"The energy revolution is transforming the security dilemma by shifting the focus of concern away from source and recipient countries and towards transit countries. For energy importers, the diversification of suppliers of oil and gas has the security benefit of decreasing dependence on imports from specific countries and reducing the security vulnerabilities this dependence generates. At the time of discovery, transportation difficulties (including limited pipelines and insufficient maritime transport for LNG) prevent new source countries from using natural gas as an inducement or threat against other states with which they do not share infrastructural connectivity. For example, while Russia could threaten to cut off the flow of gas to Europe through pre-existing pipelines in retaliation for Western sanctions related to the Ukraine crisis, Russia would be unable to threaten the United States in the same way, nor could the United States use its new gas abundance to reduce Europe’s vulnerability to such a Russian threat. Consequently, through the diversification of energy sources and the prospect for domestic development, natural gas has the potential to reduce security vulnerabilities by decreasing both energy dependence and the potential for a security dilemma created by increased energy consumption and wealth.

Transit countries are not so lucky. Pictures from Ukraine showing exposed gas pipelines near the recent fighting provide vivid reminders that while infrastructure takes time to build, it can be quickly and easily destroyed. Transit countries have strong incentives to protect gas infrastructure. The transit fees enable these countries to respond to those motivations more than would otherwise be the case. The capabilities needed to build a strong defensive structure around pipelines, ports, or rail systems may provide the state with an offensive military capacity it would not otherwise possess. Such developments could appear threatening to neighbors, thus generating a security dilemma dynamic.

Source and recipient countries are likely to be drawn into conflicts with transit countries. Though the initial lack of infrastructure will delay the effect of the energy glut on global market prices, the prospect that future export income is likely to go down may motivate existing energy exporters to vertically integrate—that is, to take control of the distribution network (i.e., the transit countries)—before their economic and military power decline. Consider Russian actions in Georgia and Ukraine: the Russian invasion of Georgia and recent support for Ukrainian rebels both began after the outbreak of armed conflict between separatist groups and the national governments, threatening the stability of each country and their natural gas pipelines that carry Azerbaijani and Russian gas, respectively, to Western Europe. At the same time, the possibility that transit countries could turn off the tap may also motivate recipient countries, particularly those who are unable to diversify their import sources, to intervene to prevent supply line manipulation or to bolster transit country efforts to protect their infrastructure from potential threats. In this way, the energy revolution is increasing the vulnerability and security dilemma dynamics associated with transit countries.

So where will energy-related wars take place in the 21st century? Not in the United States, Russia, or China. Each is likely to develop its shale reserves. Pending a change in national policies, it is also unlikely to take place in Western Europe. Instead, energy-related war is most likely to occur in countries that either have or are developing the infrastructural capacity to serve as transit countries. In addition to Ukraine, the most likely candidates include Algeria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Niger, and Turkey.

In sum, natural gas has the potential to provide a resource blessing by lowering market prices, increasing diversity of supply, and creating positive economic spillovers for other sectors of the economy. The time-intensive and capital-intensive nature of expanding natural gas transportation infrastructure plays a central role in energy geopolitics by providing some time for markets to adjust and for strategic maneuvering by source, recipient and transit countries. On the other hand, the vulnerability of this infrastructure renders transit countries insecure. Transit-country efforts to bolster their security combined with their ability to cut off the tap make them more threatening to their neighbors, thus potentially sparking regional military buildups or pre-emptive actions by wary supplier or recipient countries. In this way, increased access to natural gas reserves is changing energy geopolitics. While the future is unknown, these changes suggest that transit countries will increasingly become the focal points of energy security"

http://journal.georgetown.edu/cave-hic-dragones-transit-countries-and-the-geopolitical-consequences-of-energy/