No abstract

No abstract

In his recent article, Söderlund [Söderlund, P.J., 2003. The significance of structural power resources in the Russian bi-lateral treaty process 1994–1998. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 36, 311–324] tests structural factors that influence the order in which the Russian regions gained a bi-lateral agreement with the federal centre, emphasizing the importance of ethnicity, religion and economy. We replicate his results, and provide an extension where we argue instead that the only significant determinants of the bi-lateral process have been economic issues. Our results are substantiated by an improved methodology that addresses several debatable choices made by the author in the original article.

No abstract

Periodic contestations over gas transit from Russia westwards to Europe, as in January 2009, have demonstrated the fractured nature of relations among states that each on their own plays a vital role in the maintenance of the European energy sector. More importantly, the January crisis has reinforced the concept that energy security goes beyond existing conceptions of access to upstream supply balanced by consumer demand. Up to now, the track record along the European energy value chain has prioritised short-term macro-solutions over longer term, step by step confidence building micro approaches. What becomes of energy trade in Europe may depend upon a fundamental re-thinking of energy based both on the understanding of the good as a purely economic commodity and on our institutional ability to coordinate the energy trade as a collective across a vast landscape of divergent economic and political interests. Subsequently, this article seeks to identify the sources of inaccurate structural interpretations of the policy environment, the unintended consequences derived from sub-optimal policy choices and to present workable solutions to existing risks to the stability of EU/Russia energy trade.Introduction: now is the winter of our discontent ... (again)