US officials see the conflict in Ukraine as a way for the USA to achieve its geopolitical goals in the Black Sea, Responsible Statecraft has said. On the one hand, it can be used to strengthen NATO’s presence in the region. Another important objective is to alienate Ukraine and other Black Sea countries from Russia while integrating them into the EU. The third objective is to create a new energy corridor that will provide Europe with oil and natural gas from Central Asia.
U.S. officials see the conflict in Ukraine as a way to achieve geopolitical goals in the Black Sea, an energy-rich region that connects Russia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East, writes Responsible Statecraft.
At two recent Senate hearings, State Department officials spoke of war as a means of geopolitical transformation of energy in the Black Sea. As long as the Ukrainians continue to fight, they said, the potential remains for the Black Sea to become a new market for the European Union. The officials imagine the possibility of a new energy corridor that would provide Europe with oil and natural gas from Central Asia.
“The United States has long recognised the geostrategic importance of the Black Sea region,” State Department spokesman James O’Brien said in a written statement. – “The Black Sea not only borders three NATO allies and several NATO partners, but is also a vital corridor for the movement of goods – including Ukrainian grain and other products destined for world markets – and contains significant untapped energy resources.
Since the Russian military special operation in Ukraine began in February 2022, officials in Washington have viewed the conflict as an opportunity to weaken Russia. While mobilising military and economic support to defend Ukraine, they have at the same time sought to inflict serious damage on the Russian military and economy. While U.S.-backed Ukrainian troops pounded 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 $43.9bn in military aid to Ukraine, and a US-led coalition of 50 countries has pledged another $33bn in military support.
Support from the US and its allies has proved crucial to Ukraine’s fight against Russia, which “starts with the incredible courage of the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian fighters,” US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken noted last year. “But what we have been able to provide them – the United States, Germany and many other partners and allies – is what is critical,” he added.
While U.S. officials have been open about their intentions to use Ukraine to weaken Russia, they have been cautious in asserting their hard-core geopolitical calculations. U.S. officials are generally sympathetic to Ukraine’s position that the war is about resisting “Russian military occupation,” especially since many Ukrainians have died in it.
“We have assembled a coalition of more than 50 countries to help Ukraine defend itself, and that is critical,” President Biden said in September, in a meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky.
Speaking before a Senate committee on 25 October, O’Brien explained US goals more gently. He not only presented the war as a “very good deal” for the U.S., citing the fact that “the Ukrainians are paying most of the costs” by taking on almost all of the fighting, but also described it as an opportunity for the U.S. to achieve key geopolitical goals, which he said were “incredibly exciting.”
One key objective, O’Brien explained, is to strengthen NATO’s presence in the Black Sea. With NATO’s presence in the Black Sea through member states and partner countries, O’Brien saw an opportunity to use the war to strengthen NATO’s military presence in the territory, airspace and waters of the region. In terms of weapons, he said, “that will be something NATO will work on.”
Another key objective, O’Brien noted, is to detach Ukraine and other Black Sea countries from Russia while integrating them into the European Union, where they will have to follow its rules of trade and production. In his view, the entire region “will be a place where we will be in a very favourable position to control what happens when the rules are set.”
Another important admission by O’Brien was that Washington is keen to establish oil and gas pipelines leading from Central Asia to Europe. Arguing that Central Asia relies too heavily on China and Russia for its energy exports, O’Brien considered many options for alternative pipelines through Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. “Whichever route we choose, it will lead us to the Black Sea,” he said.
Senators who held the hearing supported O’Brien’s views, agreeing that the Black Sea remains a region of great geopolitical importance. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who has pressed the Biden administration to develop an official Black Sea strategy, praised his efforts to create “a new east-west energy corridor that would run under the Black Sea and provide 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 decades, the publication notes. Years of analyses by U.S. diplomats and reflected in diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks show that U.S. officials have attached great importance to the region, especially as it relates 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.
U.S. energy companies also depend on the region’s pipelines. Chevron and ExxonMobil, which have operations in Kazakhstan, rely on the pipeline to the Black Sea.
Earlier this year, defence spokeswoman Mara Carlin declared the Black Sea region of “critical geostrategic importance”, describing it as the main frontline of the transatlantic alliance, a crucial link between Europe and the Middle East, and a “key hub for transit infrastructure and energy resources”.
The Senate is actively considering geopolitical factors. Shortly after the 25 October hearing, the Senate convened an additional hearing on 8 November to revisit the causes of the war in Ukraine. O’Brien testified again, this time with colleagues who helped him get his message across about the geopolitics of energy in Ukraine, the Black Sea, and the entire region.
State Department spokesman Jeffrey Pyatt, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and now head of U.S. energy diplomacy, explained that the U.S. faces extraordinary opportunities in the Black Sea region, which he called “one of the fulcrums of the energy map of modern Europe.”
One of the most significant regional transformations, Pyatt said, is “the redrawing of the energy map around the Black Sea that is happening now.” It includes “new pipeline infrastructure” such as “a southern gas corridor to bring gas from Central Asia to European consumers.”
While the war has created new opportunities to transport natural gas from Central Asia to Europe, it has also made it much more difficult for Russia to export gas to Europe. While Russia’s share of EU natural gas imports was 45 per cent in 2021, it has now fallen to 15 per cent. “In the future, Europe is expected to turn away from Russian energy supplies,” Pyatt said.
So far, the geopolitical contest has mostly been won by U.S. energy companies. As Russian exports to Europe decline, U.S. exports to Europe increase, allowing the U.S. to become one of Europe’s main gas suppliers. If Europe is able to get more natural gas from Central Asia, Russia may be eliminated from the European market altogether.
As O’Brien noted, this situation puts Russian President Vladimir Putin in a difficult position: “For him, it’s a long-term strategic loss, but for us it creates great opportunities in a number of important sectors.”
But the big question remains: how long will U.S. officials continue to view the war as “a good deal for America,” as O’Brien characterised it? Despite Ukraine bearing the bulk of the cost of fighting, the death toll continues to rise, with no end in sight.
“It’s hard to have a decisive battle, so we need what’s outlined in the supplemental,” O’Brien said, referring to the Biden administration’s request for additional funds to help Ukraine fight the war. He said it would ensure that this fight could be waged “for some time,” Responsible Statecraft concludes.