Southeast Asian nations are aggressively recalibrating their energy portfolios as disruptions in the Middle East threaten the stability of regional fuel supplies. In a significant shift in geopolitical alignment, several countries—including the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam—are negotiating with major powers for supply, with a notable increase in reliance on Russian crude oil to mitigate immediate energy shortages.
The urgency is driven by a volatile security environment in the Persian Gulf. Following joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran that began in late February, approximately one-fifth of the global oil supply has been severed. This disruption has hit Asia particularly hard, forcing governments to seek non-Middle Eastern alternatives to avoid economic paralysis.
The shift is most evident in the Philippines, a long-term security ally of the United States, which has resumed imports of Russian crude for the first time in five years. Meanwhile, Vietnam has moved beyond immediate fuel needs, engaging Russian energy representatives to sign agreements for the construction of nuclear power plants in exchange for long-term energy guarantees.
For Vietnam, the crisis is an existential economic threat. Approximately 85 percent of its crude oil originates from Kuwait. With the Strait of Hormuz facing severe disruptions, Hanoi has urgently sought assistance from Japan, South Korea, and China, while opening diplomatic channels with the UAE, Qatar, and Angola to diversify its sources.
The High Cost of Energy Diplomacy
Energy security has transitioned from a technical concern to a primary driver of diplomatic decision-making. Developing nations are increasingly trading market access and diplomatic alignment for critical energy infrastructure and technical expertise—a trend that reflects a broader regional pattern of diversification.
This strategy is not limited to ASEAN. In South Asia, Bangladesh is collaborating with Russia on the Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant, while various Southeast Asian nations are exploring renewable energy and nuclear partnerships with China to reduce their vulnerability to a single geographic region.
The global market has reacted with a paradoxical shift in sanctions. To prevent a total collapse of global supply, the U.S. Has temporarily eased sanctions on Russian seaborne oil. This move has allowed Russia to see its exports return to near-peak levels, generating billions in profit while providing a necessary pressure valve for Asian economies.
The Vulnerability of Strategic Reserves
A critical factor exacerbating the crisis is the stark disparity in Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) between Southeast Asia and its wealthier neighbors in East Asia. While the former relies on “just-in-time” delivery, the latter have built massive buffers that allow them to weather prolonged disruptions.
International relations scholar Tang Shi Xuan notes that Southeast Asia lacks the fiscal resources and infrastructure required to maintain high-volume storage. Building the necessary logistics networks requires billions in investment and years of planning, leaving several nations exposed to sudden price shocks or supply cuts.
| Country | Estimated Reserve Capacity (Days) |
|---|---|
| Japan | 254 |
| South Korea | 208 |
| Taiwan | 100+ |
| Philippines | 60 |
| Indonesia | 25 |
| Vietnam | Less than 20 |
This lack of storage means that any disruption in the Strait of Hormuz translates almost immediately into fuel shortages at the pump or industrial slowdowns in manufacturing hubs across the region.
Testing the ASEAN Petroleum Security Agreement
To address these vulnerabilities, the region relies on the ASEAN Petroleum Security Agreement (APSA). But, the framework is facing its first true “pressure test,” and experts warn that its current structure may be insufficient for a large-scale crisis.
The agreement utilizes the Coordinated Emergency Response Mechanism (CERM), which allows member states to voluntarily supply 10 percent of a neighbor’s oil needs during an emergency. Julia Goh, a senior economist at UOB Malaysia, argues that the voluntary nature of this mechanism is a fundamental flaw. In a genuine supply crisis, nations are likely to prioritize their own domestic stability over regional solidarity, rendering the CERM more of a trust-building exercise than a functional tool for energy security.
Dr. Le Hiep Hong, a senior fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, suggests that for countries like Vietnam, this crisis exposes a precarious balancing act. Attempting to maintain ties with the U.S. While relying on Russian energy and Chinese infrastructure creates a complex diplomatic tightrope.
Transferring Dependence vs. True Security
The current rush to secure Russian or American oil may be a short-term necessity, but analysts warn it does not solve the underlying problem. Tang Shi Xuan argues that shifting dependence from the Middle East to another single source is merely “transferring dependence” rather than eliminating risk.
Drawing parallels to the 1970s oil crisis, Tang suggests that true security can only be achieved through a structural shift toward diversified energy forms—including renewables and nuclear power—rather than simply swapping one supplier for another. The goal, he notes, is to avoid putting all geopolitical eggs in one basket.
The immediate next step for the region involves the ongoing negotiations between Vietnam and Russian energy officials regarding nuclear infrastructure, as well as the continued monitoring of U.S. Sanctions waivers on Russian oil, which will determine the cost and availability of crude for the remainder of the fiscal year.
We invite readers to share their perspectives on the region’s energy transition and the effectiveness of the ASEAN Petroleum Security Agreement in the comments below.
Worth a look
