OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026

157

SECURING THE SELF: ONTOLOGICAL SECURITY AND ENERGY RELATIONS IN

EU-CENTRAL ASIA ENGAGEMENT AFTER UKRAINE

MARIA RAQUEL FREIRE

rfreire@fe.uc.pt

PhD in International Relations, she is researcher at the Centre for Social Studies – CES

(Portugal), and Full Professor of International Relations at the Faculty of Economics of the

University of Coimbra (FEUC), in Portugal. She is also Visiting Professor in the Post-Graduate

Programme in International Relations, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil. She is an

elected member of the Scientific Council at FEUC and a member of FEUC’s Advisory Board. Her

research interests focus on peace studies, particularly peacekeeping and peacebuilding; foreign

policy, international security, European Union and Eurasia. She was director of the Doctoral

Programme in International Politics and Conflict Resolution, CES|FEUC (2015-2019); Coordinator

of the Department and Undergraduate Studies in International Relations at FEUC (2017-2019);

elected member of the FEUC Pedagogical Council (2017-2019), and of FEUC Scientific Council

(2013-2015). She was Vice-President of the Portuguese Political Science Association (2012-2014)

and Chairman of the Fiscal Board of the same Association (2014-2016); member of the Executive

Board of the European International Studies Association (EISA); and member of the Professional

Development Committee of the International Studies Association (2015-2017). She was also

President of the Assembly of FEUC (2019-2024), Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Economics of the

University of Coimbra (2014-2015) and member of the Board of Directors of the Centre for Social

Studies (2008-2010). She was a researcher and/or visiting professor at Georgetown University,

USA; University of Osaka, Japan; University of San Diego, USA; or Brussels School of

International Studies (BSIS), University of Kent, Brussels. In 2019, she was awarded the

“Science Prize” by FEUC. She has reviewed research projects for the Portuguese Foundation for

Science and Technology (FCT), Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowships (European

Commission), COST Actions, European Science Foundation, among other. She was a member of

the Editorial Board of Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais at CES (2019-2024), as well as of other

journals, such as Comillas Journal of International Relations, Nação e Defesa, or Global Society.

She was the Coordinator of the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence PRONE, and held a Jean

Monnet Chair, at the University of Coimbra.

KOMRON FAYZULLOEV

komr8332@gmail.com

He is Assistant of the department of International Relations at Tajik National University

(Tajikistan). He is graduated Tajik National University, faculty of International Relations and have

been the master in a world politics of humanitarianly social faculty of the Peoples Friendship

University of Russia. Research Center “Sharq” (Orient), Tajik National University, Tajikistan.

Abstract

This article analyses energy relations between the European Union (EU) and Central Asian

countries through the lens of ontological security, seeking to understand how identity

narratives shape cooperation beyond material interests. Following Russia’s invasion of

Ukraine, the EU perception of ontological insecurity increased with the collapse of established

energy interdependence routines, prompting a deepening of the engagement with Central

Asia to reconstruct its biographical narrative. For Central Asian states, this partnership

contributes to their post-Soviet identity construction as sovereign actors. The analysis shows

how Central Asian states leverage their distinct energy profiles to craft separate security

narratives, while engaging the EU as part of their diversification strategies, demonstrating

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

158

that sustainable cooperation depends on integrating partnerships into coherent identities amid

geopolitical disruption and energy transition challenges.

Keywords

Central Asia, European Union, Energy, Ontological Security, Identity.

Resumo

Este artigo analisa as relações energéticas entre a União Europeia (UE) e os países da Ásia

Central através da lente da segurança ontológica, procurando compreender como as

narrativas identitárias moldam a cooperação para além dos interesses materiais. Após a

invasão da Ucrânia pela Rússia, a perceção da UE de insegurança ontológica aumentou com

o colapso das rotinas estabelecidas de interdependência energética, levando a um

aprofundamento do envolvimento com a Ásia Central para reconstruir a sua narrativa

biográfica. Para os Estados da Ásia Central, esta parceria contribui para a construção da sua

identidade pós-soviética como atores soberanos. A análise mostra como os Estados da Ásia

Central aproveitam os seus perfis energéticos distintos para criar narrativas de segurança

separadas, ao mesmo tempo que envolvem a UE como parte das suas estratégias de

diversificação, demonstrando que a cooperação sustentável depende da integração de

parcerias em identidades coerentes em meio a perturbações geopolíticas e desafios de

transição energética.

Palavras-chave

Ásia Central, União Europeia, Energia, Segurança Ontológica, Identidade.

How to cite this article

Freire, Maria Raquel & Fayzulloev, Komron (2025). Securing the Self: Ontological Security and

Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement after Ukraine. Janus.net, e-journal of international

relations. VOL. 16, Nº. 2, November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179. DOI

https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.16.2.9

Article submitted on 14th July 2025 and accepted for publication on 5th September 2025.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

159

SECURING THE SELF: ONTOLOGICAL SECURITY AND ENERGY

RELATIONS IN EU-CENTRAL ASIA ENGAGEMENT AFTER UKRAINE

MARIA RAQUEL FREIRE

KOMRON FAYZULLOEV

Introduction

The current context of increasing polarisation and dissension in international affairs, with

multiple crisis affecting the European Union (EU)’s role and place, have rendered energy

security a central element in self-perceptions of (in)security. The Russian full-scale

invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 accelerated the perception of threat coming

from this big neighbour and underlined the central role of energy security in the EU

agenda. Energy is one of the most pressing issues in modern international relations,

embedding economic and political power in security frameworks. Side-by-side fossil fuels,

hydroelectric or renewable energy complexes form the basis of the economy of a number

of countries, with national security closely interlinked to global energy security

(Fayzulloev, 2018). The Central Asian region emerges here as a fundamental player,

having enormous energy resources and potentiating beneficial cooperation with the EU.

The 2019 new EU Strategy to Central Asia, titled “New Opportunities for a Stronger

Partnership” (European Parliament and Council, 2019), seeks to update relations

between the EU and the Central Asian countries, by designing a relation that is adjustable

and targeted, pragmatic and resilient. The document is structured around three

‘interconnected and mutually reinforcing priorities’: ‘partnering for resilience’, ‘partnering

for prosperity’ and ‘working better together’, highlighting “the security of energy supply

and diversification of suppliers, sources and routes of the EU, including assessing the

possibility to build the Trans-Caspian Pipeline” as a key goal.

Underlining the EU’s approach is a security driven agenda, that we argue is pushed by

ontological insecurity in the framing of Russia as a threat. The EU’s ontological insecurity,

particularly in the energy sector here analysed, is rebalanced in the geopolitical relevance

of Central Asia given “its share in EU energy imports and the market potential of eighty

million inhabitants, as well as the EU’s interests in regional security” (European

Parliament and Council, 2019: p. 1). By establishing new energy partnerships in Central

Asia, the EU is attempting to rebuild its disrupted biographical narrative of energy

security and autonomy. The Russian invasion of Ukraine fundamentally challenged the

EU’s long-established narrative of peaceful energy interdependence with Russia, creating

profound anxiety about both material energy supplies and the EU’s self-identity as a

secure and autonomous actor. EU’s further engagement with Central Asia is pursued not

just for material energy resources, but also to reframe a coherent identity narrative

The authors acknowledge support from a Marie Curie Staff Exchange (grant acronym: CARSI, no: 101086415).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

160

where the EU regains ontological security mainly through reinforced partnerships and

diversification of supply routes.

The paper starts by mapping the ontological security framework and how energy security

plays out high in the agenda of both the EU and Central Asian countries. Exploring the

new EU Strategy and developments in relations of the EU with Central Asia, and how the

EU has been perceived by these actors, is key to unpack processes of security building

and how these allow to overcome threat perceptions and anxiety. To this effect, the

article looks at concrete energy projects and the political narratives informing these. The

article concludes that the strengthening of relations with Central Asian states has been

contributing to EU’s ontological security in face of Russia’s threat, while it has also been

providing space for Central Asian states agency in energy discussions.

Geopolitics, normative competition, and energy security in regional

relations

The literature on the EU’s role in Central Asia reveals complex debates about the EU’s

regional actorness, normative influence, and positioning within a contested geopolitical

environment. Central Asia represents a particularly challenging space for EU foreign

policy, with the EU seeking to establish itself as a significant player in a region where

other major powers exercise considerable influence. As Kavalski and Cho (2018: 54)

mention, “Central Asia barely registered on the radar of the external relations of the EU

during the 1990s”, with the region remaining largely peripheral to EU interests. A

significant turning point came following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United

States, when Central Asia gained greater geostrategic significance. This eventually led to

the EU’s first comprehensive regional strategy in 2007, later updated in 2019 (Fawn,

2021). Despite these strategic initiatives, EU’s effectiveness in the region has been

questioned. For example, Vasa (2020: p. 121) argues that the EU “does not have a clear,

real strategy towards the Central Asian region” and advances it “will lose in the game of

great and middle powers for influence and control” (Vasa, 2000: p. 128). Similarly,

Kavalski and Cho (2018: p. 63) suggest that “the cultural instincts of the EU’s normative

power entrap its agency in Central Asia and Afghanistan and make it difficult for Brussels

to develop contextual approaches to the region”. In a similar vein, Laumulin (2019)

describes the EU’s strategy for Central Asia as “incomplete”, noting that the EU’s visibility

in the region remains limited despite its diplomatic presence and development assistance

programmes.

Spaiser (2015) offers a more nuanced assessment, characterising the EU as a “minor but

not marginal” security actor in Central Asia. While acknowledging that the EU lacks the

security capacities of Russia and China, the author argues it has successfully developed

a role on “‘niche’ areas of security which are not occupied by the other actors and where

it can make a difference. Second, it successfully draws a picture of itself being an ‘expert’

without any geopolitical ambitions, and third, an intense discourse of ‘far neighbourhood’

helps to create legitimacy and proximity in its interaction with Central Asian leaders”

(Spaiser, 2015: p. 97). The EU’s approach has traditionally emphasised values such as

democracy, human rights, and rule of law (Fawn, 2021). However, as Kobilov (2021, p.

144) points out, “The New Strategy made consequential amendments taking account of

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

161

these specific moments, providing a more balanced policy between values and interests

of the EU”. This suggests a recognition that an exclusively values-based approach may

limit effectiveness in a region where authoritarian governance remains prevalent.

Furthering the normative dimension of the EU’s security, von Hauff (2019: p. 195) looks

at how the “liberally informed EU” and the “politically distinctly illiberal China” interact in

Central Asia, arguing that despite normative divergence, both actors ultimately

contribute to regional security, albeit through different approaches. This creates a

potential for “normative broad-mindedness” (von Hauff, 2019: p. 204) that could serve

as a foundation for future cooperation.

The competitive aspect of EU engagement in Central Asia is noted by Fatima and Zafar

(2014: p. 631), since the “involved actors can be identified as regional and trans-regional

players”, with Russia, China, and the United States being particularly influential. Russia

maintains strong political and security ties through organisations like the Collective

Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), while

China has increased its economic presence through initiatives like the Belt and Road

Initiative (BRI) (Vasa, 2020; Fatima & Zafar, 2014). In this complex setting, energy

cooperation represents a crucial dimension of EU-Central Asia relations, with multiple

competing perspectives regarding regional influence, geopolitical strategy, and security

implications. Fernandes and Simão (2010: p. 104) frame energy relations primarily as

geopolitical competition, arguing that Russia and the EU are engaged in a rivalry for

influence over Central Asia’s energy sector. This competition, they contend, extends

beyond mere economic interests to encompass broader geopolitical contestation.

Differently, Delcour (2011: p. 98) identifies the strengthening of energy cooperation as

one of three decisive factors determining the sustainability of the EU’s political

engagement in Central Asia. She connects this strategic pivot to the 2006 Russia-Ukraine

energy crisis, which led the EU to seek for energy diversification by looking for alternative

sources in Central Asia and the Caucasus.

Regional scholars offer alternative perspectives focused on cooperation rather than

competition. Komron Rahimov (2024) advocates for strategic partnerships among

Central Asian countries to ensure energy security, emphasising adaptation to global

trends and environmental considerations. This approach envisions regional integration as

a mechanism to preserve and enhance Central Asia’s energy potential while addressing

shared challenges. One of the central factors highlighted regarding energy security is the

integration of Central Asia into global energy chains, which requires the active

participation of countries in multilateral forums and agreements promoting joint

infrastructure development and policy coordination. Amineh and Crijns-Graus (2018)

highlight energy security as a crucial factor in the EU strategy, noting the EU’s

dependence on external energy supplies and the strategic importance of Central Asian

energy resources, as complementary. Movkebaeva (2015) identifies a strategic shift in

the EU’s approach, characterised by intensified political engagement and increased

financial investment, with the EU almost doubling the budget allocated to the region,

suggesting the EU is moving beyond narrowly defined energy interests toward more

comprehensive regional partnerships. Issova & Saryyeva (2015) also articulate a position

of mutual benefit, arguing that the EU and Central Asia share “paramount interest in

enhancing energy security as an important aspect of global security”, emphasising

diversification of export routes, supply structures, and energy sources as serving

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

162

common interests. The authors expand the energy security discussion beyond

conventional fossil fuels to include water management and hydropower as crucial

elements for regional stability in Central Asia and beyond, including Afghanistan and

Pakistan. This same line of reasoning is highlighted by Basirov (2017) who argues that

besides seeking to increase oil and gas imports from Central Asian countries, the EU has

been focusing on aspects of sustainable development in the region and has been

increasing investment in the renewable energy sector in Central Asia.

A concrete example of regional energy security strengthening is the CASA-1000 project,

built on a cooperative approach to regional energy security. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan

have abundant clean hydropower resources, producing surplus electricity during summer

months. Neighbouring Afghanistan and Pakistan contend with chronic electricity

shortages, especially during hot summers, leading to frequent power cuts that hurt

industrial production and endanger citizens during heat waves. This multinational

initiative aims to transfer 1,300 megawatts of surplus hydroelectric power from

Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to Afghanistan and Pakistan through a shared system. This

$1.16 billion initiative, scheduled for completion in 2025, represents a shift from

competitive energy geopolitics to collaborative development, addressing both energy

surpluses and deficits across the region. By creating interdependencies between Central

and South Asian countries through a unified electricity market, the project transforms

energy from a source of competition to a foundation for regional stability, simultaneously

addressing energy access insecurity, climate concerns, economic underdevelopment, and

regional tensions. The EU has provided significant financial support to this regional

electricity transmission project through the European Investment Bank and technical

assistance (CASA-1000, 2025).

Ontological (in)security in EU-Russia relations and the Central Asia

rebalancing game

Ontological security can be understood as the reflective capacity of adapting routines and

systems of meaning to new situations in order to overcome anxieties and fears. In the

context of EU-Central Asia energy relations, this theoretical lens illuminates how the EU’s

energy policies respond not only to material supply concerns but to deeper anxieties

about identity and continuity. Material security references focus on concrete threats to

supply, infrastructure, and economic stability (e.g., supply disruptions, price volatility).

Ontological security concerns, by contrast, emerge through language about European

identity, values, and continuity (e.g., strategic autonomy, resilience). When EU

documents frame energy challenges primarily in terms of preserving European unity or

upholding climate leadership rather than addressing immediate supply risks, this signals

ontological rather than purely material security logic. For example, Germany’s response

to energy shortages shows how material crises trigger ontological anxiety. Chancellor

Scholz (2022) framed energy independence not merely as supply security but as

“sovereignty”, which reads along ‘strategic autonomy’ – language indicating concerns

about German/European identity and self-determination beyond immediate material

needs. The German case demonstrates how material and ontological security concerns

operate in tandem. While Germany experienced genuine material constraints requiring

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

163

production adjustments and consumption moderation, the broader EU response revealed

ontological anxiety about European energy autonomy. Material security logic would

predict pursuing the most cost-effective alternatives regardless of supplier. However, the

EU's emphasis on ‘strategic autonomy’, its investment in more expensive Central Asian

partnerships, and its acceleration of renewable transition despite higher short-term costs

indicate that identity concerns shaped policy choices beyond pure material calculation.

The ontological dimension thus explains not whether material threats exist, but how

actors interpret and respond to them in ways that maintain coherent self-narratives.

The EU’s decades-long energy relationship with Russia constituted a set of routinized

practices that helped define the EU’s self-perception as a stable, prosperous entity

capable of managing complex interdependencies. When Russia’s actions in Ukraine

shattered these routines, the resulting ontological insecurity prompted the EU to seek

not just alternative energy sources but new narratives of energy security that could

restore its sense of continuity and agency. The EU’s construction of itself as a ‘secure

energy user’ emerges clearly in key policy documents following major energy crises. The

European Commission’s 2022 REPowerEU plan explicitly frames Europe as moving from

vulnerability to resilience, with the concrete example of EU dropping its share of Russian

gas imports from 45% to 19% between the launching of this programme and 2024

(European Commission, 2025), and the energy security strategy that it involves has been

positioning the EU as a reliable partner that must diversify suppliers and routes (Sarno

& Colantoni, 2023). These framings consistently present energy challenges as temporary

disruptions to an inherently secure European energy system, rather than fundamental

vulnerabilities. The REPowerEU Plan, adopted in May 2022 as a direct response to

Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, exemplifies the EU’s narrative shift toward energy

autonomy through renewable acceleration. The programme’s ambitious renewable

energy targets and rapid capacity increases represent more than technical achievements

– they constitute the EU’s attempt to reconstruct its identity as a self-reliant energy actor

no longer dependent on Russian supplies.

Therefore, ontological security can lead to readjustments not only in the actor himself,

but also in the identity narrative that is articulated and becomes part of the process of

identifying how we want to define ourselves (Browning and Joenniemi, 2017). This is a

process that allows us to better understand the ability to adjust to change in contexts of

uncertainty, visible through narratives. In the case of European energy security, from

the point of view of the EU towards Russia, the discourse has shifted to the formula “the

other as a threat”, following the understanding that energy became a threat to the

collective well-being.

Several authors have worked on ontological security at this “collective level” (Browning,

2018; Hansen, 2016; Kinnvall, 2006; Mitzen, 2006; Steele, 2008; Zarakol, 2017), where

self-identification is a central reference point for the way we feel threatened or instead

reinforced in our own identity/security. Routines are part of this process of self-

identification and autobiographical narratives become legitimisers of an actor’s existence

and continuity. These autobiographical narratives are defined in fundamental documents,

such as the EU Strategy for Central Asia, the Global Gateway Initiative and SECCA

(Sustainable Energy Connectivity in Central Asia) project. The negotiation of new-

generation Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (EPCAs) with Central

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

164

Asian states has also provided a strong vehicle to forge a more modern and diversified

partnership beyond a “trade and aid” agenda and promote cooperation and regulatory

convergence in areas which are relevant to the reform processes underway in the region.

In this way, these institutional cooperation mechanisms foster a narrative of cooperation

and assurance building on the normative agenda routinised in EU collaboration.

By outlining priorities and practices that build routinised relations, these documents

create the autobiographical narrative that allows the perception of policies and actions to

be implemented. From an ontological security perspective maintaining routine and

stability prevails, fulfilling the defined objectives and allowing a self-defined position as

autonomous. When routine is disrupted and uncertainty and anxiety prevail, ontological

insecurity arises. This leads actors to seek to reorient strategies to restore stable

narratives or conduct changes that seek a repositioning where the self regains the feeling

of security. The anxiety caused by Russian political action and narrative, with the war in

Ukraine since 2014 and the full-scale invasion in 2022, materialised ontological insecurity

(Freire, 2020), forcing a readjustment of systems of meaning – the EU-Russia partnership

crumbled down, and a new antagonistic narrative took shape, where potential cuts in

supplies fuelled insecurity. Political resistance from the EU, through a policy of increased

autonomy from Russia’s supplies, including through strengthening relations with Central

Asian states, signalled a change in the policy and practice in search of reassurance.

Indeed, “ontological security is not just a question of stability, but also of adaptability,

that is, openness and ability to deal with change” (Browning and Joenniemi, 2017: p.

32).

The reconceptualization of energy relation in Eurasia is part of this process, where Central

Asia has been taking on a central role. Furthermore, the construction of the narrative

seeking to reinforce routinised behaviours and biographical continuity, can be challenged

both internally through a self-reflective process as well as external challenges. EU-Central

Asia energy relations encapsulate these dynamics of readaptation to a differentiated

context, where new narratives are framing ontological security drivers related to energy

security and different competitors in this great game. This framework allows us to look

at how energy security narratives impact the international and the domestic contexts,

and how autobiographical narratives and competitive dynamics contribute to feelings of

ontological (in)security.

Setting the context: EU-Central Asia energy relations

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the energy resources of Central Asia became

crucial not only for material reasons but for how major powers constructed their post-

Cold War identities and narratives. For Russia, maintaining influence over Central Asian

energy resources reinforced its autobiographical narrative as a continuing great power

despite the Soviet collapse. For Western powers, engaging with these states aligned with

narratives of expanding liberal market democracy. The EU’s later entry into this

competition – accelerated by ontological insecurity following Russia’s actions in Ukraine

The EPCA with Kazakhstan has come into force. The EPCA with Kyrgyzstan was initialled in 2019 and work

proceeds on preparing the text for signatures. EPCA negotiations with Uzbekistan are nearing completion. The

EU is preparing to engage in EPCA negotiations with Tajikistan.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

165

– demonstrates how disruptions to established security narratives can provoke new

engagement patterns as actors seek to restore coherent self-identities. The strategic

rivalry between Russia, China, and the United States makes the importance of the region

very noticeable, rich in natural resources, in particular oil, gas, and coal (Sirochiddin,

2020).

Acknowledging a renewed geopolitical interest in Central Asia based on the mineral

wealth of the region, in 1996, The New York Times published an opinion piece titled “The

New Great Game in Asia” stating:

While few have noticed, Central Asia has again emerged as a murky

battleground among big powers engaged in an old and rough geopolitical

game. Western experts believe that the largely untapped oil and natural gas

riches of the Caspian Sea countries could make that region the Persian Gulf

of the next century. The object of the revived game is to befriend leaders of

the former Soviet republics controlling the oil, while neutralizing Russian

suspicions and devising secure alternative pipeline routes to world markets.

(The New York Times, 1996)

According to Umirserik Kasenov (2021), the most important factor determining the new

geopolitical role of the Central Asian region is its energy resources, and above all, oil

from Kazakhstan and natural gas from Turkmenistan. In essence, the “New Great Game”

is fundamentally different from the Great Game of the late 19th and early 20th centuries

in Central Asia. In the old Great Game, the main players were Tsarist Russia and the

British Empire. In the New Great Game, the main players are Russia, the United States,

China, the European Union, and a number of regional powers, such as Islamic Republic

of Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, South Korea and Japan. The New Great

Game focuses to a great extent on oil, gas, and hydropower resources, while

simultaneously trying to narrow each other’s position in the region. Unlike the other

powers, the EU entered the game later, and this has been to a great extent mobilised by

an ontological security framework. The need to respond to Russia’s threat has led to a

shift in the narrative and readjustment of EU energy policies both within its space and

with regard to external players, such as further engagement with Central Asia. This shift

signals the effort to reconnect to stability and a cooperative narrative in energy terms.

The EU has shown its interest in the region’s oil and gas resources, and positioned itself

to contribute to the security of Central Asia. That is why, with the initiative and assistance

of the EU, several projects have been implemented in the region in the areas of

hydropower and renewable energy. The implementation of the BOMCA, CADAP and LEICA

programmes by the side of EU demonstrate how security and stability of Central Asia is

very important for the EU’s own security.

The Border Management Programme in Central Asia (BOMCA) is the flagship and largest

EU-funded programme in the region with an overall budget of 21.65 million euro and an

implementing period of 54 months. Since its launch in 2003, it has focused on capacity

building and institutional development, developing trade corridors and the facilitation of

trade, improving border management systems and eliminating drug trafficking across the

Central Asia region, spanning through critical issues. Security and stability in the region

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

166

are thus at the core of the initiative, mainly by fostering sustainable economic

development through integrated border management (BOMCA, 2025). CADAP is the

Central Asia Drug Action Programme, an initiative of the EU to promote the development

of effective drug demand reduction policies in Central Asian countries. Also launched in

2003, it has been supporting the governments of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,

Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan in the implementation of strategies and measures to

reduce the demand for drugs, promoting prevention initiatives and improving the

treatment offered by public institutions to drug users in the region. Cooperation has

developed in the context of different projects and frameworks put forward in mutual

agreement (CADAP, 2025). The Law Enforcement in Central Asia project (LEICA) seeks

to build law enforcement capacities in the five Central Asian countries to enhance security

both on a national and regional level. In other words, the overall objective of LEICA is to

partner with Central Asian countries in order to prevent and to counter terrorist activity,

underlining the security considerations in the agenda (LEICA, 2024).

The energy landscape in Central Asia – where Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan

possess rich oil and gas reserves while Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have abundant

hydropower resources – provides opportunities for the EU to reconstruct its energy

security narrative. These complementary resources align with the EU’s post-2022

narrative seeking stability and continuity by emphasising diversification, sustainability,

and reduced dependency on Russian supplies. The EU’s focus on renewable energy

partnerships with hydropower-rich Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, for instance, reinforces its

self-identity as a green transition leader. Similarly, its engagement with Kazakhstan on

both traditional and renewable energy sources allows the EU to narrate a transition story

that maintains continuity (energy security) while embracing change (diversification away

from Russia). For Central Asian states, their different energy profiles enable distinct

identity narratives: Tajikistan positions itself as a “green energy” leader, while

Kazakhstan balances its fossil fuel wealth with nuclear energy ambitions, each

constructing separate ontological security frameworks through energy diplomacy.

Indeed, with only a few wind and solar power plants operating within their territories,

Central Asian governments keep a strong drive on fossil fuels (Kedar, 2021). Regarding

gas reserves in the world, Turkmenistan ranks 5th (13.6 trillion m3), Kazakhstan ranks

15th (2.3 trillion m3), Uzbekistan ranks 18th (0.8 trillion m3), Tajikistan ranks 91st (6

billion m3), and Kyrgyzstan ranks 92nd (6 billion m3) (BP, 2022). In terms of oil reserves,

Kazakhstan ranks 12th (30 billion barrels), Turkmenistan ranks 50th (600 million

barrels), Uzbekistan ranks 51st (million barrels), Kyrgyzstan ranks 82nd (40 million

barrels), and Tajikistan ranks 93rd (12 million barrels) (EIA, 2023). In the EU, oil and

gas are scarce, with import coming from Russia, Asian countries, Norway and the United

States. Germany and France have large coal reserves, and the EU countries are trying

year after year to reduce the amount of coal-fired energy due to its high greenhouse gas

emissions. The EU has achieved unprecedented success in renewable energy, with

Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Denmark, Estonia, Austria, Albania, Montenegro, Portugal and

Lithuania being the leading countries in this area. Renewable energy in these countries

accounts for between 30 and 70 percent of the energy used (Eurostat, 2025).

As part of the European Green Deal, in order to encourage this smart sector integration,

the Commission presented an EU strategy for energy system integration in July 2020,

promoting direct electrification of end-use sectors and involving various existing and

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

167

emerging technologies, processes and business models, such as ICT and digitalisation,

smart grids and meters and flexibility markets (OECD, 2020). In particular, the scale up

of renewable energy production has been at the centre of the REPowerEU Plan’s objective

to build a secure and decarbonised energy system in the EU. Adopted in May 2022 as a

response to Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, the programme aims at phasing out

Russia’s fossil fuel imports (European Commission, n.d.). The latest data show

substantial results with the increase of installed wind and solar capacity by 36% between

2021 and 2023, saving approximately 35 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas over 2 years.

With 56 GW of new solar energy capacity installed in 2023, the EU has set yet another

record surpassing the additional 40 GW installed in 2022. These figures represent

important steps in the right direction, but further acceleration is needed to meet the

REPowerEU targets under the EU Solar Energy Strategy and reach a total of at least 700

GW capacity by 2030, up from the estimated 263 GW installed at the end of 2023. Over

the last years, the EU has taken several initiatives to strengthen the support to the

European photovoltaic manufacturing sector by launching the European Solar PV Industry

Alliance, adopting a Solar Charter, and setting up a public-private co-programmed

partnership to support its coordinated R&I efforts (Eur-lex, 2022). As for wind power, 16

GW of new capacity was installed in the EU in 2023, reaching a total 221 GW. While this

shows good progress, the power sector needs to increase the pace of installation to meet

the EU’s ambitious renewable energy targets, a challenge to which the Commission has

responded with the adoption of the Wind Power Package (October 2023) (European

Commission, 2023), while striving for a balanced deployment in collaboration with local

citizens to avoid that the energy transition is challenged because of concerns over

landscapes, biodiversity, cultural heritage and lifestyles, especially in rural areas

(European Commission, 2024).

The EU aims to become fossil fuel independent by 2050, coal-free by 2030, and gas-fired

and nuclear-fired power generation (Gurkov, 2021). However, this narrative is not

matched in Central Asia, where there is no talk of abandoning coal and gas-fired power

plants. In Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan alone, more than 90 percent of electricity is

generated from hydropower, and these two countries are also planning to increase their

electricity generation from renewable sources. In the remaining countries, coal-fired

power plants are a priority, and even Uzbekistan has decided to build a nuclear power

plant (with Russian assistance) (World Nuclear News, 2024). Nevertheless, discussion on

how to better integrate energy-related cooperation and enhance regional security in the

Euro-Asia region have intensified. For example, on February 13, 2024, a telephone

conversation took place between the President of the Republic of Tajikistan, Emomali

Rahmon, and the then President of the European Council, Charles Michel. Further

strengthening dialogue and expand cooperation in political, economic and commercial

areas were mentioned as key. The parties also discussed security issues, including the

situation in Afghanistan and the strengthening of the Tajik-Afghan border. In this regard,

it was expressed confidence that cooperation within the framework of such programmes,

such as BOMCA, CADAP and LEICA would continue. The President of Tajikistan expressed

his support for more active cooperation in the implementation of “green economy” and

“green energy” policies (MFA Tajikistan 2024).

Central Asian states have developed distinct approaches to post-Soviet identity

construction since 1991, each crafting national visions that reflect their energy profiles

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

168

and security needs. Kazakhstan’s ‘Strategy 2050’ emphasises multi-vector foreign policy

and nuclear non-proliferation leadership, positioning the country as a bridge between

major powers while leveraging its energy resources for identity construction

(Nazarbayev, 2012; Satubaldina, 2021). Uzbekistan’s ‘New Uzbekistan’ approach under

President Mirziyoyev has focused on regional reintegration and economic modernisation,

using energy cooperation to signal its transition from isolationist policies (Nadirova,

2024). Tajikistan centers its strategy on energy independence through hydropower

development, constructing an identity as a ‘green energy’ leader, while Kyrgyzstan has

pursued multi-vector diplomacy that balances competing external relationships (Ministry

of Foreign Affairs of Tajikistan, 2013; Masalbekova, 2024).

These differentiated approaches reveal a common pattern: all Central Asian states have

gradually shifted from Russian-dominated frameworks toward diversified partnerships

that reinforce their self-narratives as independent actors (DCAF, 2020). The ability to

engage multiple external partners – including the EU, China, and the United States –

serves ontological security needs by demonstrating sovereign agency and providing

narrative flexibility in their ongoing identity construction. In this context, the EU has

positioned itself as a relevant partner that allows these states to diversify their security

relationships while constructing new post-Soviet identities.

EU-Central Asia energy relations: from strangers to partners

The evolution of EU-Central Asia energy relations can be understood as part of an identity

construction where both actors used energy cooperation to build and maintain coherent

autobiographic narratives about their roles in the post-Cold War order. For the EU,

engagement with newly independent Central Asia states through the Technical Assistance

to the Commonwealth of Independent States (TACIS) programme represented an

opportunity to construct a narrative of itself as a transformative power capable of

extending liberal democracy values beyond its immediate neighbourhood (International

Crisis Group, 2006). The European Commission’s 1995 document “The EU’s relations with

the Newly Independent States of Central Asia” marked the first attempt to articulate a

coherent autobiographical narrative about the EU’s regional role, though its simultaneous

identification of geopolitical and economic interests alongside serious political concerns

over human rights and democracy revealed the fundamental tension in EU identity

construction between normative aspirations and strategic interests (European

Commission, 1995).

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States created profound

ontological disruption for both sides, forcing rapid revision of established security

narratives and compelling both actors to reconstruct their narratives around new security

imperatives (Kluczewska & Dzhuraev, 2020). The EU’s 2002 Strategic Paper for Central

Asia represented an attempt to reconstruct its regional identity around crisis

management and security cooperation, with the allocation of fifty million euros annually

signalling investment in maintaining the EU’s self-image as a capable international actor

(European Commission, 2002), However, the 2005 Andijan massacre created another

moment of profound ontological anxiety, forcing the EU to confront the impossibility of

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

169

maintaining coherent narratives that simultaneously emphasised human rights

promotion and strategic partnership with authoritarian states (Drost et al., 2025: 47).

The Council of the European Union’s “Strategy for a New Partnership” with Central Asia

(2007) marked a critical juncture in ontological security construction, representing the

EU’s attempt to establish routinized practices that could stabilise its regional identity

(European Council, 2007; Fawn, 2021). The Czech Presidency’s 2009 emphasis on the

Southern Corridor initiative demonstrated how energy cooperation served identity

construction needs beyond material diversification, allowing the EU to narrate itself as a

strategic connectivity facilitator while providing Central Asia states with opportunities to

construct identities as energy partners rather than peripheral suppliers (Hubinger, 2009).

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 created the most profound

ontological disruption in EU-Central Asia energy relations since the Soviet collapse,

fundamentally shattering established narratives of energy interdependence and peaceful

cooperation (Drost et al., 2025: 8). Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and intervention

in eastern Ukraine first cracked the EU’s established energy interdependence narrative,

prompting initial diversification rhetoric. However, the EU’s response remained largely

within existing frameworks, seeking to maintain the possibility of restored relations with

Russia while gradually reducing dependence. The 2022 full-scale invasion represented a

qualitatively different rupture, with no illusion about energy partnership with Russia and

pushing for a comprehensive reorientation, which accelerated EU engagement with

Central Asia. The Strategic Partnership memoranda of Understanding with Kazakhstan

(November 2022) and Uzbekistan (April 2024) represent more than diversification

strategies – they constitute attempts to reconstruct autobiographical narratives of energy

security and autonomy (European Commission, 2022b; Delegation of the European Union

to Uzbekistan, 2024). EU energy relations with Central Asia have evolved from minimal

post-Soviet engagement to comprehensive strategic partnerships. Currently, we can see

how ontological security needs drive energy cooperation beyond material calculations, as

both the EU and Central Asian states use these partnerships to reconstruct coherent self-

narratives that can accommodate geopolitical disruption while maintaining identity

continuity.

Energy relations: building blocks or competing insecurities?

The relationship between the European Union and Central Asian states has evolved

significantly in recent years, marked by increased diplomatic engagement, strategic

framework development, and expansion of cooperation across multiple domains. EU-

Central Asian relations have been institutionalised through a series of strategic initiatives,

most notably the adoption of a new European Union Strategy for Central Asia in 2019

(EU Strategy, 2019). The New EU Strategy to Central Asia also sought to reinforce

relations in a context of tension with Russia (EU Strategy, 2019). One of the points of

the 2019 Strategy is the exchange of knowledge in the field of renewable energy and

energy efficiency. Indeed, in their mutual cooperation, the EU and Central Asia pay

serious attention to the energy sector. This is why over the course of more than 30 years

of cooperation between the two sides, many energy projects have been renovated or

built in the region. As the current EU strategy for Central Asia declares, “the strategic

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

170

geographical location at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, its share of the EU’s energy

imports and the market potential of eighty million inhabitants, as well as the EU’s interest

in regional security, have made Central Asia an increasingly important partner for the

EU” (European Parliament and Council, 2019). In light of the Ukrainian crisis, relations

between Central Asian countries and the EU could be significantly strengthened by the

Team Europe Initiative on Water, Energy and Climate Change and the Team Europe

Initiative on Digital Connectivity, within the Global Gateway Project (European

Commission, 2022a).

The EU-Central Asia Connectivity Conference on November 17-18, 2022 in Samarkand

was the first meeting since the EU Global Gateway Strategy was adopted on December

1, 2021 and marked the intensification of the Union’s policy towards the region,

demonstrating the growing importance of Central Asia for the EU. The meeting was

attended by Central Asian leaders and the High Representative of the European Union

for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell. This event was accompanied by the

launch of a number of EU initiatives covering areas such as energy, transport, climate

change, water and digital connectivity (European Commission, n/d). This framework has

been complemented by the establishment of regular high-level dialogue mechanisms,

including the Heads of State of Central Asia and European Union summit format, which

has convened twice already - first in Astana (October 2022) and subsequently in Cholpon-

Ata (June 2023). In April 2025, the first EU-Central Asia Summit took place, hosted by

the President of Uzbekistan, where it was stated the need to address common security

challenges, and explore new possibilities for engagement between the regions, along with

furthering cooperation and investments within the Global Gateway project (European

Council, 2025). These meetings, and particularly the Summit at the highest level in 2025

represent a significant elevation in diplomatic engagement between the regions

(European Council, 2025).

Other example of how the energy crisis caused by the Russia war on Ukraine and the

need for alternative energy suppliers became pressing is the agreement on a large-scale

project “Sustainable Energy Connectivity in Central Asia” (SECCA), the budget of which

is 6.8 million euros (Andžāns & Djatkoviča, 2023; see also Strulkova, n/d). The main

objective of the SECCA project is to support the transition to sustainable energy systems

by exploiting the region’s potential in solar, wind and hydropower in line with EU best

practices. The programme supports the implementation of pilot projects aimed at

demonstrating the viability and benefits of renewable energy technologies. In addition to

this, the SECCA project also focuses on energy efficiency measures. This includes

providing technical assistance and capacity building to improve energy efficiency by

reducing energy intensity in industry and improving the energy efficiency of buildings

(NUZ UZ, 2022). In addition, the SECCA project aims to increase access to energy in

remote and underserved areas of Central Asia. Access to basic energy services remains

a challenge for the region’s predominantly rural population. This involves supporting the

development of off-grid and mini-grid systems based on renewable energy sources

(Stantec, 2022).

The frequency and substantive nature of these dialogues indicate a mutual recognition

of the strategic importance of interregional cooperation. President Emomali Rahmon of

Tajikistan explicitly acknowledged satisfaction with the level of cooperation with the EU,

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

171

while Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev credited the EU with helping

strengthen intra-regional dialogue in Central Asia despite “unprecedented geopolitical

aggravation”. This suggests the EU is achieving a measure of normative influence in the

region.

Economic cooperation forms a cornerstone of EU-Central Asian relations, with the EU

emerging as a significant trade and investment partner for the region. President

Tokayev’s statement that the EU is “Kazakhstan’s largest trading partner, accounting for

more than 40% of our foreign trade” with bilateral trade reaching $40 billion in 2022 is

particularly illustrative of this economic interdependence. Furthermore, European

investment constitutes approximately half of Kazakhstan’s $350 billion in foreign direct

investment accumulated since independence. The economic dimension of the relationship

appears to be characterised by ambitious growth targets, as evidenced by Kazakhstan’s

stated goal of increasing trade with the EU to $50 billion by 2025. This economic

cooperation extends beyond traditional trade to encompass infrastructure investment,

particularly through the newly established EU-Central Asia Connectivity: A Global

Gateway to Sustainable Development framework launched in Samarkand in November

2022.

Transport infrastructure development, particularly the Trans-Caspian International

Transport Route, has emerged as a strategic priority in EU-Central Asian relations.

Multiple Central Asian leaders, including Presidents Tokayev, Mirziyoyev, and

Berdimuhamedov, emphasised the importance of this corridor in their diplomatic

communications. Turkmenistan, positioning itself as a “reliable transport bridge between

Asia and Europe”, has actively engaged with the EU on developing North-South and East-

West transport corridors. This focus on transport connectivity appears directly connected

to Central Asian states’ aspirations for economic diversification and reduced dependence

on traditional trade routes. President Mirziyoyev directly characterised the “diversification

of transport routes” as an “urgent task for all countries in our region”, suggesting the EU

engagement addresses a core strategic need of Central Asian states. President Tokayev,

while participating in the Central Asia-Germany meeting on September 17, 2024 in

Astana, said that “Kazakhstan welcomes the decision of European partners to allocate 10

billion euros as part of the Global Gateway programme for the development of the Middle

Corridor. We count on Germany’s assistance in connecting this route with the Trans-

European Transport Network (TEN-T) and the Global Gateway strategy”. According to

President Tokayev, further integration of transport and logistics systems between Central

Asia and Europe remains an urgent task (Tokayev, 2024). The Trans-Caspian

International Transport Route, also known as the Middle Corridor, connects China and

European countries through Kazakhstan, the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan, Georgia and

Turkey, offering Central Asia a safe, short and inexpensive route given its rich resources

(European Parliament, 2023).

Energy cooperation constitutes a significant dimension of EU-Central Asian relations, with

emphasis on both traditional and renewable energy sources. The references to “green

energy” in statements by Presidents Rahmon and Mirziyoyev suggest alignment with the

EU’s own climate objectives and external energy policy. Notably, President Rahmon

outlined Tajikistan’s Strategy for the Development of the “Green Economy”, which aims

to increase renewable energy capacity to at least 1,000 megawatts by 2030. In fact, the

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

172

Republic of Tajikistan has had fruitful cooperation with the EU in the energy sector since

its independence, with a significant role in the reconstruction of Tajikistan’s energy

networks, the introduction of new technologies for electricity metering, energy security,

and the construction of hydroelectric power plants, such as the Sebzor hydroelectric

power plant, located in the Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region (Delegation of the

EU to Tajikistan, 2020; Interfax, 2024).

Concurrently, Kazakhstan’s President Tokayev emphasised the importance of nuclear

energy development, including accelerating construction of the country’s first nuclear

power plant and creating a “nuclear cluster” to address “growing energy deficit”. This

diversity in energy priorities across Central Asian states presents both opportunities and

challenges for EU energy diplomacy in the region, requiring a differentiated approach

that acknowledges varying national priorities while promoting broader sustainability

objectives. The EU’s engagement with Central Asia on security matters appears to be

welcomed by regional leaders, suggesting recognition of the EU’s potential contribution

to addressing complex security challenges in the region.

While the EU-Central Asia relationship has a strong multilateral component, bilateral

relations between the EU and individual Central Asian states display significant

differentiation. Kazakhstan appears to have the most developed economic relationship

with the EU, as evidenced by substantial trade and investment figures. Kyrgyzstan’s

President Japarov characterised the EU as “one of Kyrgyzstan’s reliable partners,

providing support to the country for sustainable development since independence”, while

Turkmenistan emphasised the development of “long-term ties” on both bilateral and

multilateral bases. This differentiation reflects varying levels of economic development,

resource endowments, and strategic orientations across Central Asian states,

necessitating a calibrated EU approach that balances regional frameworks with bilateral

engagement.

EU-Central Asian relations have evolved toward a more strategic partnership

characterised by regular high-level dialogue, diversified cooperation areas, and

increasingly institutionalised frameworks. Economic relations, particularly trade and

investment, form the foundation of this relationship, complemented by growing

cooperation in energy, security, transport connectivity and digital development. The

emphasis on formal dialogue mechanisms, particularly the establishment of regular

summits at the heads of state level, indicates mutual recognition of the strategic

importance of this interregional relationship. However, significant differentiation exists

across individual Central Asian states in terms of their specific priorities and depth of

engagement with the EU.

The European Parliament’s 2025 assessment of EU-Central Asia relations provides

compelling evidence for the ontological security dimensions of energy cooperation,

revealing significant disparity between strategic rhetoric and material outcomes. Despite

total bilateral trade of only 52.8 billion euro in 2023 and limited concrete energy flows,

the EU has committed 12 billion euro through the Global Gateway initiative specifically

to enhance energy and transport connectivity with the region (European Parliament,

2025). This disproportionate investment becomes particularly evident in the EU’s ongoing

negotiations with Turkmenistan for the Trans-Caspian Interconnector, a project that has

been under discussion since 2021 but involves only 10-12 billion cubic meters annually

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

173

– a relatively modest contribution to EU energy needs. The document’s emphasis on

using Central Asian partnerships to “reduce dependence on China and Russia in the

context of global geopolitical changes” explicitly frames energy cooperation as serving

broader identity reconstruction purposes beyond material supply security. Moreover, the

Parliament’s focus on “enormous potential” for renewable energy cooperation and critical

raw materials partnerships with countries like Kazakhstan suggests the EU is constructing

future-oriented narratives of energy autonomy and green transition leadership, using

Central Asian partnerships as vehicles for autobiographical narrative reconstruction

rather than immediate material energy security gains. For Central Asian states,

particularly those transitioning from post-Soviet identities, partnerships with diverse

international actors represent opportunities to assert sovereign agency and construct

new national narratives. The ability to negotiate and maintain multiple external

relationships, rather than remaining exclusively within Russia’s sphere of influence,

reinforces these states’ self-realisation as independent actors. As both the EU and Central

Asian states navigate shifts in the context of the war in Ukraine regarding routes’

diversification, and regarding renewable energy sources, these transitions challenge

established identities tied to traditional energy production and consumption patterns.

This explains why cooperation frameworks that acknowledge identity needs, not merely

material interests, tend to generate more sustainable partnerships.

Conclusion

Through the lens of ontological security, this article looked at the evolving relationship

between the EU and Central Asian states, focusing on energy cooperation as a critical

domain where identity narratives and security anxieties intersect. The analysis reveals

that EU-Central Asia energy relations cannot be understood solely through material or

geopolitical frameworks, but must be situated within broader processes of identity

construction and narrative continuity that shape how both regions perceive and respond

to threats. The Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 represented a critical

juncture in the EU’s autobiographical narrative, fundamentally disrupting established

routines of energy interdependence with Russia that had structured the EU’s self-

understanding for decades. This disruption generated profound ontological insecurity,

compelling the EU to seek not just alternative energy sources but new narratives that

could restore a sense of continuity and purpose. Central Asia emerged as a key space for

this narrative reconstruction, with the EU developing frameworks like the Global Gateway

Initiative, SECCA, and enhanced institutional cooperation mechanisms that serve both

practical and identity functions.

Ontological security considerations help explain policy choices that might appear

suboptimal from purely material perspectives. The EU’s extensive investment in capacity-

building programmes alongside energy initiatives reflects an attempt to construct a

comprehensive narrative of partnership that stabilises its identity as a normative power

even as it pursues energy diversification. Similarly, Central Asian states’ willingness to

engage with multiple external actors reflects not just hedging strategies but efforts to

maintain narrative flexibility in their ongoing identity construction. The ontological

security framework shows how energy cooperation serves distinct identity reconstruction

purposes for both sides. For Central Asian states, engagement with the EU offers

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

174

opportunities to strengthen their post-Soviet identity narratives as sovereign actors with

agency in international relations. For the EU, these partnerships reinforce its self-

narrative as a normative power promoting sustainable development and regional

integration beyond its immediate neighbourhood. Thus, energy security is revealed to be

not simply about securing physical supplies but about maintaining coherent self-

narratives in a world of disruption and change.

References

Amineh, Mehdi P. & Crijns-Graus, Wina H. J. (2018). «The EU-Energy Security and

Geopolitical Economy. The Persian Gulf, the Caspian Region and China». African and

Asian Studies. 17: 145-187.

Andžāns, Māris & Djatkoviča, Evija (2023). The Global Gateway and Central Asia: Toward

an EU-led Post-New Silk Road. In Center for Geopolitical Studies Riga [Em linha]. 2023.

[Consult. em 06-02-2025]. Disponível em https://www.geopolitics.center/outputs/the-

global-gateway-and-central-asia

Basirov, B.S. (2017) The role of Central Asian States in the system of the interest of

European Union. Bulletin of the Tajik National University, 3-5: 100-102. [Consult. em 06-

02-2025]. Disponível em https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=30764457 (Date of access: 22-

09-2025)

Basis for the EU – Central Asia Cooperation (n.d.). [Consult. em 21-02-2025]. Disponível

em https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/basis-eu-%E2%80%93-central-asia-

cooperation_en

BOMCA (2025). Border management programme in Central Asia. [Consult. em 11-02-

2025]. Disponível em https://www.bomca-eu.org/en/

BP (2022). BP Statistical Review of World Energy. [Consult. em 04-02-2025]. Disponível

em https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-

sites/en/global/corporate/xlsx/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-

2022-all-data.xlsx

Browning, Christopher S. (2018). «Geostrategies, geopolitics and ontological security in

the Eastern neighbourhood: The European Union and the ‘new Cold War’». Political

Geography. 62: 106-115.

Browning, Christopher S. & Joenniemi, Pertti (2017). «Ontological security, self-

articulation and the securitization of identity». Cooperation and Conflict. 52(1): 31-47.

CADAP (2025). Central Asia drug action programme. [Consult. em 11-02-2025].

Disponível em https://www.eu-cadap.org/

CASA-1000 (2025). Official page of CASA-1000 project. [Consult. em 02-03-2025].

Disponível em https://www.casa-1000.org/

Delegation of the EU to Tajikistan (2020). Grant and Project Implementing Agreement

for EU-Funded HPP Construction in Tajikistan signed in Dushanbe. [Consult. em 07-02-

2025]. Disponível em https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/tajikistan/grant-and-

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

175

project-implementing-agreement-eu-funded-hpp-construction-tajikistan-signed-

dushanbe_en

Delegation of the EU to Uzbekistan (2024). EU establishes strategic partnership with

Uzbekistan on critical raw materials. Consult. em 04-02-2025]. Disponível em

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/uzbekistan/eu-establishes-strategic-

partnership-uzbekistan-critical-raw-materials_en?s=233

Delcour, Laure (2011). Shaping the Post-Soviet Space? EU Policies and Approaches to

Region-Building. Ashgate Publishing.

Drost, Niels; Cretti, Giulia & van Giersbergen, Babette (2025). Central Asia emerging

from the shadows. European Union – Central Asia relations in evolving Eurasian

geopolitics. Clingendael Report. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International

Relations ‘Clingendael’.

EIA USA (2023). International - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). [Consult.

em 04-02-2025]. Disponível em

https://www.eia.gov/international/data/world/petroleum-and-other-liquids/annual-

crude-and-lease-condensate-reserves

EU Strategy (2019). Council Conclusions on the New Strategy on Central Asia. [Consult.

em 03-02-2025]. Disponível em

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/39778/st10221-en19.pdf

Eur-lex (2022). EU Solar Energy Strategy. [Consult. em 03-02-2025]. Disponível em

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A221%3AFIN&qid=1653034500503

European Commission (1995). EU’s Relations with the Newly Independent States of

Central Asia. 9 June. [Consult. em 03-02-2025]. Disponível em

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/memo_95_89

European Commission (2002). Strategy Paper 2002-2006 & Indicative Programme 2002-

2004

for Central Asia. Brussels. [Consult. em 03-02-2025]. Disponível em

https://www.libertas-institut.com/de/ECTIS/EU%20StrategyPaperCentralAsia.pdf

European Commission (2022a). Global Gateway: Team Europe launches two initiatives

in Central Asia on energy and on digital connectivity. [Consult. em 03-02-2025].

Disponível em https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_6963

European Commission (2022b) Strategic partnership with Kazakhstan on raw materials,

batteries and renewable hydrogen. Consult. em 03-02-2025]. Disponível em

https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/policies/global-gateway/strategic-

partnership-kazakhstan-raw-materials-batteries-and-renewable-hydrogen_en

European Commission (2023). EU wind energy. [Consult. em 03-02-2025]. Disponível

em https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/renewable-energy/eu-wind-energy_en

European Commission (2024). State of the Energy Union Report 2024. [Consult. em 21-

01-2025]. Disponível em https://energy.ec.europa.eu/publications/state-energy-union-

report-2024_en

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

176

European Commission (2025). Roadmap to fully end EU dependency on Russian energy.

6 May. [Consult. em 21-01-2025]. Disponível em https://commission.europa.eu/news-

and-media/news/roadmap-fully-end-eu-dependency-russian-energy-2025-05-06_en

European Commission (n.d.). Global Gateway. [Consult. em 08-02-2025]. Disponível em

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/stronger-

europe-world/global-gateway_en

European Council (2007). The EU and Central Asia: Strategy for a New Partnership. 31

May. [Consult. em 06-04-2025]. Disponível em

https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10113-2007-INIT/en/pdf

European Council (2024). Impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on the markets: EU

response. [Consult. em 01-02-2025]. Disponível em

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-response-russia-military-aggression-

against-ukraine/impact-of-russia-s-invasion-of-ukraine-on-the-markets-eu-response/

European Council (2025). First EU-Central Asia Summit. [Consult. em 06-04-2025].

Disponível em https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/international-

summit/2025/04/04/

European Parliament (2025). Central Asia. [Consult. em 06-05-2025]. Disponível em

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/178/central-asia

European Parliament (2023). MEPs back deploying new EU satellites to protect

government communications. [Consult. em 08-02-2025]. Disponível em

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20230210IPR74712/meps-back-

deploying-new-eu-satellites-to-protect-government-communications

European Parliament and Council (2019). The EU and Central Asia: New Opportunities

for a Stronger Partnership. [Consult. em 05-02-2025]. Disponível em

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/joint_communication_-

_the_eu_and_central_asia_-_new_opportunities_for_a_stronger_partnership.pdf

Eurostat (2025). Share of energy from renewable sources. [Consult. em 05-02-2025].

Disponível em

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/NRG_IND_REN/default/table

Fatima, Qamar & Zafar, Sumera (2014). «New Great Game: Players, Interests,

Strategies and Central Asia». South Asian Studies. 29(2): 623-652.

Fawn, Rick (2021). «‘Not here for geopolitical interests or games’: the EU’s 2019 strategy

and the regional and inter-regional competition for Central Asia». Central Asian Survey.

41(4): 675-698.

Fayzulloev, K. S. (2018). «Energy diplomacy of states: terminological and conceptual

aspects». Bulletin of the Tajik National University. 8: 62-66.

Fernandes, Sandra & Simão, Licínia (2010). «Competing for Eurasia: Russian and

European Union Perspectives». In Maria Raquel Freire e Roger E. Kanet (ed), Key players

and regional dynamics in Eurasia. The return of the "Great Game". Palgrave MacMillan,

103-125.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

177

Freire, Maria Raquel (2020). «EU and Russia competing projects in the neighbourhood:

an ontological security approach». Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional. 63(1).

Global Gateway (n.d.). [Consult. em 20-02-2025]. Disponível em

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/stronger-

europe-world/global-gateway_en

Gurkov, Andrey (2021). Renewable energy sources have become the main source of

electricity in the EU. [Consult. em 01-02-2025]. Disponível em

https://www.dw.com/ru/vije-teper-glavnyj-istochnik-jelektrichestva-v-es/a-56339064

Hansen, Flemming Splidsboel (2016). «Russia’s relations with the West: ontological

security through conflict». Contemporary Politics. 22(3): 359-375.

Hubinger, Vaclav (2009). Southern Corridor: A Strategy for Sustainable Energy

Cooperation with Central Asia. EUCAM Watch, 4. [Consult. em 06-02-2025]. Disponível

em https://eucentralasia.eu/the-energy-problematique-in-eu-central-asia-relations/

Interfax (2024). EU to allocate additional 16 million euro to Tajikistan to complete

construction of Gorno-Badakhshan hydroelectric power station. [Consult. em 07-02-

2025]. Disponível em https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/100507/

International Crisis Group (2006). Central Asia: What Role for the European Union? Crisis

Group Asia Report N°113, 10 April. [Consult. em 06-02-2025]. Disponível em

https://www.crisisgroup.org/sites/default/files/113-central-asia-what-role-for-the-

european-union.pdf

Issova L.T. & Saryyeva B.S. (2015). Energy policy of European Union in Central Asia.

[Consult. em 02-03-2025]. Disponível em https://bulletin-ir-law.kaznu.kz/index.php/1-

mo/article/view/336/330

Kasenov, Umirserik (2021). A new ‘Great Game’ in Central Asia?. [Consult. em 08-02-

2025]. Disponível em https://ca-c.org.ru/journal/1997/08-1997/st_11_kasenov.shtml

Kavalski, Emilian & Cho, Young Chul (2018). «The European Union in Central Eurasia:

still searching for strategy». Asia Europe Journal. 16: 51-63.

Kedar, Mehta (2021). The Energy Situation in Central Asia: A Comprehensive Energy

Review Focusing on Rural Areas. [Consult. em 06-02-2025]. Disponível em

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/10/2805

Kinnvall, Catarina (2006). Globalization and religious nationalism in India: the search for

ontological security. Routledge.

Kluczewska, Karolina & Dzhuraev, Shairbek (2020). «The EU and Central Asia: The

Nuances of an ‘Aided’ Partnership». In Rick Fawn (ed), Managing Security Threats along

the EU’s Eastern Flanks. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 225-251.

Kobilov, F. O. (2021). «New European Union Strategy for Central Asia: Challenges,

Experience and Prospects». Sociosphere. 2: 142-145.

Laumulin, Murat (2019). The EU’s Incomplete Strategy for Central Asia. In Strategic

Europe [Em linha]. 2019. [Consult. em 16-02-2025]. Disponível em

https://carnegieendowment.org/europe/strategic-europe/2019/12/the-eus-incomplete-

strategy-for-central-asia

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations 
e-ISSN: 1647-7251 
VOL. 16, Nº. 2 
November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179   
Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement 
after Ukraine  
                                                                             Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev 
  
 
178 
LEICA  (2024).  About  LEICA  project.  [Consult.  em  16-02-2025].  Disponível  em 
https://www.project-leica.eu/about/ 
Masalbekova, Adina (2024). Mapping Threats and Kyrgyzstan’s Security Development. 
In  CIRSD  [Em  linha].  2024.  [Consult.  em  06-02-2025].  Disponível  em 
https://www.cirsd.org/en/horizons/horizons-spring-2024--issue-no-26/mapping-
threats-and-kyrgyzstans-security-development  
MFA  Tajikistan  (2024).  Telephone  conversation  with  the  President  of  the  European 
Council  Charles  Michel.  [Consult.  em  06-02-2025].  Disponível  em 
https://mfa.tj/en/main/view/14360/telephone-conversation-with-the-president-of-the-
european-council-charles-michel  
Mitzen, Jennifer  (2006).  «Ontological  security  in world politics:  state  identity and the 
security dilemma». European journal of international relations. 12(6): 341-370. 
Movkebaeva, G.A. (2015). Energy policy of European Union in Central Asia. [Consult. em 
02-03-2025].  Disponível  em  https://bulletin-ir-law.kaznu.kz/index.php/1-
mo/article/view/83/83  
Nadirova,  Gulnar  (2024).  The  Concept  of  the  National  Vision  and  its  Priorities  in 
Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. In Eurasian Research Institute [Em linha]. 2024. [Consult. 
em  23-01-2025].  Disponível  em  https://www.eurasian-research.org/publication/the-
concept-of-the-national-vision-and-its-priorities-in-uzbekistan-and-kazakhstan/  
Nazarbayev, Nursultan (2012). Address by the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan 
Nursultan  Nazarbayev  to  the  People  of  Kazakhstan.  [Consult.  em  23-01-2025]. 
Disponível  em  https://www.akorda.kz/en/addresses/addresses_of_president/address-
by-the-president-of-the-republic-of-kazakhstan-nursultan-nazarbayev-to-the-people-
of-kazakhstan-27-01-2012_1341926486  
NUZ.UZ (2022). ADB and ITFC agreed to lend the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of 
Uzbekistan $600 million to support the budget.  [Consult. em 23-01-2025]. Disponível 
em https://kun.uz/en/99797022  
OECD (2020). The EU Strategy for energy system integration. [Consult. em 21-02-2025]. 
Disponível  em  https://stip.oecd.org/stip/interactive-dashboards/policy-
initiatives/2023%2Fdata%2FpolicyInitiatives%2F99993658  
Official  page  of  SECCA  (n.d.).  [Consult.  em  20-02-2025].  Disponível  em 
https://secca.eu/about-us/overview/  
Rahimov, Komron (2024). The energy future of Central Asia in joint projects. [Consult. 
em 06-03-2025]. Disponível em https://e-cis.info/news/566/122546/  
Sarno,  Giulia  Sofia  &  Colantoni,  Lorenzo  (2023).  A  Changing  Energy  Diplomacy:  The 
External Dimension of the REPowerEU Plan. Rome: Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI). 
Satubaldina, Assel (2021). Head of Kazakh Think Tank Addresses Country’s Development 
Progress Since Independence. In The Astana Times [Em linha]. 2021. [Consult. em 02-
02-2025]. Disponível em https://astanatimes.com/2021/12/head-of-kazakh-think-tank-
addresses-countrys-development-progress-since-independence/  

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 157-179

Securing the Self: Ontological Security and Energy Relations in EU-Central Asia Engagement

after Ukraine

Maria Raquel Freire, Komron Fayzulloev

179

Scholz, Olaf (2022). Speech by Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz at the Charles University

in Prague on Monday, 29 August 2022. [Consult. em 01-02-2025]. Disponível em

https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/service/archive/scholz-speech-prague-

charles-university-2080752

Sirochiddin, S. (2020). «The New Great Game in Central Asia: Conflicts and Interests of

Russia, China and the United States». News of the Institute of Philosophy, Political

Science and Law named after A. Bahovaddinov of the National Academy of Sciences of

Tajikistan. 3: 150-156.

Spaiser, Olga Alinda (2015). «The EU as a Security Actor in Central Asia: Minor but Not

Marginal». L’Europe en Formation. 2015/1(375): 83-105.

Steele, Brent J. (2008). Ontological security in international relations. Routledge.

Strulkova, Angelina (2024). Инициатива ЕС «Глобальные ворота» в Центральной

Азии. In RFIAC Publications [Em linha]. 2024. [Consult. em 07-02-2025]. Disponível em

https://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-comments/columns/postsoviet/initsiativa-es-

globalnye-vorota-v-tsentralnoy-azii/

The New York Times (1996). The New Great Game in Asia. [Consult. em 09-02-2025].

Disponível em https://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/02/opinion/the-new-great-game-in-

asia.html

Tokayev, Kassym-Jomart (2024). Astana welcomes the decision of European partners to

allocate 10 billion euros for the development of the Middle Corridor. [Consult. em 24-02-

2025]. Disponível em

https://azertag.az/ru/xeber/tokaev_astana_privetstvuet_reshenie_evropeiskih_partner

ov_o_vydelenii_10_mlrd_evro_dlya_razvitiya_srednego_koridora-3183438

Vasa, László (2020). «The European Union Strategy on Central Asia: out of game?».

Romanian Journal of European Affairs. 20(2): 120-130.

von Hauff, Luba (2019). «Towards a new quality of cooperation? The EU, China, and

Central Asian Security in a Multipolar Age». Asia Europe Journal. 17: 195-210.

World Nuclear News (2024). Russia set to build SMR nuclear power plant in Uzbekistan.

[Consult. em 01-02-2025]. Disponível em https://world-nuclear-

news.org/Articles/Russia-set-to-build-SMR-nuclear-power-plant-in-Uzb

Zarakol, Ayşe (2017). «States and ontological security: A historical rethinking».

Cooperation and Conflict. 52(1): 48-68.