The 8th GECF Summit hosted by Russia is a careful endeavour to minimise the monopolistic Western control over the production and distribution of natural gas.
Photo: Maxim Bogodvid, Kirill Zykov, GECF Summit photo host agency
Introduction
Importantly, these changes will certainly influence the global economic order as developing countries are not likely to remain passive if their interests continue to be ignored by global players. Thus, the existing changes most probably support the rebalancing of the current global economic and energy orders and the growing multipolarity of the international system.
GCEF and Russia
For Russia, this summit had high diplomatic and strategic importance. In 2022, the western governments increased illegal and unilateral sanctions and financial restrictions against Moscow. They also began political and financial measures to avoid dependence on Russian energy. However, the results of the Moscow forum showed that Russia maintains an important position in the world’s energy diplomacy. Representatives from Guinea, Iran, Libya, Qatar, Algeria, Venezuela, Egypt, Nigeria, United Arab Emirates, and other countries took part in talks dealing with market stability and investment. The observer countries included Angola, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mozambique, Peru, and Senegal. The participation of these countries pointed out that in the current geopolitical situation, disputes do not separate states from the need for economic interaction and diplomatic relations.
The Importance of GECF
The significance of the GECF stems from the large gas potential of its members, which together hold around “69% of the world’s proven natural gas reserves, account for 39% of marketed production, contribute 40% of global gas exports, and represent 51% of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.” This creates a good basis to influence world energy discussions. Compared to OPEC, the GECF has a less formal framework and, therefore, less opportunity to coordinate gas production. Russia’s role is important in this context, not least because of its large gas potential and the pipeline infrastructure, technology and geographical position to major gas consuming areas of Europe and Asia. By holding the summit, Russia emphasized its efforts to play an important role in international energy architecture, and to not take a back seat in a more fragmented global economy (Russian MFA, 2026).
The Moscow Declaration was the major outcome of the Summit’s political and institutional work. It reiterated the permanent sovereign rights of Members over their natural gas resources. It underlined the need for reliable supply and consistent flow of investment and the application of the best available technology. It underlined the need for equitable access to international energy markets. Of particular relevance was the Declaration’s position on the unlawful and pernicious nature of unilateral coercive measures. It also referred to the extraterritorial application of national and regional sanctions and limitations. All the above reflect the trend in which economic interdependence is being converted to a means of geopolitical and geo-economic coercion. The Declaration further supported the position that commercial consideration, coupled with sovereign equality and international law, should regulate the international trade of energy in its various forms. The Declaration provides a legal base and a multilateral framework to support Russia’s position.
GECF Summit and the Emerging Multipolar World Order
Russia’s position raises an important question concerning the future of international economic order. Should energy trade be used for political purposes? Or should stable international trade arrangements for energy trade be maintained? The possibility of energy supply becoming an instrument of geo-economic coercion is further amplified by sanctions and restrictions imposed by Western governments. The risks that flow from the decoupling of the international trade in energy are likely to be borne by third countries. While trying to control Russia’s strategic capabilities, such sanctions are undermining the integrity and the stability of the international energy system. The discrepancy between the aims of economic statecraft and the possible consequences, particularly on the global energy system, was brought out very clearly by the Moscow Summit.
Russia is increasingly turning to Asia as part of its strategic response. The increasing relevance of China and India and the wider Asia-Pacific region, reflects changing patterns of global energy demand, e.g. industrialization and urbanization, increased electricity demand and energy-intensive digital economy and infrastructure. From a Russian perspective, this provides the opportunity to reduce its dependence on traditional European customers, and also to develop new customer relationships with energy surplus economies. The emphasis of the Moscow Declaration on supply route diversity and regional gas hubs and infrastructure, met the quickly developing needs and priorities.
However, we should not read Russia’s “pivot to the East” as the deliberate and intentional West-to-East substitution of gas sales. Diversification in any economy requires significant financial and political commitment and the Russian gas export market is not excluded from this. For Russia, its position as an energy supplier and dependent customer base (including China) means it remains essential for Russia to properly negotiate and structure energy export agreements, and avoid overreliance on any one single customer, thus requiring further integration and diversification of regional gas export infrastructure. The outcome of the Moscow summit, among other things, established the legal foundations for further integration and diversification, however, how this will concretely be implemented and the degree of this remains to be seen.
The relationship between natural gas and the global energy transition was another important dimension to the summit. The Moscow Declaration advocates a pragmatic approach that recognizes the role of natural gas in the future energy systems, promotes technological progress, and supports efforts to reduce emissions. This approach challenges the belief that both, the energy security and the de-carbonization of the economy, can always be reconciled with a quicker reduction of the dependence on fossil fuels. For many developing countries, the challenge is still to ensure access of the population to modern and affordable energy and industry, and reliable means of transport, as well as secure and sustainable food production. This is particularly the case in countries where the energy sector and other infrastructure are still developing, and where fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) remain the major source of energy.
Russia’s focus on flexible and pragmatic approaches to national energy policy aligns with the energy needs of many developing countries. In the context of developing countries, which are facing the challenge of transformation of the energy sector to meet the diverse energy needs of growing population, greater industrialization and urbanization, and ensuring environmentally sustainable development, the case for the use of natural gas is still valid. It has to be recognized that the transition to sustainable natural gas does not mean complete elimination of natural gas, and that the latent climate advantages of natural gas will only be achieved when fossil fuel use is replaced and decreased by renewables and improved energy system efficiency. The methane emissions from natural gas can be significantly reduced through various available measures, and sustained improvement of energy system performance (including carbon capture, utilization and storage) is key to achieving a sustainable order in the natural gas sector.
President Vladimir Putin addressed the 8th GECF Summit
The summit provided evidence of Russia’s interest in pursuing energy partnerships across geopolitical divides. As part of the summit proceedings, President Putin alluded to potential collaboration with U.S. partners on Arctic natural gas projects. While no formal agreement was made, Putin’s remarks indicated that Moscow is interested in pursuing energy partnerships if the projects are purely commercial in nature. President Putin highlighted the importance of GECF in gas production and said that “Last year, its consumption grew by 1.2 percent to reach 4.2 trillion cubic metres.” Consequently, the development of natural gas fields in the Arctic is very important while at the same time technologically, financially, and environmentally challenging. Therefore, international collaboration may help address these challenges. Political obstacles notwithstanding, the potential for collaboration indicates that during times of strategic competition and polarization, interests may coincide to allow for limited dialogue.
Conclusion
In February 2016, after the 3rd GCEF Summit (held in Tehran, November 2015), the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that “Cooperation and coordination between the GECF member states is carried out via an information exchange on the gas industry and best practices, as well as through joint steps to encourage the use of natural gas.” This practice continues today as other geopolitical consequences of the summit pertain to changes in the relationship between energy producers and consumers. For a long time, international energy law and policy was largely governed by Western legal and regulatory systems. The GECF is a structure through which major gas-producing countries can articulate their interests and attract energy investments. Russia’s hosting of the summit demonstrated its preference for an international order within which both established, and rising powers are able to forge partnerships to address their interests across different sectors, including energy. This does not mean that GECF member states share similar political interests. For example, Russia and the other GECF members like Qatar, the UAE, and Iran have different political and commercial interests. However, their shared focus on energy sovereignty demonstrates that there are political divides that members are able to transcend.
However, the main objective of the Moscow Declaration is to ensure secure energy supplies. This will require coordination in a number of areas, including closer consultation during market turbulence, insurance and protection of critical energy infrastructure, enhancement of technological cooperation, and search for innovative finance and investment mechanisms. The Declaration did not make any binding financial commitments or ensure coordinated responses to disruptions. Differing national energy interests and competing exports will most likely limit implementation of the Declaration. A stronger multipolar energy order will require politically binding and concrete institutional arrangements and commitments to enhance mutual trust and confidence as well as economically sustainable cooperation. Political declarations alone will not achieve this.
The 8th GECF Summit confirmed that, despite illegal and unilateral sanctions and geopolitical tensions, Russia remains a key player in global energy diplomacy. The Summit enhanced Russia’s visibility and created the opportunity for Russia to strengthen cooperation with other major energy producing states. The principles of Russia’s engagement, sovereignty, and commitment to a stable and prosperous market, were warmly received. The summit also demonstrated that the future of global energy governance will not be shaped solely by the preferences and institutions of the West. The significance of Russia’s energy resources will be determined by her ability to combine her vast hydrocarbon reserves with other resources, and commitments to pursue reliable partnerships and innovative technologies. Sustainable energy cooperation and partnerships between producers and consumers is a better vehicle to achieve energy security than continued politicisation of global energy interdependence.
Simon Westwood, Research Fellow at the Department of History, Dublin City University (DCU), Ireland
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
