Interdependence Framework

Energy interdependence was supposed to prevent conflict. The theory: countries that trade energy become economically entangled, making war too costly. Russia and Europe tested this theory in 2022 and disproved the optimistic version. Germany was Russia's largest gas customer and Russia was Germany's largest gas supplier. The war happened anyway.

The framework for analyzing energy interdependence distinguishes between symmetric and asymmetric relationships. Symmetric interdependence exists when both parties depend equally on the trade: disruption hurts both sides comparably. This creates mutual deterrence. Asymmetric interdependence exists when one party can absorb disruption more easily, giving it leverage. Russia-Europe gas trade was asymmetric: Russia had sovereign wealth reserves and could redirect some gas to China, while Europe had no short-term alternative to Russian pipeline gas.

The weaponization threshold. Interdependence deters conflict only when disruption costs are symmetric and high. When one side can weaponize the relationship at acceptable cost to itself, interdependence becomes a vulnerability, not a constraint.

When does energy trade make conflict less likely, and when does it enable coercion?

Symmetry is the key variable. US-Canada energy trade is deeply symmetric: both economies suffer comparably from disruption, and neither can easily replace the other. Russia-Europe was asymmetric: Russia had alternatives (China, reserves) while Europe did not. The post-2022 LNG realignment is partially restoring symmetry to European energy trade by diversifying suppliers, reducing any single country's leverage.

---