Dr.-Ing. Eko Adhi Setiawan *

The global energy transition is no longer moving in a single, unified direction. Beneath the language of sustainability, energy has re-emerged as a geopolitical instrument, reshaping how nations define security, technological capability and strategic position. For more than a decade, global energy policy was dominated by a single framework: the transition toward clean energy. Decarbonization, renewable expansion and emissions reduction became the primary benchmarks of success. Energy was framed largely as an environmental issue, with progress measured by how quickly systems could move away from fossil fuels.

That framing is now evolving. Energy is once again being treated as a core element of national strategy. It is increasingly linked to economic resilience, supply chain stability and geopolitical leverage. This shift does not signal a retreat from the energy transition, but a transformation in how it is pursued. In this sense, geopolitics is actively reshaping the direction and purpose of the energy transition. A series of global disruptions has accelerated this change. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of global supply chains. Geopolitical conflicts revealed how dependence on external energy sources can become a structural vulnerability. Disruptions in the supply chains of batteries and electronic components further demonstrated that modern energy systems are inseparable from global industrial networks. As a result, governments are no longer asking only whether an energy policy is environmentally sound. They are asking whether it can ensure continuity under crisis conditions. In quantitative terms, the transition remains strong. Global investment in clean energy continues to rise, approaching two trillion US dollars annually. Renewable capacity is expanding at an unprecedented pace, and electrification is spreading across sectors. The world is not stepping back from the transition.

What has changed is the rationale behind it. Renewable energy is no longer developed solely to reduce emissions. It is increasingly deployed to strengthen energy security and reduce dependence on external actors. The transition has evolved from a climate-driven agenda into a strategic one. At the same time, the structure of energy systems itself is undergoing a deeper transformation. The global system is shifting from resource-based to technology-based. Strategic advantage is no longer determined by ownership of primary energy resources, but by the ability to manage and control energy flows. Energy is no longer a static commodity, it is a dynamic system that must be stored, converted, distributed and continuously balanced. In this system, technology becomes the critical layer. Batteries ensure continuity in intermittent renewable systems. Power converters integrate diverse energy sources. Grid control systems maintain stability in increasingly complex networks. Yet this technological transformation introduces new dependencies. Critical minerals such as lithium, nickel, cobalt and rare earth elements are concentrated in a limited number of countries. Renewable energy may be local in origin, but the technological systems that support it remain globally interconnected.

These developments are producing a more fragmented global energy landscape. Europe continues to pursue ambitious decarbonization targets, maintaining strong commitments to net-zero emissions. However, the Russia–Ukraine war exposed the risks of energy dependence. What was once economically efficient became strategically vulnerable. In response, Europe has accelerated renewable deployment, diversified supply sources and strengthened system resilience, reframing the transition through the lens of energy security. The United States has taken a more diverse approach. In certain periods, energy has been positioned as an instrument of economic and geopolitical influence. Expanding domestic oil and gas production, alongside efforts to shape global energy markets, reflects an orientation toward energy dominance. Developments in countries such as Venezuela illustrate how energy policy extends beyond domestic needs into broader geopolitical strategy. Meanwhile, resource-rich countries in the Gulf region face their own structural constraints. Despite vast reserves, their dependence on strategic routes such as the Strait of Hormuz exposes them to geopolitical risks. Control over resources does not automatically guarantee energy security. Iran presents yet another trajectory. Under prolonged external pressure, it has developed domestic capabilities as a form of adaptation. Its energy system reflects resilience under constraint, often accompanied by trade-offs in efficiency and technological access. Taken together, these cases show that the global energy transition is no longer driven by a single narrative. It is evolving into multiple pathways shaped by national priorities. Leadership also plays a critical role. How leaders frame energy, whether as an environmental, economic or geopolitical issue, directly influences the direction and pace of policy.

Understanding this new landscape requires distinguishing three key concepts. Energy security concerns the availability and reliability of supply and energy sovereignty relates to a country’s ability to avoid structural dependence and maintain strategic positioning. Control over technology refers to the capacity to operate, adapt and integrate energy technologies within a national system. Dependence on global technology is not inherently a weakness, if functional control is maintained. In this context, energy dominance is no longer about controlling resources alone. It increasingly refers to the ability to shape and control the entire energy system, including technology, supply chains and standards. Energy thus becomes embedded within broader economic and geopolitical strategies. The current moment is not a shift from energy transition to energy dominance. It is a convergence of both. The transition continues, but within a more complex framework where resilience, technological capability and strategic positioning are equally decisive.

For the ASEAN economies, the challenge of energy transition has fundamentally shifted. The question is no longer simply about whether to move toward cleaner energy sources, but how to position themselves within a global energy architecture shaped by technological capabilities, manufacturing capacity, access to finance, and control over supply chains. The region cannot remain merely a market for imported energy technologies or a site for project deployment. The real question is which layer of the value chain Southeast Asia intends to occupy, whether in material processing, component manufacturing, system integration, control software development, grid services, or emerging energy business models. In this context, regional strategy cannot be built on isolation, nor can it remain confined to passive dependence. What is required is selective integration into the global technology ecosystem, accompanied by deliberate efforts to build domestic capabilities at the points where system control is determined. Capabilities in grid integration, control systems, technological interoperability, and energy data management will be far more decisive than the mere expansion of installed capacity. Success will no longer be measured by megawatts added, but by the ability to enter and take part in the value chain of modern energy systems. In this emerging order, the energy transition will only carry strategic value if it strengthens the industrial base and enhances the region’s economic leverage. Energy is no longer simply a technical sector, but a strategic domain where technological control, industrial competitiveness, and economic power intersect and are contested.

–##–

* Dr.-Ing. Eko Adhi Setiawan is a lecturer in Energy Systems Engineering at Universitas Indonesia.