Russian Intervention in Syria: Exploring the Nexus between Regime Consolidation and Energy Transnationalisation
| Date | 01 November 2021 |
| Published date | 01 November 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032321720934637 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720934637
Political Studies
2021, Vol. 69(4) 944 –964
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0032321720934637
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
Russian Intervention in Syria:
Exploring the Nexus between
Regime Consolidation and
Energy Transnationalisation
David Maher1 and Moritz Pieper2
Abstract
Interpretations of Russia’s military intervention in Syria overwhelmingly focus on Russia’s
political motivations. An alternative view foregrounds Russia’s economic motivations, namely,
the construction of a multi-billion-dollar gas pipeline traversing Iran, Iraq and Syria. This article
examines the salience of Russia’s economic motivations and considers two related aspects: First,
if Russian intervention aims to secure areas of strategic importance for the proposed pipeline.
Second, if Russian intervention realises longer term political and commercial interests that include
proposed future pipeline projects. The evidence suggests Russian military policies towards Syria
are unlikely to be motivated primarily by the prospect of a proposed gas pipeline, but that regime
consolidation is a more immediate policy goal. This article then posits that Russian intervention has
a distinct ‘dual logic’ aimed at integrating the interests of key regional actors into a transnational
energy network, while stabilising Russia’s regional dominance within this network.
Keywords
Syria, Russia, military intervention, regime consolidation, energy transnationalisation
Accepted: 22 May 2020
Introduction
This article explores Russia’s motivations to militarily intervene in Syria. Hitherto,
explanations have focussed on the political incentives for Russia’s support of the
Syrian government, particularly Russian attempts to consolidate the Syrian regime
for reasons of regional stability and global power considerations. The potential impact
of economic motivations has been largely overlooked in scholarly analyses. However,
1Politics and Contemporary History, University of Salford, Salford, UK
2 German Institute for International and Security Affairs (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik), Eastern Europe
and Eurasia Division, Berlin, Germany
Corresponding author:
David Maher, Politics and Contemporary History, University of Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester, M5
4WT, UK.
Email: d.j.maher@salford.ac.uk
934637PSX0010.1177/0032321720934637Political StudiesMaher and Pieper
research-article2020
Article
Maher and Pieper 945
an emerging narrative has foregrounded the importance of economic incentives
related to natural resources. More specifically, this narrative has focussed on compet-
ing multi-billion-dollar gas pipeline projects that are planned to traverse Syria,
namely, a Russian-backed Iranian pipeline (known as the Islamic Pipeline) vis-à-vis
a US-backed Qatari pipeline, both planned to transport gas to lucrative European
markets.
This economic narrative is largely limited to speculative opinion pieces (albeit from
respectable sources) and is yet to be subjected to rigorous academic investigation. As
such, this article aims to contribute to the debate by investigating the salience of Russia’s
economic motivations in Syria and unpacking how these motivations can interact with
Russia’s political goals. By combining disaggregate-level data on Russian airstrikes with
documentary evidence and conceptual arguments, we first aim to expand on the current
literature by exploring if Russia has intervened to secure short-term economic gains,
namely to secure a corridor for the construction of a particular pipeline. The evidence
suggests that Russia has not primarily intervened to secure the construction of the Islamic
Pipeline, and therefore, suggests that accounts foregrounding the importance of gas pipe-
lines are too economically reductionist to fully appreciate Russia’s motivations in Syria.
Nevertheless, we argue that long-term economic explanations cannot be separated from
political factors that have figured prominently in the majority of analyses of Russian
intervention. To shed light on the nexus between political factors and long-term economic
interests, we argue that regime consolidation can be linked to an economic logic and that
a more nuanced understanding of the interplay between Russia’s political and long-term
economic motivations provides insights into Russia’s key motivating factors leading to
military intervention.
This article, therefore, argues that regime consolidation is integral to Russia’s longer
term political and commercial interests that have as much to do with regional pipeline
security as with structural energy dynamics on a regional and global level. To further
develop this argument, this article draws on Doug Stokes’ concept of a ‘dual logic’ applied
to US foreign policy. This concept demonstrates how US military interventions in oil-rich
countries can serve both US national interests and, at the same time, transnationalise
those interests by securing oil supplies for the US-led, liberal global economy more gen-
erally. In this article, we aim to further contribute to the debate by arguing that Russia’s
intervention in Syria serves a similar but distinct ‘dual logic’. While providing specific
insights into the nexus between Russian foreign policy, energy interests and military
intervention, this article also contributes to broader theoretical and conceptual debates
within politics and international relations (IR) that are currently understudied. More spe-
cifically, the analysis hopes to nuance IR debates about global ‘hegemony’ by focussing
on decentred ‘transnationalisation’ practices relating to politico-economic interests that
also take place at the inter-regional level.
By consolidating the Syrian regime, Russia’s goals serve the interests of other actors
in the region that are not aligned to the US-led liberal global order (in this instance, Syria
and Iran), while simultaneously bolstering Russia’s national interests as a leading sup-
plier of global energy. Russia’s intervention in Syria provides Russian influence and over-
sight of the supply of energy to the EU and facilitates Russia’s position as a dominant
energy supplier that also controls distribution networks. In the Syrian context, Russian
intervention is, therefore, conducive to longer term political and commercial interests that
may include, inter alia, proposed future pipeline projects.
To continue reading
Request your trial