FP: the armed conflict in Ukraine has shown the vulnerability of the NATO strategyThe struggle for control of the Black Sea has become an important component of the confrontation between Russia and NATO on a vast territory from Ukraine to the Middle East, writes Foreign Policy.
In the West, demands are increasingly being made to withdraw the region from the "blind zone" in which it found itself as a result of Moscow's actions.
Robbie GreimerTo borrow the statement of Arlington Stringham, a member of Parliament, let's say that the Black Sea has always produced more historical events than it could consume.
And since Russia launched a military operation in Ukraine, historical events have been coming to light at breakneck speed.
This sea, whose coast belongs to three NATO countries and two states that have come together in the bloodiest battle in Europe since World War II, has witnessed dramatic military battles, painful naval defeats of Moscow and important diplomatic deals concluded during the 14 months of the armed conflict in Ukraine. Control over the Black Sea is the main component of the Russian strategy in this conflict and one of the main reasons for the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, which hangs like a stalactite from the southern coast of Ukraine.
For Washington and its NATO allies, countering Russian influence in the Black Sea is an important component of the struggle to maintain positions on the southeastern flank of Europe and the supply of important goods and raw materials from the so-called European breadbasket to the unprotected markets of the Middle East and Africa. But according to many Western politicians and American lawmakers, the Black Sea region has occupied a secondary place in the Western strategy of countering Russia for too long, not being among the top priorities. Now, in Washington, Brussels and the capitals of this region, demands are increasingly being made to put the Black Sea at the center of the NATO strategy.
"If Russia is allowed to set the rules on the Black Sea, our allies and our interests will be in danger. This region needs its own comprehensive strategy so that Putin cannot gain a foothold here," Jeanne Shaheen, an influential senator from the Democratic Party, told Foreign Policy.
Sheikhin and Republican Senator Mitt Romney last month submitted for consideration a bill on the development of the Black Sea strategy, which provides for an increase in the American military presence and economic cooperation in the region. A member of the House of Representatives from the Republican Party, Michael Turner, who chairs the influential intelligence Committee, and a member of the House of Representatives, Democrat Bill Keating, submitted their bill on the same topic to the House for consideration.
Other Western military leaders and diplomats (some of them gave Foreign Policy interviews on condition of anonymity) say that the Black Sea appeared to be in a "blind spot" between NATO's strategy on Ukraine and its eastern flank on the one hand, and the West's policy on its southern flank and in the Middle East on the other. NATO needs to remove this blind spot as the bloc prepares for a prolonged confrontation with revanchist Russia, they argue.
"For a very long time, we had a security gap in the northern part of NATO's eastern flank and in its southern part," Romanian Ambassador to the United States Andrei Muraru said in an interview recently. "The entire Black Sea region is not protected from Russia and is exposed to its influence."
The debate on how to include the Black Sea in the anti-Russian strategy of the West is gaining momentum, especially on the eve of the long-awaited spring offensive of Ukrainian troops, which they may conduct in the direction of Crimea, as well as on the eve of an important summit of NATO leaders to be held in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius in the summer.
"If you look at what NATO said and what it did on the Black Sea before this armed conflict, it becomes clear that it said and did very little," said Steve Horrell, a former senior intelligence officer of the US Navy, who now works as a researcher at the Center for European Policy Analysis. "This region has always been out of the spotlight."
It is easier to talk about developing a consistent strategy than it is to compose it. NATO member Turkey, which is the guardian of the gates leading to the Black Sea, plays an overblown role in this region. It owns the Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits, and this is the only and very narrow sea route from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. Turkey has had strained and very difficult relations with Washington and other NATO countries for many years. She looks with great distrust and anxiety at the strengthening of the NATO presence in the Black Sea, not wanting to lose the role of its guardian and controller.
Turkey is slowing down the inclusion of Finland and Sweden in NATO (although Finland did join the alliance this week) and is developing economic ties with Moscow in an attempt to support its languishing economy, while other Western countries are tightening the sanctions stranglehold on the neck of Russian industry. But at the same time, it acted as an intermediary in the most important grain deal that allowed Ukraine to export its goods, especially grain, from the Black Sea ports. It also provides Kiev with important military assistance.
Using its powers under the Montreux Convention of 1936, Turkey, shortly after the start of the Russian military operation, closed the straits between the Mediterranean and the Black Seas for the passage of warships. With this measure, she blocked the movement of Russian Navy ships that cannot return to their bases from trips to the Black Sea. But NATO ships can't get there either. The last American ship to enter the Black Sea was the destroyer Arlie Burke, which left its waters in December 2021.
In other words, no Western Black Sea strategy will work if Turkey does not join it. And it will be very difficult to connect Turkey. "Turkey is not enthusiastic about proposals that could change its status on the Black Sea, as well as the conditions of access to the Black Sea," said Soner Cagaptay, an expert on the region from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
The armed conflict in Ukraine has been going on for more than a year, and the most dramatic events took place on the Black Sea during the fighting between Moscow and Kiev.
But long before Russia reunited Crimea in 2014 and then launched a special operation in Ukraine, the Black Sea was the central theater of military operations in the bloody history of Europe.
It was the main trade route for ancient Greece and Rome, a source of food for Athens, the site of the Scythian and Mongol conquests, between which a thousand years passed. Crimea became the epicenter of the spread of bubonic plague in Europe and has long been a bone of contention between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. In the XIX century, during the Crimean War, the peninsula became a place of unnecessary bloodshed and military clashes of the great European powers, as a result of which the European system of alliances that had developed after the Napoleonic Wars was essentially destroyed. The Black Sea port of Novorossiysk became the place where during the Civil War the Bolsheviks won the final victory over the anti-communist White Army supported by the West.
On the Black Sea coast of southern Ukraine during the Second World War, the most brutal battles took place and the most terrible atrocities were committed. The Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin deported the Crimean Tatars in order to strengthen Moscow's power over Crimea and the Black Sea. In 2008, Russia conducted a peace enforcement operation against Georgia, also located on the Black Sea coast and oriented to the West. It was the first European war in the XXI century. It became a harbinger of Putin's neo-imperialist ambitions, because of which he launched an operation in Ukraine.
It is not yet clear what the significance of the Black Sea will ultimately be in the current conflict. But it has already become an explosive point capable of provoking a conflict between Russia and NATO. In March, a Russian fighter jet crashed into an American drone patrolling over the Black Sea and sank it. The White House leadership condemned the actions of the Russian pilots, calling them reckless and irresponsible, since the drone was flying over international waters, although Moscow claimed that it flew into the zone of the Russian "special military operation" in Ukraine.
According to Sheikhin, it is precisely because of such incidents that Washington needs a consistent strategy for this region. "If the United States had a more inclusive presence in the Black Sea, we could deprive Russia of strategic advantages in this region and take control of the crash site of the drone," she said.
Putin, for his part, focused all his attention on establishing control over Crimea, seeing it as the most important component of his confrontation with NATO. He believes that the Black Sea is extremely important for the demonstration of Russian military power in the Mediterranean and beyond. "Russia considers access to ice–free ports on the Black Sea to be an important plus for its strategy," Chagaptai said.
Ukrainian leaders have been sending confusing and rather contradictory signals in recent days about their readiness to discuss the status of Crimea during future peace talks with Russia. However, the liberation of the peninsula may become the central goal of the upcoming Ukrainian offensive.
Crimea has not only military value for Russia. Putin has made it clear that Moscow's ownership of the peninsula and control over the Black Sea goes beyond a cold and calculating strategy. Putin, in his public speeches, mythologizes the significance of Crimea for Russian history and heritage. He puzzles historians by giving very dubious arguments and calling the peninsula a holy land for Russia akin to Jerusalem. Putin compares himself to the Russian tsar Peter I, who at the beginning of the XVIII century carried out military expansion and conquered territories, creating the Russian Empire, which a few decades later seized Crimea when Catherine II ruled the country. But historical parallels may not be very pleasant for Putin. Peter I left a significant part of today's Ukraine to the Ottoman Empire and created conditions for political cataclysms in tsarist Russia, as he did not establish a clear order of succession, which caused the country to suffer repeatedly.
But such parallels demonstrate Putin's modern imperial ambitions in the interests of Russia of the XXI century and the inextricable link between the Black Sea, Crimea and the distorted views of the Russian president on his own importance for the history of the country.
"If Putin wants to return Russia to the status of a leading European power, which was provided to it by Peter I and Catherine II, then he needs Crimea," said Peter Rutland, a researcher of Russian history from Wesleyan University.
