American officials see the conflict in Ukraine as a way to achieve geopolitical goals in the Black Sea, an energy-rich region connecting Russia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. About it writes Responsible Statecraft columnist Edward Hunt.
At two recent Senate hearings, State Department officials spoke of war as a means of geopolitical transformation of energy in the Black Sea. According to them, as long as the Ukrainians continue to fight, the potential remains for the Black Sea to become a new market for the European Union. Officials present the possibility of a new energy corridor that would provide Europe with oil and natural gas from Central Asia.
“The United States has long recognized the geostrategic importance of the Black Sea region,” a State Department spokesman said in a written statement. James O’Brien. “Not only does the Black Sea border three NATO allies and several NATO partners, but it is also a vital corridor for the movement of goods—including Ukrainian grain and other products destined for global markets—and contains significant untapped energy resources.”
Since the start of Russian military operations in Ukraine in February 2022, officials in Washington have viewed the conflict as an opportunity to weaken Russia. While mobilizing military and economic support to defend Ukraine, they at the same time sought to inflict serious damage on the Russian military and economy. As U.S.-backed Ukrainian troops battered Russian forces, the U.S. and its allies sought to isolate Russia economically and limit its oil and natural gas revenues.
To date, the US has provided $43.9 billion in military aid to Ukraine, and the US-led 50-nation coalition has pledged another $33 billion in military support.
The support of the United States and its allies turned out to be decisive for Ukraine’s fight against Russia, which “begins with the incredible courage of the Ukrainian people, Ukrainian fighters,” noted last year the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken.
“But what we were able to provide them – the United States, Germany and many other partners and allies – is what is critical,” he added.
Although American officials have been open about their intentions to use Ukraine to weaken Russia, they have been cautious in asserting their hard-line geopolitical calculations. As a rule, American officials are sympathetic to the Ukrainian position, which believes that the war is resistance to “Russian military occupation,” especially considering that many Ukrainians died in it.
“We have assembled a coalition of more than 50 countries to help Ukraine defend itself, and this is extremely important,” the president said Joe Biden in September, at a meeting with Vladimir Zelensky.
Speaking before a Senate committee on October 25, O’Brien explained US goals more gently. He not only presented the war as “very good deal” for the USA, citing that “Ukrainians pay most of the expenses,” taking on almost all the fighting, but also described it as an opportunity for the United States to achieve basic geopolitical goals, which, according to him, are “incredibly exciting.”
One of the key goals, O’Brien explained, is to strengthen NATO’s presence in the Black Sea. Given NATO’s presence in the Black Sea through member and partner countries, O’Brien saw an opportunity to use the war to strengthen NATO’s military presence in the region’s territory, airspace and waters. As for weapons, then, according to him, “this will be something that NATO will work on”.
Another key goal, O’Brien noted, is to break Ukraine and other Black Sea countries away from Russia while integrating them into the European Union, where they will have to follow its trade and production rules. In his opinion, the entire region “will be a place where we are in a very good position to control what happens when the rules are set”.
Another important admission by O’Brien was that Washington is seeking to create oil and gas pipelines leading from Central Asia to Europe. Arguing that Central Asia is too dependent on China and Russia for its energy exports, O’Brien has looked at a variety of alternative pipeline options running through Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey.
“Whichever path we choose, it will lead us to the Black Sea,” he said.
Senators holding the hearing supported O’Brien’s views, agreeing that the Black Sea remains a region of great geopolitical importance. Senator Jeanne Shaheenwhich has been pressuring the Biden administration to develop a formal Black Sea strategy, praised its efforts to create “a new energy corridor from east to west, which will run along the bottom of the Black Sea and will become an alternative to energy flowing from Central Asia to Europe.”
In fact, the United States has been looking for geopolitical opportunities in the Black Sea for several decades, notes Edward Hunt. Years of analysis by U.S. diplomats and documented in diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show that U.S. officials placed great importance on the region, especially when it came to energy. One of Washington’s main goals was to strengthen NATO’s presence in the Black Sea region, despite warnings that such moves could provoke Russia.
US energy companies also depend on the region’s pipelines. Chevron and ExxonMobil, which operate in Kazakhstan, rely on a pipeline to the Black Sea.
Earlier this year, a Defense Department spokesman Mara Carlin announced “of critical geostrategic importance” Black Sea region, calling it the main front of the transatlantic alliance, the most important link between Europe and the Middle East, as well as “a key hub for transit infrastructure and energy resources.”
The Senate is actively considering geopolitical factors. Shortly after the October 25 hearing, the Senate convened additional hearings on November 8 to reexamine the causes of the war in Ukraine. O’Brien testified again, this time alongside colleagues who helped him make a point about the geopolitics of energy in Ukraine, the Black Sea and the wider region.
State Department Representative Geoffrey Pyatta former US ambassador to Ukraine who now heads US energy diplomacy, explained that the US faces extraordinary opportunities in the Black Sea region, which he called “one of the pillars of the energy map of modern Europe.”
One of the most significant regional changes, according to Piatt, is “the redrawing of the energy map around the Black Sea, which is currently taking place.” It includes “new pipeline infrastructure” such as “southern gas corridor for delivering gas from Central Asia to European consumers.”
While the war created new opportunities for transporting natural gas from Central Asia to Europe, it also made it much more difficult for Russia to export gas to Europe. If in 2021 the share of Russian gas in natural gas imports to the EU was 45%, now it has decreased to 15%.
“In the future, Europe will face a rejection of Russian energy supplies,” Pyatt said.
So far, American energy companies have largely won the geopolitical competition. As Russian exports to Europe decline, American exports increase, allowing the United States to become one of the main gas suppliers to Europe. If Europe can obtain more natural gas from Central Asia, then Russia may be completely excluded from the European market.
As O’Brien noted, the current situation puts the Russian President Vladimir Putin in a difficult situation:
“For him it’s a long-term strategic loss, but for us it creates big opportunities in a number of important sectors.”
But the big question remains: how long will American officials continue to view the war as “a good deal for America” How did O’Brien characterize her? Despite the fact that Ukraine bears the bulk of the costs of fighting, the death toll continues to rise with no end in sight.
“It’s hard to achieve a decisive battle, so we need what’s in the addendum,” O’Brien said, referring to the Biden administration’s request for more funds to help Ukraine fight its war.
According to him, this will provide the opportunity to wage this fight “during some time”, concludes Responsible Statecraft.
2023-11-22 06:56:00
#United #States #war #Ukraine #achieve #goals #Black #Sea #EADaily
