MAY 4 — The world is learning, perhaps too late, that energy security cannot be improvised in the midst of war. 

As tensions in West Asia linger under an open-ended and fragile ceasefire between the United States, Israel, and Iran, hopes that alternative oil supplies — especially from Russia — can stabilise global markets are proving increasingly tenuous. A recent report by CNA underscores this vulnerability. 

Ukrainian drones have reportedly struck Russia’s Primorsk port, a critical oil export terminal on the Baltic Sea, targeting oil tankers and even military vessels. This development is not merely tactical — it is systemic. 

It signals that no energy corridor, however distant from the Strait of Hormuz, is immune from the expanding geography of war.

Primorsk is not an obscure port. It is one of Russia’s most important oil export hubs, handling significant volumes of crude shipped to Europe and beyond. Disruptions here reverberate across global markets. 

The attack demonstrates Ukraine’s growing capacity to strike deep into Russian infrastructure, extending the war far beyond traditional battlefields.

Even if the precise scale of the damage remains contested, the strategic message is unmistakable: energy infrastructure is now a primary target in modern warfare. 

This handout satellite image taken on March 23, 2026 by Planet Labs PBC shows smoke rising from the Russian oil terminal at Primorsk, the most important Russian loading port in the Baltic Sea, following a drone attack claimed by Ukraine. — AFP pic

The implications are profound for countries that believed Russian oil could act as a stabilising substitute amid disruptions in the Gulf. For South-east Asia, this is a sobering lesson. 

The region, including Malaysia, depends heavily on global energy flows that are increasingly exposed to geopolitical risk. 

When the Strait of Hormuz is threatened, markets instinctively look toward alternative supplies — from Russia, the United States, or even Latin America. But what the Primorsk incident reveals is that such diversification is no guarantee of stability.

Instead, the world is entering a phase where multiple energy corridors are simultaneously at risk.

The open-ended nature of the ceasefire with Iran compounds this uncertainty. A ceasefire without a clear political settlement is not peace — it is merely a pause. 

Iran retains both the capability and the incentive to disrupt maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global oil flows. 

Indeed up to 40 percent of Urea with another one third of Helium transits through the Strait of Hormuz.

Any renewed escalation could once again choke this vital artery.

Yet even if Hormuz remains temporarily open, the war in Ukraine ensures that Russian exports are equally vulnerable.

Ukrainian drone warfare has evolved into a strategic equaliser, allowing Kyiv to strike high-value targets such as ports, refineries, and logistics nodes. 

These attacks are not random; they are calibrated to impose economic costs on Moscow while signalling to global markets that Russian supply chains are unreliable.

Thus, the world faces a dual vulnerability: instability in the Gulf and insecurity in Russia. This is the essence of what may be termed a “polycrisis” in global energy. 

It is no longer sufficient to diversify supply geographically when multiple regions are simultaneously engulfed in conflict. The assumption that disruptions in one theatre can be offset by stability in another is breaking down.

Markets, however, have yet to fully internalise this reality. 

Brent crude oil prices have fluctuated to US$120 per barrel given the scale of geopolitical risk; granted that the US and Iran have not agreed on a peace agreement yet. 

This suggests a degree of complacency — or perhaps an overreliance on short-term ceasefires and tactical adjustments. Such complacency is dangerous.

The attack on Primorsk also highlights the militarisation of energy infrastructure in unprecedented ways.

Ports, pipelines, and tankers are no longer passive conduits of commerce; they are strategic assets subject to direct attack. 

This transforms the nature of energy security from an economic issue into a military one.

For Asean, this development should trigger urgent reflection.

Malaysia, as a trading nation with approximately RM3 trillion in total trade, is deeply exposed to global supply disruptions. Energy price shocks translate directly into fiscal pressures, particularly through subsidies. 

With fuel subsidies already running into billions of ringgit monthly, any sustained increase in oil prices could strain public finances and limit policy flexibility.

Moreover, the cascading effects extend beyond fuel. 

Fertiliser, food, animal feed and industrial inputs are all linked to energy flows. Disruptions in Russian or Gulf supply chains could therefore trigger broader economic instability across South-east Asia.

Yet beyond economics lies diplomacy — and here Malaysia has a pivotal role.

As the most recent Chair of Asean in 2025, and now the country entrusted with coordinating China-Asean relations from 2025 to 2028, Malaysia cannot remain a passive observer. 

It must actively encourage all sides — whether in West Asia or Eastern Europe — to recommit to a rules-based order grounded in multilateralism and anchored in a United Nations-centric international system. This is not idealism. It is necessity.

Without a functioning multilateral framework, conflicts will continue to spill across regions, turning energy infrastructure into battlefields and global markets into arenas of uncertainty. 

The erosion of international norms — whether through unilateral strikes, maritime disruptions, or the targeting of civilian infrastructure — must be arrested.

Malaysia, under the leadership of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, has consistently advocated for moderation, dialogue, and adherence to international law. This stance must now be amplified within Asean and beyond.

First, Asean must speak with greater clarity and unity in calling for the protection of critical infrastructure, including energy assets, under international law. 

The targeting of such infrastructure risks cascading humanitarian and economic consequences that extend far beyond the immediate parties to conflict.

Second, Malaysia should leverage its role in China-Asean coordination to encourage constructive engagement between major powers. 

China’s influence, particularly in both West Asia and its strategic alignment with Russia, makes it an indispensable actor in any effort to stabilise global energy flows.

Third, Asean must deepen its own resilience. Regional energy cooperation, diversification, and investment in renewables are essential. Especially Asean Power Grid.

But equally important is the development of a coherent diplomatic voice that can advocate for de-escalation on the global stage.

The Primorsk attack is a warning shot — not just to Russia, but to the entire international system. 

It reveals the fragility of global energy networks in an age of persistent conflict. 

More importantly, it challenges the assumption that alternative supplies can easily compensate for disruptions elsewhere.

In reality, the world is running out of “safe” energy corridors.

An open-ended ceasefire with Iran may buy time, but it does not resolve the underlying tensions.

Similarly, continued reliance on Russian oil is fraught with risk as long as the war in Ukraine persists.

Together, these dynamics create a precarious environment in which energy security is constantly under threat.

For Malaysia and Asean, the message is clear: strategic sobriety is essential. 

The region must prepare for a future in which energy disruptions are not the exception, but the norm.

Only through a combination of regional cooperation, diplomatic engagement, and a renewed commitment to a rules-based, UN-centred order can Asean hope to navigate this increasingly volatile landscape.

The alternative is stark — to remain at the mercy of distant wars whose consequences are felt most acutely at home.

* Phar Kim Beng is professor of Asean Studies and director, Institute of Internationalisation and Asean Studies, International Islamic University of Malaysia. 

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.