Energy Sovereignty: The Precondition for Freedom
Why states without energy control cannot remain politically independent
In The Middle Power Trap, I argued that the defining feature of the current geopolitical moment is not rivalry between blocs, but the progressive collapse of option space. Middle powers are no longer permitted to hedge. The creation of alternatives is increasingly treated as defection. What disappears first is not neutrality, but the space between compliance and exclusion.
Energy sits at the root of that dynamic.
Every discussion of sovereignty eventually collapses to the same missing variable. Law, finance, diplomacy, alliances — all of them presume something more basic. Remove that foundation and the rest becomes procedural theatre.
Almost everything of economic value is energy-derivative.
Without secure control over primary energy access, no state’s freedom is durable. That is not ideology or pessimism; it is thermodynamics applied to power. Production is energy applied to matter. Logistics is energy moving matter. Finance is a claim on future energy use. Political legitimacy survives only while energy flows are predictable and tolerable.
This is why debates about sovereignty that begin anywhere else rarely resolve.
Energy is not one policy domain among many. It is the enabling constraint. Without it, freedom cannot endure. With it, freedom becomes materially possible.
The pattern is visible across several advanced middle powers. The United Kingdom provides a clear example.
Britain has not escaped the middle power trap. It has pre-complied with it.
The UK did not test the boundary and retreat. It internalised the boundary early and adjusted its behaviour so that testing never became necessary. That is why it appears untouched. Not because it is freer, but because it stopped attempting to exercise autonomy where the material costs would be immediate.
Once energy is externalised, every other lever becomes conditional. Law becomes procedural. Trade becomes permission. Sovereignty becomes rhetorical. Choice survives only as language.
This is not cowardice. It is learned constraint.
The common objection is that energy alone cannot confer freedom — that modern economies depend on complex supply chains, specialised goods, and integrated systems no single state can replicate. This is true, but incomplete.
Many essential goods can be produced domestically if energy is abundant and reliable. Food, steel, cement, chemicals, fertiliser, and basic manufacturing are fundamentally energy-intensive processes. Where domestic production is absent today, it is usually because energy is expensive or insecure. Remove that constraint and industrial depth tends to return over time.
For the remainder — specialised components, advanced technologies, scarce materials — trade fills the gap. At base, trade is an exchange of energy embedded in goods. States that control energy do not negotiate from scarcity; they offer access to production capacity. That access has value.
This is how durable wealth is created. Not through leverage or narrative advantage, but through the ability to sustain large-scale production at predictable cost. Capacity of that kind can support a credible currency — not merely a financial claim sustained by confidence, but a unit anchored in real output and real capability. Historically, this is the foundation of monetary sovereignty.
So why does this not occur more often?
Because energy sovereignty preserves option space. It allows alternatives to survive demonstrated pressure. Systems built on integration leverage do not accommodate that easily.
Nord Stream did not decline through market or regulatory pressure. It ceased to exist following sabotage. The infrastructure represented strategic optionality — a material alternative that constrained escalation and preserved bargaining power. Once it was gone, the adjustment was immediate. Germany reorganised its energy system around the assumption that the option would not return.
The lesson was absorbed quickly. The response was not defiance, but adaptation.
The United Kingdom did not require such a lesson administered directly. It learned by observation.
This is what pre-compliance looks like. Not submission after punishment, but restraint before it. Boundaries do not need to be tested because the costs of testing are already visible. The trap does not close because no one attempts to leave.
The result is a country that appears aligned, cooperative, and stable — while steadily narrowing the material basis for independent choice.
It is often assumed that a state pursuing genuine autonomy would stand alone. The opposite is more likely. The world is not short of countries operating within the same constraints: energy-poor but technologically capable economies, middle powers managing alignment pressures, states dependent on systems they do not control. What many lack is not interest, but an anchor.
Freedom is latent demand.
If a credible state demonstrated that autonomy could be rebuilt — that reliable energy capacity could support production, trade, and settlement without coercive dependence — others would align around capability rather than rhetoric. Coalitions form around material advantage, not declared principle.
Here the United Kingdom’s difficulty is one of sequencing rather than heritage. Sovereignty was asserted rhetorically while the material foundation remained externalised. The result was predictable: autonomy without insulation, choice without endurance.
This is why energy matters in the middle power trap. Without it, states do not simply comply — they learn to comply in advance.
The conclusion is uncomfortable but clarifying.
Energy sovereignty is not sufficient for freedom, but it is necessary for durable freedom. Without it, legal authority, diplomatic skill, and historic alliances cannot withstand sustained pressure. With it, freedom becomes a question of political will rather than structural possibility.
And will is the harder variable.
No new order emerges without a state willing to absorb early costs so others do not have to. Energy makes that choice possible. It does not make it painless.
Almost everything else follows from energy.
Without it, the trap does not need to close — because no one tries to leave.