Content uploaded by Sergei Konoplyov
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sergei Konoplyov on Oct 19, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Harvard Library]
On: 21 July 2014, At: 11:37
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern
Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjsb20
Continuities and Ruptures: Tracking the
US Interests in the Black Sea Area in
the Context of the ‘Pivot to Asia’
Sergei Konoplyov & Igor Delanoë
Published online: 17 Jul 2014.
To cite this article: Sergei Konoplyov & Igor Delanoë (2014) Continuities and Ruptures: Tracking the
US Interests in the Black Sea Area in the Context of the ‘Pivot to Asia’, Journal of Balkan and Near
Eastern Studies, 16:3, 356-369, DOI: 10.1080/19448953.2014.928539
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2014.928539
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Continuities and Ruptures: Tracking
the US Interests in the Black Sea Area
in the Context of the ‘Pivot to Asia’
Sergei Konoplyov and Igor Delanoe
¨
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the USA has become one of the main actors on the
Black Sea stage. Whereas energy has been the key driver of Washington’s involvement in
the region since the end of the 1990s, the US agenda has broadened to include security
issues and democratization after the 9/11 attacks. Today, in the context of the withdrawal
from Afghanistan and the ‘pivot to Asia’, the US influence in the Black Sea is retrenching.
However, despite a seeming waning interest, Washington’s involvement in the region is
likely to remain driven by energy security considerations as well as by the deployment of
NATO’s Ballistic Missile Defense.
Introduction
The Black Sea lies at the crossroads of several geographical regions: Transcaucasia,
Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Eastern Mediterranean and Asia Minor. As a strategic
intersection connecting the Middle East, Eurasia and Europe, the Black Sea appears to
be one of the world’s critical crossroads.
1
Defining the Black Sea region is not easy.
Depending on what countries are taken into consideration, the Black Sea region
could be considered as the territory corresponding to the six maritime countries
around the Pontus Euxinus, or one could also consider the area delimited by the only
regional organization which gathers all the neighbouring stakeholders, the Black Sea
Economic Cooperation (BSEC).
2
However, according to the European Commission,
the Black Sea region encompasses 10 countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria,
Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine.
3
These definitions
nonetheless do not provide an accurate sense of the Black Sea as a region, in the sense
that the countries considered do not share ‘self-conscious projects for crafting a sense
of belonging to a broad community based on territorial proximity, common
domestic policies, or cooperation in foreign policy’.
4
In other words, the geographical
proximity of the Black Sea states does not compensate for the weakness of their
political and economic interdependence as well as their cultural heterogeneity.
5
Moreover, other foreign or local actors, such as NATO, the European Union (EU) and
the USA, should be taken into consideration since they exert influence on Black Sea
q2014 Taylor & Francis
Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 2014
Vol. 16, No. 3, 356–369, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2014.928539
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 11:37 21 July 2014
dynamics, thus shaping relations between local stakeholders. As for the USA,
Washington’s policy regarding the Black Sea area during the 2000s was centred on
three pillars: energy, security and democracy. The aim was to turn the Black Sea into a
reliable conduit of energy diversification, security and freedom between Europe and
the Middle East and Central Asia.
6
Since 2008 and the election of President Obama,
the Black Sea seems to have been de-prioritized by the US administration which is
focused on the withdrawal from Afghanistan and on the ‘pivot to Asia’. However,
despite a seeming waning interest, the Black Sea remains involved in the security
agenda of the USA: the region continues to be the back door to the Caspian Sea and
its hydrocarbon resources, it is a hub for the pull-out from Afghanistan and an
outpost for the post-withdrawal period as well as a centrepiece of the Ballistic Missile
Defense (BMD) architecture.
From the Clinton to the Bush Administration: Toward a Growing Interest in
the Black Sea
If the access to natural resources seems to have first attracted the USA to the Black Sea
area during the 1990s, one could also consider more widely the expansion of
Washington’s influence in the Black Sea in the late 1990s as the next step after Central
Europe and the Balkans. The irruption and the extension of US influence to the Black
Sea area in the late 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s was sustained by two main
dynamics: securing access to the hydrocarbon resources of the Caspian basin and
creating a secure corridor allowing the projection of influence and forces toward
Central Asia and the Middle East through the Black Sea. Washington’s growing
influence was later sustained by the War on Terror triggered after 9/11, NATO
expansion and the wave of democratization in the countries of the former Warsaw
Pact, with the objective to anchor the Black Sea to the West by turning the Newly
Independent States (NIS) into reliable partners.
New Sources of Energy
Energy remains one of the main drivers of Washington’s foreign policy as it seeks to
ensure availability, accessibility and affordability of the energy resources for its own
consumption, but furthermore, for its European partners. As a provider for economic
stability, energy security became a high priority for the USA and the EU economies
during the past decades.
7
Whereas President Clinton’s first term was mainly focused
on ensuring stability in Russia; during his second term, the US administration
developed an energy policy for the Caucasus and the eastern part of the Caspian
basin. The concept of an ‘East– West corridor’ for oil and gas supplies emerged and
the opening of this region corresponded in the early 1990s to rising US commercial
interests. However, the focus on the hydrocarbon resources of the Caspian and the
objective to reshape the regional energy map by bypassing Russia precluded the
creation of any comprehensive Black Sea policy.
8
In 1999, the Silk Road Strategy Act
was voted by Congress in order to support US involvement, enabling Washington to
Continuities and Ruptures 357
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 11:37 21 July 2014
enhance its foreign economic and military assistance to the South Caucasus and
Central Asia.
The first Bush administration started with similar priorities as its predecessor, and
in May 2001, then Vice President Dick Cheney commissioned a policy review that
was expected to produce recommendations to enhance the US role in the region. As
the main corridor to access and secure the hydrocarbon reserves of the Caspian basin,
the Black Sea and the Caucasus with mainly Georgia and Azerbaijan, became a
priority for the USA, which sought to diversify energy routes. Furthermore, Caspian
resources appeared as strategic, in the context of growing energy competition; they
would offer gas and oil supplies from non-OPEC, non-Persian Gulf and non-Russian
reserves, thus increasing diversification and energy security for the European
market.
9
Turkey, as a NATO partner, was also seen as an energy hub and a key player
for Washington’s influence in the region. In that regard, the Baku– Tbilisi– Ceyhan
pipeline, operational since 2005, may be considered as an achievement by the USA for
diversification of the energy supply routes. Moreover, Washington focused its strategy
on bypassing Russia to diminish its influence on former Caspian and Black Sea Soviet
republics. However, the EU preferred interdependence with Russia, and this
difference undermined to some extent Washington’s projects in diversifying
pipelines.
The War on Terror and the Expansion of the US Security Agenda to the Black Sea
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 affected Washington’s priorities and interest for the Black
Sea, and gave an impetus to the US involvement in the area, which was seen as a
platform for influence and power projection for the War on Terror. The area began to
be perceived not only as the back door to Central Asia, but also as the back door to
the ‘Wider Middle East’ or to the ‘Broader Middle East and North Africa’
(BMENA).
10
As a nexus to Central Asia and the Middle East, the strategic relevance of
the Black Sea was enhanced whereas the Bush administration de-prioritized the
Caspian basin. While under the Clinton administration, the US Special Advisor for
Caspian Basin Energy Diplomacy reported directly to the President; under the first
Bush administration, he reported to the Secretary of State. Moreover, his office was
merged with the office of the Special Envoy for Eurasian Security, which meant that
there was no more specific focus on this area. In fact, the American security agenda in
the Black Sea was not restricted to the War on Terror, but was soon widened to
combating proliferation, organized crime and various illegal trafficking activities that
aided and financed international terrorism.
NATO Extension to Black Sea States
The extension of the North Atlantic Alliance to Black Sea countries found its
relevance in the context of the War on Terror. The integration of some of the Black
Sea states to Euro-Atlantic security structures was supposed to provide stability while
enhancing NATO’s capacities of intervention. Bulgaria and Romania became credible
candidates for joining NATO and allies for anti-terror operations while being part of
358 Sergei Konoplyov and Igor Delanoe
¨
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 11:37 21 July 2014
Donald Rumsfeld’s concept of ‘New Europe’. Whereas the process which led to
Bulgarian and Romanian membership in 2004 was shortened, with regard to
Ukraine, Washington lost at the same time a historical opportunity to offer NATO
membership to Kiev. As for Georgia, possible NATO membership was raised in
September 2006, when an intensified dialogue was launched on reforms required to
join the Alliance.
11
The scope of cooperation covered by NATO–Georgia relations
remains broad: security cooperation, defence and security sector reform, civil
emergency planning, science and environment and public information. Tbilisi’s
involvement in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) allowed Georgian troops to operate in
peacekeeping operations in Kosovo (1999– 2008), as well as being deployed in Iraq
and in Afghanistan (in Helmand Province). With 1500 military personnel operating
in Afghanistan, Georgia is today one of the largest non-NATO contributors per capita
to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
12
However, during the NATO
Bucharest Summit of April 2008, both Kiev and Tbilisi were not granted the
Membership Action Plan (MAP—a tailor-made support programme for countries
wishing to join the Alliance). While Tbilisi appeared deeply disappointed by the
outcomes of this summit, Kiev was less concerned since there was no massive public
support in Ukraine for joining NATO. The perspective of Georgian and Ukrainian
membership raised a set of issues regarding the readiness of the Alliance to accept new
members and to deal with frozen conflicts, potential conflicts (Crimea) or declared
conflicts (South-Ossetia, Abkhazia), on the territory of new members, as well as
challenging Russia in what Moscow considers as its ‘sphere of influence’.
Democratization and the Colour Revolutions
Democratization as a driver of US involvement in the Black Sea appeared before 9/11.
The promotion of initiatives related to the democratic development of the NIS was
split between the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State
Department.
13
However, in 1996 – 97, then Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott
delivered a series of speeches in which he outlined strengthening political and
economic reforms as one of the US priorities in the NIS. This objective displayed
Washington’s strong belief that the USA will benefit from promoting peace and
democracy in the NIS. Sustaining civil society institutions and promoting democracy
through funding and technical assistance in Black Sea states was furthermore seen as
a way to consolidate volatile and weak states and to prevent potential wars between
them.
14
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the rise of international terrorism further
enhanced the need to strengthen weak states and fortify central authority in Black Sea
states to deter them from becoming safe havens for terrorist groups. Democratic
transformation became the backbone of US foreign policy, and the Rose Revolution
in Georgia (2003) as well as the Orange Revolution in Ukraine (2004) were seen as
results of Washington’s investment in democracy support. In the meantime, the aim
was also to prevent the re-emergence of Moscow as the main regional hegemon that
would be able to undermine US interests and influence, especially regarding energy
security.
15
Moreover, the colour revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine were seen as
Continuities and Ruptures 359
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 11:37 21 July 2014
iconic and as a strong path toward further integration with European and Euro-
Atlantic structures.
The First Obama Term: The Black Sea De-prioritized
The year 2008 represents a turning point at many levels in Washington’s involvement
in the Black Sea, and more widely, in the relations between the Euro-Atlantic
community and the Black Sea stage. The replacement of Donald Rumsfeld by Robert
Gates in 2006 as the Secretary of Defense had nevertheless initiated a shift in the US
policy toward the Black Sea. However, President Obama’s election confirmed the shift
in US foreign policy since the newly elected president decided to put the relations
with the Arabs at the top of his policy agenda. President Obama also began his tenure
with a security agenda focused on the withdrawal from Iraq and from Afghanistan as
well as rebuilding confidence with Moscow.
The Failure of the ‘Colour Revolutions’
The eastern shore of the Black Sea has been experiencing a rise in authoritarian
practices since the end of the 2000s.
16
If Ukraine and Georgia were promising
candidates to democratic breakthroughs, there has been a deep disillusion since the
end of the past decade regarding domestic developments. Democratic transition in
both countries could be considered as frozen if not regressing, although a distinction
must be made between the Georgian context and the Ukrainian one.
Although he was elected president in 2005 as the leader of the Orange Revolution,
Viktor Yushchenko was not able to sustainably implement democratic changes in
Ukraine. After he lost the legislative elections of 2006, his main opponent and past
challenger for the presidential election, Viktor Yanukovych, became Prime Minister.
However, the turning point remains his election as President of Ukraine in 2010.
As a first step, Viktor Yanukovych decided to improve relations with Moscow, which
implied a deal on the issue of the Russian Black Sea fleet stationed in Ukraine. On
21 April 2010, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Ukrainian President Viktor
Yanukovych signed the Kharkov Agreement. According to the text, the lease for the
Russian Black Sea Fleet was extended from 2017 to 2042, with an option for another
five years. In return, Ukraine was to benefit from discounts on gas imports worth up
to $40 billion under current contracts that expire in 2019.
17
Kiev carried on its
relations with NATO during the second half of the 2000s, especially in the naval
realm. In 2007, the first Ukrainian ship, the corvette URS Ternopil, was deployed in
support of Operation Active Endeavour, a deployment that has since been renewed
annually. Kiev granted the Alliance a land transit right for the supply of ISAF in 2009;
however, in February 2010, President Viktor Yanukovych clearly stated that he
intended to continue cooperation with NATO, while taking the issue of NATO
membership off the agenda.
18
The same month, President Obama called President
Yanukovych and outlined the main drivers of US policy toward Ukraine as
‘expanding democracy and prosperity, protecting security and territorial integrity,
strengthening the rule of law, promoting non-proliferation, and supporting reform
360 Sergei Konoplyov and Igor Delanoe
¨
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 11:37 21 July 2014
in Ukraine’s economic and energy sectors’.
19
Kiev’s intention to improve ties with
Moscow received the support of Washington as stated by then Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton when she visited Kiev in July 2010.
20
Yet, Washington has also
expressed concerns about political developments: in October 2011, former Prime
Minister Yulia Tymoshenko ‘was convicted of abuse of power arising out of her role
in signing a natural gas supply agreement with Russia and sentenced to seven years in
prison’.
21
Tymoshenko’s custody was interpreted as an attempt to eliminate a
potential challenger a few months before the parliamentary elections of October 2012
that were considered by both Washington and Brussels as not meeting democratic
standards. The State Department considered these elections as a ‘step backward’ and
as a negative signal coming from the Ukrainian political stage. By the end of President
Obama’s first term, the ‘passion’, which existed during most of the 2000s in US–
Ukrainian relations, was downgraded.
22
In Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili was re-elected President in January 2008 through
elections which, while being considered by the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) as meeting democratic standards, were nevertheless
characterized by irregularities.
23
Yet, Georgia’s step back from democratic progress
recorded in the mid-2000s started in 2007. Opposition parties called for further
systemic reforms, and growing tensions with the government led to demonstrations
in Tbilisi in November 2007. Washington expressed deep concern in the Georgian
government’s use of excessive force to break up the protests.
24
In May 2010, a
constitutional commission amended the constitution and as a result, the powers of
the president were slightly reduced while those of the prime minister were
augmented.
25
Although Tbilisi was not granted MAP during the 2008 NATO
Bucharest Summit, Georgia and NATO increased their ties during President Obama’s
first term. In August 2010, bilateral relations were enhanced through the
development of an effective military cooperation with the creation of a military
committee, and in October, a NATO Liaison Office was inaugurated in Tbilisi. The
NATO– Georgia Commission meeting held in Brussels in May 2012 underscored the
Alliance’s commitment to strengthen support for civil service reform and
democratization efforts.
26
Washington and Tbilisi signed a Charter on Strategic
Partnership in January 2009 which aims at strengthening US support for sovereignty
and independence, and underscores perspectives for Georgia’s NATO membership.
27
In October 2013, Giorgi Margvelashvili became the country’s new President, and in
late November, Irakli Garibashvili was appointed Prime Minister. Although NATO’s
Secretary-General stated in October 2013 that Georgia would not accede to the
Alliance in 2014, both sides continued to pursue their bilateral cooperation after the
elections.
28
In February 2014, NATO’s Military Committee conducted its first ever
visit to Georgia and acknowledged progress made by Tbilisi in defence reforms.
29
According to Garibashvili, Georgia hopes to be granted MAP during the next NATO
summit in September 2014.
30
While this perspective remains very unlikely, Tbilisi is
at least expected to contribute to the NATO Response Force in 2015.
Continuities and Ruptures 361
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 11:37 21 July 2014
Rebuilding Relations with Russia: From August 2008 to the Reset
Rebuilding confidence and constructive relations with Russia became one of the
priorities of the Obama administration through the ‘Reset’ although it was not a top-
level objective of US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the August 2008 Russia– Georgia
conflict remains a milestone since it has recast the security paradigm in the area, and
confirmed the inefficiency of regional structures to prevent, diffuse and settle the
conflict. As Oksana Antonenko has written, ‘the war and its aftermath have clearly
demonstrated that no regional security in the Black Sea is possible against Russia or
even without Russia’.
31
Moreover, it indicated that Moscow will not hesitate to use
military force when it comes to its interests and that the conventional use of force
remains a policy option in the area.
32
Engaging Russia became a two-level objective
for the new administration. First, at the regional level, Washington aimed at reducing
tensions and instability. Improved ties with Russia in the Black Sea would improve, at
the sub-regional level, the security of energy infrastructures in the Caucasus,
especially those crossing Georgia.
33
At a global level, the USA needed better ties with
Moscow to benefit from its support on key international issues such as Iran’s nuclear
programme and arms control. Washington called for a ‘Reset’ in bilateral relations
with Moscow, and prospects for improved USA– Russia relations came at a time
when the perspective for further NATO enlargement was put on the back burner, at
least for the foreseeable future.
34
During President Obama’s first term, the USA did
not seek to challenge Moscow openly in what Russia considers as its ‘sphere of
privileged interest’, namely, Ukraine and Georgia. Yet, Washington’s security agenda
in the Black Sea area remained shaped by drivers which have conflicted with, even
challenged, Moscow’s interests: the anti-ballistic missile shield and ongoing measures
to diversify Europe’s energy supply routes.
Although USA– Russia relations have improved globally since 2008 in contrast to
the years of the Bush administrations, the ‘Reset’ did not provide the expected results.
Bilateral relations between the two sides remain tense despite progress on key global
issues such as Afghanistan. Unlike the Bush administration, the Obama
administration focused on a shift toward the Caspian basin energy issues while
strengthening its position on the western shore of the Black Sea. One of the top
priority issues of US foreign policy, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the
commitment to protect European allies from a potential ballistic missile threat have
shaped Washington’s stance on the Black Sea stage. On the eastern shore of the Pontus
Euxinus, Washington’s pressure has paradoxically decreased since the USA tried not
to challenge Moscow’s influence following the August 2008 conflict.
The Second Obama Term: America’s Retrenchment on the Black Sea Stage
Washington’s foreign policy appears today to be less driven by the promotion of
democracy than it used to be during the past decade, a shift that has affected its
involvement in the Black Sea. The ‘pivot to Asia’ illustrates the prioritization of the
US interests eastward, toward hot topical issues such as Iran and East Asia.
Furthermore, the ‘pivot to Asia’ takes place in a difficult economic context tied to the
362 Sergei Konoplyov and Igor Delanoe
¨
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 11:37 21 July 2014
global economic crisis: Washington had to make a choice and to prioritize its foreign
policy issues. As a consequence, energy and security issues have arisen as the two
main priorities of Washington’s involvement on the Black Sea stage. While energy
remains an area of direct investment, by ‘leading from behind’, the USA has used
NATO and the EU as channels of influence with mitigated outcomes.
The Political Dimension of Energy Competition
Maintaining diverse and secure supplies to European allies remains an extremely
important priority. Although the shale gas revolution has turned the USA into a gas
exporter, it should not impact on Washington’s involvement in the Black Sea and the
Caspian where American interests are more geopolitical. The presence of NATO
allies, the partnership with Turkey and the need to support energy security for the EU
should keep the USA involved in the area.
The stability of the transit route through the Caucasus remains a concern for the
USA, especially with regard to the protracted conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Washington approaches its settlement through the Minsk Group and bilateral ties
with both Armenia and Azerbaijan. This conflict is nevertheless not considered
through a Black Sea prism since the BSEC, as the only broad regional organization, is
not robust enough and not an appropriate forum to host peace talks. In June 2013,
the Azeri Minister of Foreign Affairs Elmar Mammadyarov visited Washington and
met with Secretary of State John Kerry. During their meeting, they raised a set of
common issues such as the key role of Azerbaijan in the Northern Distribution
Network (NDN), the Southern Corridor, as well as the settlement of the Nagorno-
Karabakh frozen conflict.
35
Indeed, pipelines connecting the Caspian Sea to Europe
have to snake around Armenia because of this protracted conflict.
The USA has supported the development of domestic gas production, which
would ease the Black Sea states’ dependence on Russian supplies. In late 2013,
Ukraine held talks on a production-sharing agreement (PSA) with an ExxonMobil-
led consortium to exploit the Skifska gas field off the western coast of the Black Sea.
However, in late January 2014, Kiev postponed the agreement for a later date.
36
In the
meantime, Kiev and Baku were prospecting possibilities to create a liquefied natural
gas (LNG) supply route via Georgia. This ambitious and costly project would require
building an LNG plant in the Georgian port of Batumi in order to liquefy the gas, and
another one in Ukraine’s port of Yuzhny to gasify it.
37
The USA also backed the
development of Ukrainian shale gas fields since the country is believed to have
Europe’s third-largest reserves with recoverable reserves assessed by the US Energy
Information Administration at 1.18 trillion cubic meters. In January 2013, Kiev
signed with Royal Dutch Shell a PSA on the Yuzivska field located in the east, while in
November 2013 it signed a deal with Chevron on the Oleska field in western
Ukraine.
38
However, these are long-term projects that could later open the path for
further energy cooperation between the Black Sea area and the Baltics, through the
old ‘Varyags to the Greeks’ trade route.
39
Continuities and Ruptures 363
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 11:37 21 July 2014
‘Leading from Behind’: NATO and the EU as US Channels of Influence
The USA has retrenched behind NATO in Romania, where the BMD is being built,
and to a lesser extent in Georgia. In Ukraine, where US involvement relies mainly on
geopolitical drivers, the EU appears to be the main channel of American involvement,
resulting, however, in few constructive outcomes.
Washington has allowed the EU to take the lead in Ukraine, and decided to support
whatever policy Brussels would undertake. Indeed, NATO enlargement to Ukraine
seems frozen for the foreseeable future, since this perspective did not benefit from
much support within the Alliance itself and in Ukraine proper. President Yanukovych
rejected MAP in 2010, and has sought to improve ties with Russia since then. During
the last years of the 2000s, Moscow had regularly stated that Ukraine’s membership to
NATO was seen as a direct threat and that it would be compelled to react;
40
a ‘red line’
which NATO member states were not ready to cross, and which prevented the
Alliance from adopting a comprehensive and robust stance regarding Ukraine’s
membership. While cooperating with Kiev on nuclear non-proliferation and energy
issues, the first Obama administration voiced serious concerns about democratic
developments, especially regarding the October 2012 parliamentary elections.
41
With
the prospects for NATO integration fading, Kiev’s best chance to get closer to the
Euro-Atlantic community was some sort of enhanced integration with the EU.
However, even this prospect has turned out to be compromised following Kiev’s
decision to suspend talks with Brussels on a Ukraine – EU agreement in November
2013 and the ensuing political crisis in the country. Beyond decisive economic and
internal political factors, President Yanukovych’s decision is also explained by the lack
of support from the USA, which had previously fuelled the initial reluctance of some
of the EU members to support a rapprochement with Kiev. Ukraine’s decision
highlights the lack of a strategic vision by the EU with regard to its neighbourhood,
and the Union’s attractiveness should not be taken for granted anymore. Kiev’s
decision follows Armenia’s choice for the Russian-led Customs Union in September
2013, and further illustrates the failure, if not the collapse, of the Eastern Partnership
(EaP) in the Black Sea area. Conflicting and overlapping EU policies (EaP, Black Sea
Synergy) as well as a tendency to isolate Russia explain Brussels’ inability to deal with
the Black Sea region.
Both Georgia and Moldova initialled an Association Agreement with the EU
during the November 2013 Vilnius Summit. In Georgia, Bidzina Ivanishvili’s tenure
(October 2012– November 2013) as Prime Minister raised concerns in the USA after
his government began arresting officials who had served in the previous Saakashvili
government.
42
In November 2013, new elections brought to power Giorgi
Margvelashvili as President and then Irakli Garibashvili as Prime Minister.
Saakashvili’s withdrawal from the Georgian political landscape could open the
path to normalized relations with Moscow. The new Georgian government should
also seek to establish relations with Abkhazia and South-Ossetia, an endeavour
already backed by the USA as stated in December 2013 by Victoria Nuland, the
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.
43
Constrained by the
2014 pull-out from Afghanistan, the USA seems to have engaged Moscow in the
364 Sergei Konoplyov and Igor Delanoe
¨
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 11:37 21 July 2014
eastern shore’s security system, thus not challenging Russia’s interests in the
Caucasus, in order to maintain stability in the Southern Gas Corridor.
On the other hand, the BMD appears to be the most difficult issue in USA– Russia
relations. Romania plays a key role in the NATO missile defence architecture as it
hosts elements of the second phase of the European Phased Adaptive Approach
(EPAA). Interceptor missiles are scheduled to be deployed in the Deveselu airbase in
southern Romania by 2015 while work to overhaul the base has been underway since
October 2013.
44
However, following the November 2013 agreement on Iran’s nuclear
programme, relations between Washington and Teheran might improve in the
midterm. This could potentially question the raison d’e
ˆtre of the BMD which is aimed
at preventing any potential missile attacks, mainly from Iran, against Europe. In the
context of the development of the BMD, Turkey also plays a key role: Ankara accepted
in September 2011 to host on its soil an AN/TPY-2 radar, as a part of the European
BMD.
45
Romania also contributes to the US withdrawal from Afghanistan as a transit
hub for American troops. In October 2013, Washington and Bucharest signed a
bilateral agreement that would allow the USA to switch its flight operations from
Kyrgyzstan’s Manas airbase to Romania. Washington has been allowed to use the
Mihail Kogalniceanu airbase as well as the nearby port of Constanta in order to
withdraw its 52,000 troops from Afghanistan.
46
The subsequent increase in NATO
naval activity around Constanta has made Ankara’s involvement essential for the
USA, since Turkey has shown in the past reluctance to any unilateral increase of US
naval activity in the Black Sea. The revitalization of the US – Turkish partnership has
been more broadly a part of the Obama administration’s effort to build a new
approach to relationships with countries in the Middle East.
47
Washington sees
Ankara as a key partner to deal with Middle Eastern issues as well as with the EU, as a
key economic actor and an energy hub, and as a NATO member state.
48
Moreover,
there are ongoing outstanding tensions between Turkey and its neighbourhood, in
particular with Greece, Cyprus and Armenia, while the country has borders with
sensitive actors such as Syria, Iraq and Iran. NATO appears to be the key American
driver on the western shore of the Black Sea. The Alliance has furthermore already
planned to hold its next exercise, Trident Juncture, in Southern Europe in 2015. This
exercise should be six to seven times bigger than Steadfast Jazz which was held in early
November 2013 in Poland and in the Baltic states, with the involvement of 6000
NATO personnel as well as military from Ukraine, Sweden and Finland. Yet, the USA
only sent 300 personnel. Trident Juncture’s aim is to preserve Afghanistan-era
cooperation between member states through the Connected Forces Initiative (CFI).
49
Conclusion
Following the US withdrawal from Iraq and the forthcoming pull-out from
Afghanistan, the ‘pivot to Asia’ is likely to impact Washington’s involvement in the
Black Sea area. Washington needs to maintain constructive relations with Moscow to
deal with major international security issues such as arms control, Afghanistan, Iran
or stability in the Middle East. In that regard, the USA does not have any interest in
challenging Russia in its so-called sphere of ‘privileged interests’. Although
Continuities and Ruptures 365
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 11:37 21 July 2014
supporting democratization in the region is not the priority it used to be during most
of the 2000s, Washington still maintains a presence through NATO and energy
security remains a key driver of its involvement in the area despite the ongoing shale
gas revolution. Nevertheless, regional hegemons, namely, Russia and Turkey, have
gained more influence and leverage in the Black Sea stage. Russia has already seized
this opportunity, as Armenia’s choice for the Russian-led Customs Union and recent
developments in Ukraine have demonstrated. Turkey has claimed its sovereignty over
the Eastern Mediterranean offshore gas reserves, reviving tensions with Cyprus. On
the other hand, the EU has not been able to fill the strategic vacuum left by the
waning American influence in the region as shown again by its inability to deal with
the Ukrainian crisis.
Yet, one of Washington’s best assets in the area remains Turkey. Ankara continues
to be a major energy hub for Europe’s energy security, and as a NATO member state,
it is furthermore involved in the BMD. In addition, Turkey remains a key stakeholder
in the Cypriot and Nagorno-Karabakh protracted conflicts. Solving the Cypriot
frozen conflict and reconciling Israel and Turkey would unlock energy issues in the
Levant, and enhance Ankara’s role as an East – West energy corridor. Moreover, it
could give a new impetus to the negotiations over the resolution of other Black Sea
protracted conflicts, like the one in Nagorno-Karabakh. As for energy security, the
exploitation of Ukrainian and Romanian shale gas reserves with the assistance of
major European and American energy companies is likely to enhance Europe’s energy
independence in the long term. In Ukraine, the USA will closely work with the EU
and Russia to settle the crisis and maintain Ukraine’s mainland territorial integrity.
Today, in the context of the ‘pivot to Asia’, Washington’s diplomacy in the Black Sea
is reactive rather than proactive. The US retrenchment from the Black Sea stage
should be acknowledged by the EU as an opportunity to take the lead and engage
other stakeholders like Russia and Turkey, to solve security issues and transcend the
traditional competitive ‘zero sum game’ approach that still characterize the region
today. Brussels should overhaul its EaP which has failed to meet expectations as
demonstrated by both the Armenian and Ukrainian episodes, while enhancing its
strategic role in the Black Sea before its soft power and attractiveness fades.
Nevertheless, none of this would be possible without a key role for the USA.
Notes
[1] Bruce Lawlor, ‘The Black Sea: center of the nuclear black market’, Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, 67(6), 2011, p. 73.
[2] Eleven countries established BSEC in Istanbul in June 1992. Today, it numbers 12 member
states, including Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova,
Romania, Russia, Serbia, Turkey and Ukraine.
[3] Quoted by Dimitrios Triantaphyllou, ‘The “security paradoxes” of the Black Sea region’,
Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 9(3), 2009, p. 237.
[4] Charles King, ‘Is the Black Sea a region?’, in Oleksandr Pavliuk and Ivanna Klympush-
Tsintsadze (eds), The Black Sea Region: Cooperation and Security Building, East West Institute,
Armonk, NY, 2004, p. 16.
366 Sergei Konoplyov and Igor Delanoe
¨
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 11:37 21 July 2014
[5] Baptiste Chatre
´and Ste
´phane Delory, ‘The Black Sea area within the international system:
the struggle for influence between the United States and Russia’, in Ivan Ruxandra (ed.),
New Regionalism or No Regionalism? Emerging Regionalism in the Black Sea Area, Ashgate,
Burlington, VT, 2012, p. 52.
[6] Zeyno Baran and Robert A. Smith, ‘The energy dimension in American policy towards the
Black Sea region’, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 7(2), 2007, p. 266.
[7] Ariel Cohen and Conway Irwin, ‘US strategy in the Black Sea region’, Backgrounder, 1990, The
Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC, 13 December 2006, p. 3.
[8] Ste
´phane Delory and Tetyana Boburka, ‘Les enjeux e
´nerge
´tiques en mer Noire. Paradoxes et
ambiguı
¨te
´des politiques des diffe
´rents acteurs’, in Baptiste Chatre and Ste
´phane Delory (eds),
Conflits et se
´curite
´dans l’espace de la mer Noire: l’Union europe
´enne, les riverains et les autres,
Editions Panthe
´on Assas, Paris, 2009, pp. 195– 196.
[9] Iris Kempe and Kurt Klotzle, ‘The Balkans and the Black Sea region: problems, potentials, and
policy options’, C·A·P Policy Analysis, 2, Bertelsmann Group for Policy Research, Gu
¨tersloh,
2006, p. 9.
[10] Mustafa Aydin, ‘Contending agendas for the Black Sea region. A regional alternative’,
Democratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, 20(1), 2012, p. 48.
[11] Jim Nichol, Georgia [Republic]: Recent Developments and U.S. Interests, Congressional
Research Service, Washington, DC, 13 July 2012, pp. 10– 11.
[12] See NATO– Georgia relations on NATO website: ,http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/top
ics_38988.htm.(accessed 12 February 2014).
[13] Fiona Hill, ‘A not-so-grand strategy: U.S. policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia since 1991’,
Politique e
´trange
`re, 1/2001, February 2001.
[14] Ross Wilson, ‘US policy in the Black Sea region’, Turkish Policy Quarterly, 5(2), 2006,
pp. 20– 21.
[15] Mitat Celikpala, ‘Escalating rivalries and diverging interests: prospects for stability and
security in the Black Sea region’, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 10(3), 2010, p. 292.
[16] Mitat C¸ elikpala, ‘Security in the Black Sea region’, Policy Report II, Commission on the Black
Sea, Gu
¨tersloh, 2010, p. 16.
[17] Simon Pirani, Jonathan Stern and Katja Yafimava, ‘The April 2010 Russo-Ukrainian gas
agreement and its implications for Europe’, NG 42, The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies,
Oxford, June 2010, p. 12.
[18] In 2007, while he was Prime Minister, Viktor Yanukovych already stated that Ukraine was not
yet ready to consider possible NATO membership. See NATO website: ,http://www.nato.int/
cps/en/SID-841CFFBE-119EBD6D/natolive/topics_37750.htm.(accessed 12 February
2014).
[19] See White House website: ,http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/readout-presidents-
call-with-president-elect-yanukovych-ukraine.(accessed 12 February 2014).
[20] See Hillary Clinton’s speech at Kyiv Polytechnic Institute: ,http://m.state.gov/md143941.
htm.(accessed 17 February 2014).
[21] Steven Woehrel, ‘Ukraine: current issues and US policy’, CRS Report for Congress,
Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, 24 May 2013, p. 3.
[22] Olena Tregub, ‘Passion has disappeared in US– Ukraine relationship’, Kyiv Post, 6 December
2012, ,https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/passion-has-disappeared-in-us-ukraine-
relationship-317270.html .(accessed 12 February 2014).
[23] Among the irregularities, the OSCE noticed the use of state resources for campaign purposes,
the lack of balance in media coverage and troubles in vote counting. See Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe, Georgia, Parliamentary Elections, 21 May 2008, OSCE/
ODIHR Election Observation Mission: Final Report, Vienna, 9 September 2008.
[24] Lincoln A. Mitchell, ‘More than location: crafting a US policy for the Black Sea region’,
Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 8(2), 2008, p. 136.
[25] Nichol, op. cit., p. 2.
[26] Ibid., p. 11.
Continuities and Ruptures 367
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 11:37 21 July 2014
[27] Ibid., p. 16.
[28] ‘No NATO membership for Georgia, Ukraine in 2014’, Ria Novosti, 22 October 2013, ,http://
en.ria.ru/world/20131022/184292221.html.(accessed 12 February 2014).
[29] ‘NATO Military Committee acknowledges Georgia’s progress in defence reforms’, NATO
website, 11 February 2014, ,http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-FFE7810A-AFBA4F88/natol
ive/news_107032.htm?selectedLocale¼en .(accessed 12 February 2014).
[30] ‘Грузия продолжит курс на интеграцию в ЕС и НАТО’ [Georgia pursues its way to EU and
NATO integration], Black Sea News, 17 January 2014, ,http://www.blackseanews.net/read/
75565.(accessed 12 February 2014).
[31] Oksana Antonenko, ‘Towards a comprehensive regional security framework in the Black Sea
region after the Russia – Georgia war’, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 9(3), 2009,
p. 267.
[32] O
¨zgu
¨r O
¨zdamar, ‘Security and military balance in the Black Sea region’, Southeast European
and Black Sea Studies, 10(3), 2010, p. 354.
[33] F. Stephen Larrabee, ‘The United States and security in the Black Sea region’, Southeast
European and Black Sea Studies, 9(3), 2009, p. 311.
[34] Antonenko, op. cit., p. 265.
[35] ‘Secretary Kerry: June 2013 remarks with Azerbaijani Foreign Minister before their meeting’,
3 June 2013. See on Secretary of State website: ,http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/
2013/06/210214.htm.(accessed 12 February 2014).
[36] ‘Ukraine postpones agreement with ExxonMobil to February’, Natural Gas Europe, 27 January
2014, ,http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/ukraine-agreement-exxonmobil-delays-febru
ary.(accessed 12 February 2014).
[37] ‘Украина и Азербайджан могут наладить поставки сжиженного газа через Грузию’
[Ukraine and Azerbaijan could provide supplies of liquefied natural gas via Georgia], Black
Sea News, 15 November 2013, ,http://www.blackseanews.net/read/73042.(accessed 12
February 2014).
[38] Neil Buckley, ‘Ukraine’s shale gas lures Western companies’, Financial Times, 14 November
2013, ,http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/abe8802a-4d0c-11e3-9f40-00144feabdc0.html.
(accessed 12 February 2014).
[39] The ‘Varyags to the Greeks’ route was a trade route that connected the Baltic region to the
Byzantine Empire through the Kievan Rus’ lands and the Black Sea between the early 9th
century and the 11th century.
[40] O
¨zdamar, op. cit., p. 356.
[41] Woehrel, op. cit., p. 11.
[42] Jim Nichol, ‘Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: political developments and implications for
U.S. interests’, CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, 24
January 2013, pp. 36–37.
[43] ‘Госдеп США:Грузия должна наладить отношения с Абхазией и Цхинвали’ [US
Department of State: Georgia must establish relations with Abkhazia and Tskinvali], News
Day.az, 7 December 2013, ,http://news.day.az/georgia/450415.html.(accessed 12 February
2014).
[44] ‘US starts building anti-missile shield in Romania’, Voice of Russia, 28 October 2013, ,http://
voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_10_28/NATO-building-anti-missile-shield-in-Romania-2686/
.(accessed 12 February 2014).
[45] Mustafa Kibarog
˘lu, ‘Turkey’s place in the “Missile Shield”’, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern
Studies, 15(2), 2013, pp. 223–236.
[46] ‘US to use Romanian air base for Afghan pullout’, BBC News, 18 October 2013, ,http://www.
bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24590082.(accessed 12 February 2014).
[47] Beniamin Poghosyan, ‘US– Turkish relations in the Obama era’, The RUSI Journal, 158(1),
2013, p. 40.
368 Sergei Konoplyov and Igor Delanoe
¨
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 11:37 21 July 2014
[48] Tarık Og
˘uzlu, ‘Testing the strength of the Turkish– American strategic relationship through
NATO: convergence or divergence within the Alliance?’, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern
Studies, 15(2), 2013, pp. 207–222.
[49] The Economist, ‘Back to basics’, 16 November 2013, p. 55.
Sergei Konoplyov is Director of the Black Sea Regional Security Program and of the
US– Russia Security Program at Harvard University. A former officer of the Soviet
Armed Forces, he served in several military missions in Africa, Latin America and
Central Asia. A graduate of the Moscow Military Institute, he also holds a degree from
Kyrgyz University in Journalism and a Master’s degree in Public Administration from
the Kennedy School of Government. He received his PhD at the Kiev Institute for
International Relations.
Address for correspondence: National Security Program, John F. Kennedy School of
Government, 79 John F. Kennedy Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. Email:
sergei_konoplyov@harvard.edu
Igor Delanoe
¨holds a PhD in Modern and Contemporary History from the
University of Nice Sophia Antipolis in Nice (France). His research interests include
Russian defence and security issues, Russian interests in the Mediterranean and in the
Middle East, and the geopolitics of Russia and post-Soviet space. During his
postdoctoral fellowship at Harvard University (JFK School of Government and
Ukrainian Research Institute), he expanded his field of study to include US interests
and security issues in the wider Black Sea area.
Address for correspondence: Email: igor.delanoe@gmail.com
Continuities and Ruptures 369
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 11:37 21 July 2014