Russia exploits energy crises in Global South via sanctioned LNG, deepening neocolonial resource extraction patterns

Indigenous communities in South Asia’s LNG-rich regions (e.g., Tripura, Sindh) have documented the ecological and cultural devastation of gas extraction, including aquifer depletion and displacement of forest-dependent populations. Their resistance to both Western-backed corporate LNG projects and Russian state-led extraction is framed as a defense of *jal, jangal, jameen* (water, forest, land)—a holistic worldview absent in mainstream energy discourse. These perspectives highlight how 'energy security' for nation-states often translates to insecurity for Indigenous peoples.

The current LNG crisis mirrors 1970s OPEC oil shocks, where resource nationalism and sanctions reshaped global energy flows, but with key differences: today’s sanctions are unilateral (US-led) rather than multilateral, and LNG’s role as a 'bridge fuel' is contested amid climate imperatives. The 1980s IMF structural adjustment programs in South Asia dismantled state-owned energy sectors, creating the very dependency Russia now exploits—a cycle of debt-for-resource extraction dating back to colonial resource concessions.

In Latin America, energy sovereignty movements (e.g., Bolivia’s 2003 'Gas War') rejected foreign extraction in favor of nationalization, offering a model where resources serve domestic development rather than geopolitical leverage. African nations like Mozambique, facing similar LNG booms, have seen Chinese and European firms replicate colonial-era extraction patterns, suggesting a globalized neocolonial energy paradigm. South Asia’s energy choices are thus not unique but part of a broader pattern where Global South nations are squeezed between Western sanctions regimes and authoritarian resource exporters.

LNG’s climate impact is 25-30% higher than coal over 20 years due to methane leakage, undermining claims that it’s a 'transition fuel'—a fact obscured by the focus on short-term price discounts. The discounting strategy exploits spot market volatility, where prices are artificially inflated by speculative trading and geopolitical risk premiums, not supply scarcity. South Asian energy grids, already vulnerable to climate-induced disruptions, face compounded risks from reliance on volatile, high-emission fuels.

In South Asian art, rivers like the Ganges and Indus are often depicted as divine mothers (*Mata*) whose pollution from industrial extraction is seen as sacrilege—a metaphor for the spiritual violence of LNG expansion. Russian literature (e.g., Tolstoy’s *Resurrection*) critiques the moral decay of resource exploitation, while Chinese state propaganda frames energy deals as 'win-win' harmony, ignoring the extractive reality. These artistic and spiritual framings reveal the ethical vacuity of purely transactional energy politics.

Scenario modeling suggests that South Asia’s LNG dependency could lock in 30-50 years of carbon lock-in, delaying renewable transitions and increasing climate vulnerability for vulnerable populations. Alternative pathways—such as regional renewable energy grids (e.g., SAARC solar initiatives) or debt-for-climate swaps—are systematically underfunded due to IMF austerity measures. The discounting strategy may provide short-term relief but entrenches long-term geopolitical and ecological risks.

Women in South Asian energy communities, who bear disproportionate burdens of fuelwood collection and indoor air pollution, are rarely consulted in energy policy decisions, despite bearing the highest costs of LNG expansion. Dalit and Adivasi communities, already marginalized by caste and ethnicity, face displacement and pollution from LNG infrastructure with no recourse. Climate-vulnerable smallholder farmers in Pakistan and Bangladesh are excluded from energy transition planning, despite their lands being targeted for LNG pipelines.