The Energy Gambit: Harnessing Nuclear Aspirations and Capitalizing on Gas Leverage.
________________________________________
By Germán & Co. Karlstad, Sweden | April 18, 2025
________________________________________
Do you believe the revival of nuclear energy in response to climate and energy crises is primarily a genuine environmental solution, or does it signal a deeper shift toward technocratic authoritarianism under the guise of ecological urgency?"
As the world grapples with energy crises and climate chaos, governments are revisiting old promises dressed up in modern language. A significant focus is on the revival of nuclear energy, now presented as a sleek, carbon-free solution in the battle against environmental degradation. However, beneath the polished facade of next-generation reactors and AI-optimized energy grids, a more troubling trend is emerging—the rise of technocratic authoritarianism.
The new order is not enforced with tanks or gulags, but through the quiet authority of spreadsheets, surveillance algorithms, and “expert consensus.” In states where strongman populism merges with digital governance—China, Russia, even parts of the West—efficiency has displaced transparency. National energy strategies, cloaked in the neutral language of science and progress, are increasingly imposed without democratic debate. At the same time, social and population policies are being engineered to optimize citizens as if they were components in a system—ranked, sorted, and regulated according to utility.
And here, the ghost of eugenics reemerges—not through the crude slogans of racial hygiene or sterilization campaigns, but through more refined mechanisms: metrics of “population quality,” algorithmic risk scores, and policy frameworks that quietly stratify individuals based on perceived value to the collective. Nuclear energy, long stigmatized by its Cold War legacy, has returned not only as a climate solution, but as a totem of central planning, elite governance, and selective investment in "deserving" futures.
________________________________________
The Energy Gambit: From Nuclear Dreams to Gas Leverage…
For decades, nuclear energy was sold as the pinnacle of human mastery over nature – a near-limitless source of power that promised energy independence and geopolitical clout. In the mid-20th century, world leaders imagined gleaming fleets of reactors powering their economies and freeing them from the vagaries of fossil fuels. By the 1990s, however, the sheen of the atomic age was fading. The Chernobyl disaster of 1986 and the Fukushima meltdown in 2011 underscored the catastrophic risks of nuclear power, hardening public skepticism. Meanwhile, the rapid expansion of renewable energy and the abundant supply of natural gas – often cheaper and quicker to deploy – created a competitive alternative. What followed was a slow global retreat from nuclear ambitions. Nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation declined from a peak of about 17.5% in 1996 to roughly 10% by 2020, as more countries halted or scaled back their reactor programs (Study shows U.S. has the most nuclear reactors in 2021 | World Economic Forum). While nations like China continued building reactors, many others – from Japan and Germany to Belgium and South Korea – either froze new nuclear projects or pledged phase-outs in response to safety fears and public pressure. The grand dream of a nuclear-powered future gave way to an age of pragmatism and caution.
This retreat has had profound geopolitical implications. As nuclear energy’s role receded, natural gas emerged as a critical pillar of the global energy mix – and a potent instrument of geopolitical leverage. Gas, once seen merely as a bridge fuel, became a strategic asset coveted by nations and cartels. Unlike nuclear plants, which are capital-intensive and take years to build, gas infrastructure (pipelines, LNG terminals) offered flexibility and relatively quick returns. Producers of natural gas – from Russia and Qatar to the United States – found eager markets, particularly in energy-hungry Europe and Asia. Europe, in particular, increasingly relied on imported gas to compensate for its nuclear drawdown and to back up intermittent renewables. Nowhere was this dynamic more evident than in Germany. Long the economic engine of Europe, Germany decided to eliminate nuclear power, accelerating a phase-out after Fukushima. In April 2023, the last three German reactors shut down for good, closing the chapter on atomic energy in Germany’s grid (Q&A - Germany's nuclear exit: One year after) (Germany's Energy Crisis: Europe's Leading Economy is Falling Behind). But the move, born of environmental and safety concerns, left Germany and its neighbors more dependent on natural gas to keep the lights on. When Russia – Europe’s principal gas supplier – invaded Ukraine in 2022, it weaponized that very dependency with brutal efficiency (Europe’s messy Russian gas divorce) (Europe’s messy Russian gas divorce).
Russia’s strategy was decades in the making. Under the guise of mutually beneficial commerce, Moscow had steadily tightened Europe’s bind through long-term gas contracts and pipeline projects. By the 2010s, roughly 40% of Europe’s natural gas imports came from Russia. This heavy reliance created an illusion of energy interdependence that many European leaders complacently accepted – an illusion shattered when geopolitics turned hostile. In the months preceding the Ukraine invasion, the Kremlin deliberately curtailed gas deliveries. It allowed its European storage facilities to dwindle, setting the stage for a supply crunch (Europe’s messy Russian gas divorce). After tanks crossed the Ukrainian border in February 2022, Moscow dramatically slashed pipeline flows, at one point completely shutting the key Nord Stream pipeline. The goal was clear: coerce Europe into acquiescence by plunging it into cold and darkness, splinter European unity, and deter support for Kyiv. Natural gas – often called the “blue gold” of the 21st century – has become Vladimir Putin’s sharpest geopolitical weapon.
Initially, the tactic exacted a heavy toll. European natural gas prices spiked to record highs through 2022, and an energy panic set in. Governments scrambled to avert blackouts and factory shutdowns. Germany, facing an abrupt cutoff of the cheap Russian gas that had powered its industries for years, teetered on the brink of recession. Indeed, by 2023, Germany had slipped into an economic slump, largely thanks to the loss of Russian gas supplies and the simultaneous shutdown of its nuclear plants (Germany's Energy Crisis: Europe's Leading Economy is Falling Behind). What had been touted as a responsible energy policy – the Energiewende away from nuclear – suddenly looked like a strategic vulnerability. Meanwhile, countries like Hungary and Serbia, more friendly to Moscow, secured gas lifelines, illustrating how Russia can reward or punish by modulating the gas valve. The Kremlin’s gambit seemed to confirm fears that Europe’s climate-conscious retreat from nuclear power had inadvertently strengthened the hand of petrostates.
And yet, the endgame did not play out entirely as Moscow envisioned. European nations – displaying a resolve few anticipated – moved with astonishing speed to blunt Russia’s energy weapon. The European Union coordinated an emergency reduction in gas demand, filling storage caverns before winter and securing alternative supplies from Norway, North Africa and an armada of liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments from the United States and Qatar. New LNG import terminals were fast-tracked from the Baltic coast of Poland to the shores of Germany’s North Sea. By early 2023, Russian pipeline gas, once the lifeblood of Europe’s energy system, had been replaced – an unprecedented pivot that would have been politically unthinkable before the war (Europe’s messy Russian gas divorce). The self-congratulatory narrative in European capitals was that Putin’s attempt to blackmail Europe had backfired, costing Russia its biggest customer and a key source of revenue. Indeed, by 2023, Russia’s share of Europe’s gas imports plummeted, and Gazprom was left flaring gas it could no longer sell. One European official quipped that Putin had “spent decades building up leverage, only to throw it away in a single year.” In reality, the transition was painful – energy-intensive industries from chemicals to steel in Europe suffered or relocated, and households endured soaring utility bills. But by winter 2023–24, natural gas prices had fallen back to pre-crisis levels, and the worst-case scenario of energy rationing was averted. Europe has, in effect, partially immunized itself against the Russian gas weapon, though at a steep economic cost.
The broader lesson remains: control over energy is a double-edged sword. Suppose Europe learned that it could survive without Russian gas, and Russia learned that over-reliance on one primary market (Europe) could be ruinous – unlike oil, which can be sold globally. In that case, pipeline gas is essentially stranded without willing nearby buyers. The geopolitical leverage of gas thus cuts both ways; wielding it as a weapon can invite self-inflicted wounds. The episode also underscored that flexibility and diversification are as crucial as resource abundance in today's multipolar energy landscape. The United States, once a net energy importer, became a critical LNG supplier to Europe almost overnight, turning its shale gas boom into a strategic influence. Middle Eastern producers like Qatar similarly gained clout, signing 20- and 30-year contracts to anchor Asia and Europe’s future gas needs. New energy partnerships bloomed: Algeria and Italy deepened gas ties, and Azerbaijan stepped up pipeline flows to Southern Europe. In essence, Moscow’s aggressive move accelerated a global reshuffling of energy relationships. In this scramble, gas-rich states could expand their sway, and consumers learned never to put all their eggs in one basket.
Meanwhile, the decline of nuclear energy continues to shape this new energy geopolitics. Countries that doubled down on reactor programs – such as China, India, and Russia itself – frame their investments in nuclear technology as ways to secure energy independence and even export influence (through reactor sales and fuel services) in the coming decades. However, in liberal democracies, public and political will has often turned against nuclear power. Despite beginning to restart some reactors after a post-Fukushima shutdown, Japan remains cautious. Belgium and Spain have timelines to phase out nuclear generation in the 2020s and 2030s (though Belgium delayed its phase-out by a decade due to the gas crisis). In the United States, atomic power struggles to compete economically with cheap gas and subsidized renewables, leading to reactor closures. Only France stands as a significant exception in the West – maintaining a robust nuclear fleet that still provides about 70% of its electricity, which Paris touts as both a climate-friendly asset and a strategic buffer against gas geopolitics. Even so, France faced embarrassment in 2022 when corrosion problems forced many reactors offline, contributing to Europe’s power crunch. The incident revealed that simply having nuclear plants is insufficient; they must be maintained and modernized, lest technical failures shatter the illusion of secure capacity.
In hindsight, the world’s energy “control illusions” become apparent. Those who assumed that nuclear power would guarantee energy autonomy found that political will and public trust are fickle variables beyond technocratic control. Germany’s leaders, for instance, believed they could simultaneously abandon nuclear power and deepen dependence on imported gas without incurring strategic risk – an illusion dispelled by war. Likewise, Russia thought it could control Europe through energy, only to find that coercion in one domain (gas) provoked an equal and opposite reaction that undercut its influence. The new reality is a more multipolar energy order: one in which no single technology or supplier holds absolute sway and where energy security is achieved through diversity and resilience rather than any silver-bullet solution. This is an era where natural gas, for all its newfound importance, is also a transient player in the transition to renewables – and where even renewables come with their geopolitical baggage (from supply chains of critical minerals to land use conflicts). In short, the illusion that any country could completely control its energy destiny has given way to an understanding that interdependence and volatility are here to stay.
Geopolitically, natural gas will remain a lever of influence, but its utility as a weapon may diminish if buyers have alternatives. Europe’s messy divorce from Russian gas (Europe's messy Russian gas divorce - Brookings Institution) demonstrated the power and limits of that lever. In the coming years, attention is turning to other energy frontiers: the race for critical minerals needed for batteries and renewable tech, and whether the nuclear decline can be reversed by innovations like small modular reactors (SMRs) to provide carbon-free baseload power. Even as climate imperatives push countries to decarbonize, the road to that green future is strewn with geopolitical contests – control of lithium mines or the Strait of Hormuz. The key takeaway from the early 2020s is that no energy source is purely a matter of engineering; each carries geopolitical weight. In the era of multipolar geopolitics, energy policy is security policy.
Thus, the stage is set for a continued global energy gambit. Nations will leverage what they have – oil, gas, technology, or innovation – to jockey for position, and those dependent on others will seek to mitigate that dependence. The decline of nuclear power in many regions has inadvertently elevated the role of hydrocarbons like natural gas in international affairs, at least in the short term. But this may not be permanent. If the 2020s taught anything, it is that fortunes can reverse quickly. For example, a breakthrough in fusion energy or battery storage could upend the balance again. Policymakers must, therefore, approach the illusion of control with humility: today’s leverage can become tomorrow’s liability. As Europe found in its bid to go green while relying on an authoritarian supplier, geopolitics has humbled even the best-laid plans.