Russia and the West: Clash of energy interests through the lens of realist and liberal approaches

By the beginning of the 2010s, the powerful positive impetus inherent to the Russia-Western relations in the energy sector has waned. Substantial disagreements arose on all major issues of the agenda, from the views on the prospects for the Russian fuel and energy complex development and participation of foreign capital in it, to the implementation of concrete gas transportation projects and to assessments of opportunities for legal and institutional regulation of energy relations in Europe and the world. The Russian military operation in Ukraine in 2022 has greatly exacerbated all these tensions, rendering virtually impossible any form of cooperation in the energy sector. These circumstances raise questions about the driving forces, ideological imperatives, and the very logic of the energy policy development both in Russia and the West. The present paper compares two different interpretations of these issues based on insights from the realist and liberal theoretical frameworks. The first section highlights basic theoretical and methodological premises of these approaches in general and outlines their potential application to the energy issues in particular. Then the author assesses the explanatory potential of each of these approaches with regard to the key issues in relations between Russia and the West in the energy sector. The author admits that many steps taken by Russia, as well as the US and the EU can be well explained from the viewpoint of liberal approach (e.g. attempts of some EU countries to depoliticize energy cooperation with Russia or the EU measures to prevent monopolization of its energy market by Gazprom). However, political realism provides a more compelling explanation of previous dynamics of international relations in this field, their current state and prospects. The policy of energy transition, implemented by Western countries to lower their carbon dependence, fits particularly well the logic of the realist approach, although potential tensions between Russia and the West in that regard have not yet fully materialized.

1. Belov V.B. 2018. Proekt ‘Severnyi potok-2’ — shansy i riski realizatsii [The Nord Stream-2 project — the chances and risks of implementation]. Nauchno-analiticheskii vestnik Instituta Evropy RAN, no. 3, pp. 74–80. DOI: 10.15211/ vestnikieran320187480. (In Russ.)

2. Borisov M.G. 2020. Energeticheskii perekhod i geopolitika [Energy tran- sition and geopolitics]. Eastern Analytics, no. 1, pp. 7–16. DOI: 10.31696/2227-5568-2020-01-007-016. (In Russ.)

3. Borovsky Yu.V., Shishkina O.V. 2021. Prioritetnye tseli energeticheskoi poli- tiki ES [The priorities of EU energy policy]. Contemporary Europe — Sovremen- naya Evropa, no. 3, pp. 117–127. DOI: 10.15211/soveurope32021117127. (In Russ.)

4. Bunik I.V. 2018. Mezhdunarodno-pravovye aspecty priostanovleniya proekta ‘Yuzhniy potok’ [International legal aspects of suspending the South Stream project]. International Trends, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 122–140. DOI: 10.17994/ IT.2018.16.2.53.7. (In Russ.)

5. Golunov S.V. 2021. Energeticheskie rychagi vneshnei politiki: opyt Ros- sii i SShA [The energy toolkit of statecraft: Experience of Russia and the USA]. International Trends, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 56–73. DOI: 10.17994/IT.2021.19.1.64.3. (In Russ.)

6. Konoplyanik A.A. 2011. Energeticheskay khartia: otmenit nelzya mo- dernizirovat [Energy Charter Treaty: To withdraw from or improve?]. EKO, no. 2, pp. 118–136. (In Russ.)

7. Roginko S.A. 2018. ‘Severnyi potok-2’: mnimye ecologicheskie riski [Nord Stream 2: False ecological risks]. Nauchno-analiticheskii vestnik Instituta Evropy RAN, no. 4, pp. 136–141. DOI: 10.15211/vestnikieran42018136141. (In Russ.)

8. Sakva R. 2010. Syr’evoi sector Rossii: ekonomika kontrolya i politika renty [Russia’s raw materials sector: The economics of control and the policy of rent]. Neprikosnovennyi zapas, no. 6 (74). Available at: https://magazines.gorky.media/ nz/2010/6/syrevoj-sektor-rossii-ekonomika-kontrolya-i-politika-renty.html (ac- cessed: 14.03.2022). (In Russ.)

9. Sidorova E.V. 2016. Energetika Rossii pod sanktsiyami Zapada [Russian energy industry under the Western sanctions]. International Trends, no. 1, pp. 143–155. DOI: 10.17994/IT.2016.14.1.44.11. (In Russ.)

10. Sushentsov A.A. 2016. Vneshnepoliticheskie platformy Respublikanskoi partii SShA: izolyatsionosty, realisty, neokonservatory [Foreign policy platforms of the United States Republican party: Isolationists, realists, neo-conservatives]. Tetradi po konservatizmu, no. 1, pp. 47–55. DOI: 10.24030/2409-2517-2016-1-47- (In Russ.)

11. Khudaykulova A.V. 2020. Ob’yasnyaya bezopasnost’ global’nogo Uga: zapadnye i nezapadnye podkhody [Explaining the security of the Global South: Western and Non-Western approaches]. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. In- ternational Relations, vol. 13, iss. 3, pp. 394–417. DOI: 10.21638/spbu06.2020.307. (In Russ.)

12. Yudina O.N. 2021. Energeticheskii soyuz ES spustya pyat let: myf ili realnost’? [Five years of the EU Energy Union: Myth or reality?]. Contemporary Europe, no. 1, pp. 190‒199. DOI: 10.15211/soveurope12021190199. (In Russ.)

13. Domjan P., Stone M. 2010. A comparative study of resource nationalism in Russia and Kazakhstan 2004–2008. Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 62, iss. 1, pp. 35–62. DOI: 10.1080/09668130903385374.

14. Erşen E., Çelikpala M. 2019. Turkey and the changing energy geopolitics of Eurasia. Energy Policy, vol. 128, pp. 584–592. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.01.036.

15. Friedmann W. 1968. Interventionism, liberalism, and power-politics: The unfinished revolution in international thinking. Political Science Quarterly, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 169–189. DOI: 10.2307/2147088.

16. Giuli M. 2018. Nord Stream 2: Rule no more, but still divide (Issue paper). European Policy Center. Available at: http://aei.pitt.edu/94377/1/pub_8613_nord-stream2.pdf (accessed: 28.05.2022).

17. Goldthau A. 2016. Assessing Nord Stream 2: Regulation, geopolitics & energy security in the EU, Central Eastern Europe & the UK. London, EUCERS.

18. Gustafson T. 2012. Wheel of fortune: The battle for oil and power in Russia. Cambridge, Belknap Press.

19. Harsem Ø., Claes D.H. 2013. The interdependence of European- Russian energy relations. Energy Policy, vol. 59, pp. 784–791. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.035.

20. Huntington S.P. 1993. The third wave: Democratization in the late 20th century. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press.

21. Jirušek M. 2020. The attitude of the Visegrad Group countries towards Russian infrastructural projects in the gas sector. Energy Policy, vol. 139. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111340.

22. Krzykowski M., Krzykowska K. 2017. Will the European Commission’s policy hinder gas supplies to Central and Eastern European countries? OPAL case decision. Energy Policy, vol. 110, pp. 534–541. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.08.041.

23. Kutcherov V., Morgunova M., Bessel V., Lopatin A. 2020. Russian natural gas exports: An analysis of challenges and opportunities. Energy Strategy Reviews, vol. 30. DOI: 10.1016/j.esr.2020.100511.

24. Lipsey D. 2016. Liberal interventionism. The Political Quarterly, vol. 87, iss. 3, pp. 415–423. DOI: 10.1111/1467-923X.12229.

25. Lobell S.E. 2010. Structural realism. Offensive and defensive realism. In: Denemark R.A., Marlin-Bennett R. (eds.). International studies encyclopedia. Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell, p. 6651–6669.

26. Luft G., Korin A. 2009. Realism and idealism in the energy security de- bate. In: Luft G., Korin A. (eds.). Energy security challenges for the 21st century: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara, Praeger, p. 335–349.

27. Luft G., Korin A., Gupta E. 2011. Energy security and climate change: A tenuous link. In: Sovacool B. (ed.). The Routledge handbook of energy security. New York, Routledge, p. 43–56.

28. Mearsheimer J.J. 2001. The tragedy of great power politics. New York, W.W. Norton & Company.

29. Ole J., Abrahamsen R., Riis Andersen L. 2019. Introduction: Making li- beral internationalism great again. International Journal, vol. 74, pp. 5–14. DOI: 10.1177/0020702019827050.

30. Pardo Sauvageot E. 2020. Between Russia as producer and Ukraine as a transit country: EU dilemma of interdependence and energy security. Energy Policy, vol. 145. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111699.

31. Schelly C., Bessette D., Brosemer K. et al. 2020. Energy policy for energy sovereignty: Can policy tools enhance energy sovereignty? Solar Energy, vol. 205, pp. 109–112. DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2020.05.056.

32. Shiraev E., Zubok V. 2019. International relations. (3rd ed.). Oxford, Oxford University Press.

33. Smil V. 2010. Energy transitions: History, requirements, prospects. Oxford, Praeger.

34. Smith Stegen K. 2011. Deconstructing the ‘energy weapon’: Russia’s threat to Europe as case study. Energy Policy, vol. 39, pp. 6505–6513. DOI: 10.1016/j. enpol.2011.07.051.

35. Sziklai B.R., Kóczy L.A., Csercsik D. 2020. The impact of Nord Stream 2 on the European gas market bargaining position. Energy Policy, vol. 144. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111692.

36. Van de Graaf T., Colgan J.D. 2017. Russian gas games or well-oiled conflict? Energy security and the 2014 Ukraine crisis. Energy Research & Social Science, vol. 24, pp. 59–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2016.12.018.

37. Vihma A., Turksen U. 2016. The geoeconomics of the South Stream Pipe- line Project. Journal of International Affairs, no. 69 (1), pp. 34–53.