Energetski i prehrambeni suverenitet u uvjetima promjene svjetskog poretka
Dr. sc. Sanja Vujačić — geopolitička analitičarka i politologinja, doktorica političkih znanosti Sveučilišta Paris-Saclay, autorica istraživanja iz područja međunarodnih odnosa i sistemskog pristupa geopolitici, osnivačica platforme https://grayscalegeopolitics.com . Njezini znanstveni radovi dostupni su na HAL–CCSD CNRS publikacije.
Rat u Ukrajini i ratovi na Bliskom istoku otvorili su pitanje energetskog i prehrambenog suvereniteta Hrvatske u uvjetima promjene međunarodnog poretka. Riječ je o prijelazu prema multivektoralnom poretku u kojem energija, hrana, tehnologija i prometni koridori postaju ključni elementi geopolitičke moći. U takvom poretku države više ne djeluju unutar jedne dominantne strukture odnosa, nego kroz istodobne i međusobno povezane vektore suradnje, ovisnosti, utjecaja i nadmetanja.
Hrvatska se u tom procesu nalazi unutar višerazinskog sustava odnosa: kao članica Europske unije sudjeluje u zajedničkom europskom odlučivanju, ali istodobno ostaje dio euroazijskog prostora čiji energetski, gospodarski i prometni tokovi nadilaze političke granice Unije. Iz perspektive kompleksnog mišljenja Hrvatsku nije moguće promatrati kao zatvoreni nacionalni sustav, nego kao dio mreže odnosa koja povezuje nacionalnu, europsku, euroazijsku i svjetsku razinu. Europska unija pritom nije zatvoreni sustav odvojen od vlastitog okruženja, nego politička cjelina čija stabilnost ovisi o sposobnosti upravljanja odnosima s prostorima koji je okružuju. Europa nije zaseban sustav izvan Euroazije, nego njezin zapadni dio, povijesno povezan energetskim, gospodarskim i prometnim tokovima s ostalim dijelovima kontinenta.
Energetska politika nakon početka rata u Ukrajini pokazala je ograničenja linearnog pristupa sigurnosti prema kojem se jedan izvor ovisnosti može jednostavno ukloniti i zamijeniti drugim. Smanjenje europske ovisnosti o ruskim energentima nije automatski dovelo do veće energetske autonomije, nego je promijenilo strukturu međuovisnosti. Dio ranije povezanosti s ruskim energentima zamijenjen je većom ovisnošću o američkim energetskim izvorima, tehnologijama i infrastrukturnim pravcima. Promijenio se oblik ovisnosti, ali nije nestala sama logika međuovisnosti.
Upravo se na tom primjeru očituje razlika između linearne i cirkularne uzročnosti. U kompleksnim sustavima političke odluke ne proizvode učinke samo u području u kojem su donesene, nego se njihovi učinci kroz mrežu odnosa vraćaju prema cijelom sustavu. Politika sankcija Europske unije prema Rusiji nakon početka rata u Ukrajini primjer je takve dinamike. Njihov je cilj bio ograničiti ruske kapacitete, ali su istodobno proizvele povratne učinke unutar europskog sustava kroz rast cijena energije, inflacijske pritiske, povećanje troškova proizvodnje i smanjenje konkurentnosti dijela gospodarstva. To ne negira političke razloge sankcija, nego pokazuje da kompleksni sustavi proizvode posljedice koje mogu djelovati i na same aktere koji donose odluke.
Za Hrvatsku energetski i prehrambeni suverenitet ne znači zatvaranje prema vlastitom euroazijskom okruženju. Ratovi i političke razlike ne uklanjaju geografsku, energetsku i gospodarsku povezanost prostora. Rusija se u tom smislu ne može promatrati izvan euroazijske energetske strukture, nego kao njezin sastavni element. Dugoročna sigurnost zato ne proizlazi iz prekida svih veza, nego iz sposobnosti upravljanja složenim odnosima i rizicima međuovisnosti.
Isti princip vrijedi i za prehrambeni suverenitet. Država koja zanemaruje vlastite proizvodne kapacitete i sigurnost hrane te ih nadomješta udaljenim uvozom povećava vlastitu ranjivost. Suverenitet ne znači samodostatnu izolaciju, nego sposobnost očuvanja vlastitih kapaciteta uz racionalnu razmjenu unutar prostora kojem pripadamo.
Čovjek kao živi sustav opstaje kroz stalnu razmjenu s okolinom. Prekid tih veza ne povećava njegovu autonomiju, nego smanjuje sposobnost prilagodbe i povećava entropiju. Isto vrijedi i za države. Entropijska smrt označava krajnji oblik gubitka sposobnosti sustava da održava vlastitu organizaciju i prilagodljivost kada se oslabe ili prekinu tokovi energije, informacija, znanja i razmjene s okolinom. Povijesni primjer takvog procesa predstavlja mirni raspad Sovjetskog Saveza, čiji se slom ne može objasniti jednim uzrokom, ali je povezan s dugotrajnim procesom geopolitičkog i gospodarskog zatvaranja sustava tijekom razdoblja Željezne zavjese, što je pridonijelo gubitku sposobnosti prilagodbe promjenama u unutarnjem i međunarodnom okruženju.
Pouka tog primjera nije u poistovjećivanju različitih povijesnih sustava, nego u razumijevanju općeg principa: sustavi koji se zatvaraju prema okolini mogu kratkoročno povećati osjećaj kontrole, ali dugoročno mogu izgubiti otpornost i sposobnost obnove.
Zaključno, analiza pokazuje da u kompleksnim sustavima posljedice političkih odluka ne završavaju na mjestu njihova donošenja, nego se kroz mrežu međuovisnosti vraćaju sustavu koji ih je proizveo. Sigurnost se stoga ne ostvaruje prekidanjem veza, nego razvojem sposobnosti upravljanja međuovisnostima i prilagodbe promjenama u okruženju. Suverenitet u kompleksnom svijetu nije odsutnost povezanosti, nego sposobnost oblikovanja odnosa unutar mreže međuovisnosti u skladu s jasno definiranim vlastitim strateškim interesima.
Hrvatski i europski energetski i prehrambeni suverenitet zato se ne mogu graditi zatvaranjem prema pojedinim dijelovima vlastitog euroazijskog okruženja, uključujući Rusiju kao sastavni element euroazijske energetske strukture, niti odvajanjem od europskog sustava kojem Hrvatska politički i institucionalno pripada. Budućnost suvereniteta pripada onim sustavima koji ne pokušavaju ukloniti međuovisnost, nego razvijaju sposobnost njezina razumijevanja, upravljanja i strateškog oblikovanja.
Literatura
Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: George Braziller, 1968.
Buzan, Barry, Ole Wæver i Jaap de Wilde. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998.
Keohane, Robert O. i Joseph S. Nye. Power and Interdependence. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1977.
Morin, Edgar. Introduction à la pensée complexe. Paris: ESF Éditeur, 1990.
Morin, Edgar. La Méthode 1: La Nature de la Nature. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1977.
Nye, Joseph S. The Future of Power. New York: PublicAffairs, 2011.
Prigogine, Ilya i Isabelle Stengers. Order Out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature. New York: Bantam Books, 1984.
Sovereignty Without Isolation: Croatia, the European Union and Eurasian Interdependence
Energy and Food Sovereignty in a Changing World Order
Dr. Sanja Vujačić — geopolitical analyst and political scientist, holding a PhD in Political Science from Paris-Saclay University, whose research focuses on international relations and systemic approaches to geopolitics. She is the founder of https://grayscalegeopolitics.com . Her academic publications are available through HAL–CCSD CNRS publications.
The war in Ukraine and the wars in the Middle East have brought the issue of Croatia’s energy and food sovereignty to the forefront amid a profound transformation of the international order. This transformation reflects a transition toward a multivector international order, in which energy, food, technology, and transport corridors have become key elements of geopolitical power. In such an order, states no longer operate within a single dominant structure of relations, but through simultaneous and interconnected vectors of cooperation, dependence, influence, and competition.
Croatia’s position within this process must be understood through a multilayered system of relations. As a member of the European Union, Croatia participates in common European decision-making, while at the same time remaining part of the wider Eurasian space, whose energy, economic, and transport flows transcend the political borders of the Union. From the perspective of complexity thinking, Croatia cannot be understood as a closed national system, but as part of a network of relations connecting the national, European, Eurasian, and global levels. The European Union itself should not be viewed as a closed system separated from its surrounding environment, but as a political entity whose stability depends on its ability to manage relations with the spaces that surround it. Europe is not a separate system outside Eurasia, but its western part, historically connected with other parts of the continent through energy networks, economic exchanges, and transport links.
The transformation of European energy policy following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine has revealed the limitations of a linear approach to security, according to which one source of dependency can simply be eliminated and replaced by another. Reducing European dependence on Russian energy resources has not automatically resulted in greater energy autonomy; rather, it has changed the structure of interdependence. A significant part of the previous dependence on Russian energy has been replaced by increased reliance on American energy supplies, technologies, and infrastructure routes. The form of dependency has changed, but the underlying logic of interdependence has remained.
This example demonstrates the difference between linear and circular causality. Within complex systems, political decisions do not produce consequences only in the sphere where they are initially made; their effects return through networks of relations and influence the wider system. The European Union’s sanctions policy toward Russia following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine illustrates such dynamics. Their objective was to constrain Russian capabilities, but they also generated feedback effects within the European system through higher energy prices, inflationary pressures, increased production costs, and reduced competitiveness in parts of the European economy. This does not invalidate the political rationale behind sanctions; rather, it demonstrates that complex systems generate consequences that may also affect the actors who initiate political decisions.
For Croatia, energy and food sovereignty cannot be understood as isolation from its own Eurasian environment. Wars and political disagreements do not eliminate the geographical, energy, and economic interconnectedness of the continent. In this context, Russia cannot be considered external to the Eurasian energy structure; it remains one of its integral elements. Long-term security therefore does not arise from the termination of all connections, but from the ability to manage complex relations and the risks arising from interdependence.
The same principle applies to food sovereignty. A state that neglects its own production capacities and food security, replacing them with distant imports, increases its own vulnerability. Sovereignty does not mean self-sufficient isolation; rather, it means preserving domestic capacities while maintaining rational exchange within the broader space to which a state belongs.
Human beings, as living systems, survive through continuous exchange with their environment. The interruption of these connections does not increase autonomy; instead, it reduces adaptive capacity and increases entropy. The same principle applies to states. Entropic death represents the ultimate loss of a system’s ability to maintain its organisation and adaptability when flows of energy, information, knowledge, and exchange with the surrounding environment are weakened or interrupted. A historical example of such a process can be found in the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union. Its collapse cannot be explained by a single cause, but it was connected to a long-term process of geopolitical and economic closure during the period of the Iron Curtain, which contributed to the loss of adaptive capacity in response to internal transformations and changes in the international environment.
The lesson from this example does not lie in equating different historical systems, but in understanding a broader systemic principle: systems that close themselves off from their environment may temporarily increase the perception of control, but over time they risk losing resilience and the capacity for renewal.
In conclusion, the analysis demonstrates that within complex systems the consequences of political decisions do not end at the point where they are made; through networks of interdependence, they return to the system that produced them. Security is therefore not achieved by breaking connections, but by developing the capacity to manage interdependencies and adapt to changes in the surrounding environment. Sovereignty in a complex world does not mean the absence of connections; rather, it means the ability to shape relationships within networks of interdependence according to clearly defined strategic interests.
Croatia’s and Europe’s energy and food sovereignty cannot therefore be built through closure toward particular components of their own Eurasian environment, including Russia as an integral element of the Eurasian energy structure, nor through separation from the European system to which Croatia politically and institutionally belongs. The future of sovereignty will belong not to systems that attempt to eliminate interdependence, but to those capable of understanding, managing, and strategically shaping it.
References
Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: George Braziller, 1968.
Buzan, Barry, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998.
Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye. Power and Interdependence. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1977.
Morin, Edgar. Introduction à la pensée complexe. Paris: ESF Éditeur, 1990.
Morin, Edgar. La Méthode 1: La Nature de la Nature. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1977.
Nye, Joseph S. The Future of Power. New York: PublicAffairs, 2011.
Prigogine, Ilya, and Isabelle Stengers. Order Out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature. New York: Bantam Books, 1984.
Smil, Vaclav. Energy and Civilization: A History. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2017.