Bibliographic record
Abstract
Russia has supplied natural gas to Europe reliably for nearly four decades. But recent changes in Russian behaviour and policy, combined with EU-driven regulatory changes, have created a state of flux, and considerable concern in Europe. I address the question of possible Russian hegemony in European gas relations, and ask whether Moscowâs ambitions represent a security threat to Europe. Positioning these questions within the context of a European natural gas regime (NGR), I take a historical-comparitive approach, dividing the evolution of the NGR into three phases. Phase one moves from the origin of the cross-border trade in Europe in the 1960s to the 1991 Soviet dissolution; phase two explores the turbulent post-Soviet decade to 1999; and phase three addresses the era of Vladimir Putin from 2000 to 2010. For each phase, I assess hegemony by drawing on regime concepts offered by Alt et al, which I modify for application to the idiosyncratic realm of natural gas. The evidence suggests that Germany, not Russia, is more appropriately considered hegemonic, having acquired gas influence in the 1970s that it has not relinquished. However, there are also indications that a German-Russian âco-hegemonyâ could be developing, characterized by disproportionate Russian influence in Central Europe, giving rise to possible tension between EU values, governance and responsibilities on one hand, and Russian influence associated with co-hegemony on the other. Despite this, I suggest that Russian aspirations constitute no imminent security threat to Europe â European gas actors are well entrenched, and Moscow faces strong disincentives to threaten its European buyers. âCo-hegemonyâ could challenge the regimeâs integrity, but evidence to date suggests that the EU and Gazprom prefer patience and compromise to brinkmanship, and that actor interest in maintaining the flow of gas suggests greater optimism than dread. âSecurityâ is therefore not as sound as it would be if Russia were an EU member or if it had ratified the Energy Charter Treaty, but emerging dynamics do not suggest imminent peril either. I conclude by discussing possible directions for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".