts to mend relations with its strategic foe, Western Europe, in the framework of energy supply, created apprehension among US strategic planners. It may be recalled here that Western European countries, to overcome their energy crisis, looked to the Soviet Union for cheap energy. This, in fact, upset Washington’s efforts to gain control of its allies' energy markets. In this context, it can be stated that the US Administration at the time sought to disrupt the Soviet energy supply, which could pave the way for reduced energy supplies to European countries.

Realising the potential threat the Soviet Union posed to the US’s energy interests worldwide, the Reagan Administration entered into an alliance with the Saudi regime to increase oil production, thereby lowering oil prices. The Saudi-US oil deal flooded the international market with cheap oil, affecting global markets. Because of this, oil prices have fallen in the international market due to overproduction. The actual impact was felt by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union suffered a massive blow to its economy due to plummeting oil prices. In this context, the foreign exchange that it used to earn has also fallen, thus hitting the domestic economy quite severely. It can be argued that the lingering effects of fluctuations in oil prices, as well as in demand and supply, affected the energy market in particular, as well as global geopolitics in general.

Thus, the developments in the context of energy geopolitics in the Cold War era, to a great extent, shaped global order in the following prisms: These are:

Some of these developments in the annals of international relations during the Cold War period and the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union, as well as the end of ideological rivalry, contributed to a new form of global order in the post-Cold War era. At the same time, the importance of energy as a factor in navigating the contours of international relations has not diminished.

Energy Security and the Post-Cold War Global Geopolitics

Issues related to energy insecurity continue to shape global energy dynamics in the post-Cold War era. The structural frameworks of the post-Cold War geopolitics have largely been shaped by the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and subsequent developments in the international energy market have also shaped the dynamics of energy geopolitics. Some of these developments are rooted in the Cold War geopolitical paradigm, like the lingering geopolitical cauldron of West Asia, rooted in energy access and market; the emergence of new energy hubs in the post-Soviet space, which heightened the geopolitical as well as geoeconomic significance of some of the countries; and the exploration of energy resources in Africa, which has also propelled a new form of energy security architecture.

Along with the discovery of new energy fields, new players entered the market, shaping its dynamics. For instance, the 19th- and 20th-century global geopolitics were dominated by the US and European countries like Great Britain, Germany, France, etc., but in the post-Cold War era, many Asian countries like India, Japan, China, South Korea, etc., have also entered into the energy game in a big way. This paved the way for greater intensity among state actors to acquire resources. Another trend in the context of energy security is the prominence of new trans-pipeline corridors, along with choke points, in defining the global geostrategic landscape. In the post-Cold War era, the importance of renewable energy has grown substantially in global energy discourse. Intensity of conflict over the securitisation of energy has also grown substantially.

Some of these factors need to be kept in mind while analysing the nature of energy insecurity and its impact on global geopolitical processes.

In the post-Cold War era, in the 1990s, the US Administration continued its efforts to dominate the global energy market despite a lull in the international energy market. At the same time, the legal successor to the Soviet Union in the post-1991 era, Russia, was not in a position to challenge the US's dominant position. Taking advantage of a strategic vacuum in global geopolitics, the US beefed up its presence in the oil sector in different parts of the world.

As scholars argue, the US has not given up its “oil addiction” and "blood for oil thesis" even during the post-Cold War era, as evident from its engagement in Africa, West Asia, and the post-Soviet space, etc. At the same time, taking advantage of the geopolitical limbo, it entered the Caspian region by signing an agreement with Azerbaijan in 1994, known as the “Contract of the Century”.

The US presence in Azerbaijan gave it strategic space to manoeuvre in the geopolitics of post-Soviet Eurasia. The same can be seen in the famous speech of Strobe Talbott, the Deputy Secretary of State, who in 1997 outlined the US strategy throughout this region. The policy enunciated by Talbott, titled "A farewell to Flashman: American policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia", where he emphasised the primacy of the US interests in this post-Soviet space. As stated by Talbott, this region "sits on as much as 200 billion barrels of oil”.

In this context, the US Administration beefed up its presence in this part of the world, like by enunciating a new pipeline project, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Oil Pipeline, and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum Gas Pipeline, which gave the US and the European countries a strategic advantage in this part of the world by isolating Russia. While engaging with Central Asian and Caucasian countries, the US Administration employed the normative framework of "democracy", "order", and “market” as the principal elements in its engagement with this part of the world. Similarly, in the West Asian region, as stated by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor, “America has major strategic and economic interests in the Middle East that are dictated by the region’s vast energy supplies."

In this context, one can add here that the ouster of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the subsequent Arab Spring have had a lasting impact on the internal political dynamics of West Asia and the North Africa region, which saw the ouster of Col Gaddafi from power in Libya, along with other leaders from this region.

Similarly, energy is the most important factor which guides the US foreign policy towards Latin America and Africa. In this regard, one can highlight the role of the US Southern Command (USCOM) in the Latin American energy sector, as well as that of the US Africa Command (USAFRICOM) in protecting the US energy interests in the region and in Washington. On the other hand, the US has long been interested in the lucrative energy markets of European countries. The same can be seen in the aftermath of the Russia-Ukraine war, when the US sought to reach European markets to export its surplus energy.

The European Union shares a common understanding with the US on many security and geopolitical issues, including a common position towards Russia. Thus, the Russia-Ukraine War proved to be a blessing in disguise for the US, allowing it to tap into Europe's energy market. This is, in fact, a major bone of contention between the US and the EU. Though a few EU member countries want to engage with Russia and Iran to secure energy supplies. This is one of the major bones of contention within NATO.

As discussed earlier, in the post-Cold War era, the US dominance in the global energy market was to a great extent challenged by the rise of India, China, and Japan as major players. It is worth noting that the earliest definitions of demand and supply are not the sole factors in the definitional realm of energy security; the market also plays an equally important role. For instance, the Chinese energy sector's entry into African and Latin American energy markets is posing a headache for the US. Like the US, China is also investing heavily, matching the US's investment in these two continents over the years. One of the major factors shaping China’s growing presence in this part of the world is the growing resentment against the US energy sector.

Taking advantage of this, China is dominating the energy sectors of Latin America and Africa. The growing influence of China in Venezuela’s energy sector is a pointer in this direction. According to the China-Venezuela Fact Sheet published in 2026 by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, China has provided a loan of 10 billion US dollars to Venezuela and purchased a major share of Venezuela's oil. This shows the magnitude of the Chinese presence in Venezuela.

At the same time, China’s investment in Africa stood at 3.37 billion US dollars in 2024, according to a study by the China-Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins University. Similarly, the US Congressional Research Service Report of 2023 has highlighted that total trade between China and Latin America was around 482 US dollars in 2022. Like the US, China is also more interested in plundering the oil wealth of both Latin America and Africa to keep up its mercantile interests.

As highlighted at the beginning, a new form of Cold War revolving around energy, also in the supply chain, has been taking place in recent years. Looking at the strategic behaviour of China and the US in the energy supply zones of Africa, Latin America, West Asia, and the former Soviet space of Eurasia demonstrates that there is rivalry between the two powers.

The same can be seen in China’s intention to establish military bases or convert civilian facilities to military use, which will have serious implications for the security of the above-mentioned geopolitical hotspots. China’s naval base in Djibouti, established in 2017 and considered a strategic energy and economic corridor, is going to pose a substantial challenge to the US’s energy interests. The same is true in Latin America, where China’s intention to convert civilian infrastructure projects into military ones, as in Cuba, Venezuela, and Mexico, (which is considered next door to the US because of its location, posing a substantial security challenge) may have significant security implications for the US.

Similarly, in West Asia, both China and the US are at loggerheads. There is a tendency in China to expand its presence in the West Asian energy sector, which is causing much resentment to the US. Like in Latin America and Africa, China is increasingly using civilian infrastructure for military purposes in the West Asian region, particularly in the UAE, as reports suggest. At the same time, China is using Iran as its ally to checkmate the US. The same scenario is prevailing in the South China Sea and the Malacca Strait energy corridors, where both countries are at loggerheads.

As a traditional energy player, Russia uses energy as a strategic means to navigate the energy markets of both the post-Soviet space and Asian and European markets. The European energy crisis since 2014, following the annexation of Crimea and the onset of the Russia-Ukraine War in February 2022, has further aggravated the matter. Though the European countries imposed sanctions on Russia as a geopolitical tool, they are now facing a real crisis. On the other hand, Russia, to escape the sanctions trap, has moved into Asian markets in a big way. In this regard, the Indian and Chinese markets have emerged as alternatives to Russian energy.

At the same time, Russia is also acquiring energy assets abroad, including in Latin America, North Africa and other parts of the world, to strengthen its energy empire. As Moscow seeks greater leverage in the global energy market. Another interesting aspect of Russia’s energy diplomacy is that, though Saudi Arabia is considered the US's closest ally, it is now developing a strong partnership with Russia. This is because Saudi Arabia is keen to minimise the US's influence in its energy sector.

The Russia-Ukraine War, the West Asian geopolitical crisis in the form of the Arab-Israeli War, and the recent spat between the US and Venezuela are among the major developments shaping the global energy market. President Donald Trump’s repeated tirade over the US’s intention to unilaterally take over Greenland and its raw materials may also affect the geopolitical balance in the global energy market. Similarly, China’s attempts to acquire energy resources and critical minerals worldwide will have a substantial impact on global geopolitics.

Energy Security and Global Governance

The issue of energy security and its geopolitical repercussions will also shape the nature of global energy governance. Over the years, the issue of energy security has not been confined to market-related issues at the global level; in recent years, new challenges have arisen. Some of them are related to energy transition, climate adaptation, energy equity in international negotiations, addressing the food-water-energy crisis, etc. All these developments will shape the issues related to global energy governance.

Although OPEC and OPEC+ organisations have emerged, they have yet to address the core global concern. Similarly, divergent perspectives on energy-related issues, such as energy transition, climate finance, technology transfer, and limiting greenhouse gas emissions, will pose a substantial challenge to global energy security. One of the major issues that needs to be discussed here is that the developed Global North always employs diversionary tactics to disrupt global energy negotiations.

The failure of existing institutional mechanisms may further shape global geopolitics. If the nature of the energy transition does not smooth out for Global South countries, it may affect sustainable security.

Indian Perspective

India is not only emerging as a major importer of oil and gas but is also diversifying its supply sources, including Venezuela, Argentina, Central Asia, Russia, and Nigeria, thereby reducing its dependence on West Asia. The diversification of energy supply reflects India’s ability to navigate diverse global energy markets, thereby enhancing its capacity to maintain strategic autonomy. The same can be seen in India’s purchase of a substantial amount of Russian oil despite US pressure. India requires a huge quantity of fossil fuels to boost its domestic economy and subsidises a large portion of the population.

In this context, it suits India’s national interests to buy oil from Russia at a much lower price. Similarly, India has strengthened energy relations with Iran over the years. Another interesting aspect of India’s energy diplomacy in recent years is that New Delhi has not only diversified its energy supply but also augmented its exploration capabilities in different parts of the world. In this regard, India’s energy conglomerate ONGC Videsh Limited (OVL) has operated in more than 17 countries over the years. This shows the major leap India has made over the years to secure a conventional energy source while also making significant inroads into harnessing renewable sources. Similarly, in the renewable energy sector, India has also made major contributions. The International Solar Alliance, as well as the Global Biofuels Alliance (GBA), was created at India’s initiative to harness renewable energy. This shows India’s commitment to a just global energy transition and protecting the climate.

Conclusion

Some of the foregoing discussion on energy security and its impact on global geopolitics demonstrates a closer interaction. In fact, a closer look at the developments in international relations since the 1850s demonstrates that energy in its many forms, whether coal, kerosene, oil, gas or, in recent years, in the context of renewable energy transition, is shaping the energy discourse. Thus, what can be inferred here is that the “scarcity” of these resources has driven a high degree of competition among state and non-state actors over the years. The competition often sparks major military conflicts among various stakeholders.

What can be underlined here is that energy provides the necessary structural framework, as the neo-realist school of international relations argues. In this context, the possession of natural resources such as energy and critical minerals generates what neo-realists call an asymmetric distribution of “capability”. Even though global energy systems have evolved over time to address energy and climate-related issues, they have not succeeded in addressing the concerns of Global South countries.

This necessitates a new framework to address energy-related issues that will enhance an equitable global energy order. Being the “voice” of Global South India is playing a major role in addressing the concerns of the Global South at global energy negotiations.

(The author teaches at the School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi. Views expressed are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)