RUSSIA AND SOME ASPECTS OF CURRENT DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITUATION IN THE BLACK SEA REGION

08.07.2010

RUSSIA AND SOME ASPECTS OF CURRENT DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITUATION IN THE BLACK SEA REGION

Mikhail Aghajanyan

The development of the foreign political processes in the Black Sea region demonstrates the preservation of the confrontational relations between the main powers in the region. The well-known attempts of the countries which are not from that region, and firstly the US, to consolidate their positions in the region through the creation and deepening of the military and political ties with the countries of the Black Sea region, building there their own military infrastructure, become even more manifested.

This is especially tangible and has all the prospects for the further deepening against the background of the developing processes in the relations between three biggest countries in the Black Sea region – Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. If before the latest elections in Ukraine Washington rather successfully controlled the balance of power in the region in general by not allowing the full cooperation between Russia and Turkey on the Black Sea, after Yanukovich’s accession to power, one can expect from the US new actions directed to the preservation of that balance. The successes of Russia in the Ukrainian direction which have been definitely manifested and directly touched upon the issue of the military and political balance on the Black Sea¹, may cause concern of Washington connected with the aspiration of Turkey to set closer relations with Russia in the issues connected with the Black Sea region. In this connection the intensification of anti-Russian rhetoric is observed in Romania which can be considered the compensatory resource of Washington after the departure of V. Yushenko.

But only Romania cannot provide the convenient position of the US in the relations with Russia that is why one should also expect intensification of the American influence on the other partner of the US in the region – Bulgaria. It is obvious that besides Romania and Bulgaria the US has no other convenient partners in the Black Sea region which would give them, besides the existing close relations, more convenient station for the solution of the main issue – setting strong influence of the US on the Black Sea². The role of Bulgaria in the solution of this issue and more particular one connected with it – preventing strengthening of Russia’s position in the region over the whole spectrum of issues, including energy projects – is important to the US due to the following reasons: 1) Romania traditionally has strained relations with Russia³ and Ukraine (in particular the issue of Transdnisteria, territorial dispute with the Ukrainian party and its role as a factor restricting Russia should be intensified by the role of Bulgaria on which Russia put high hopes in both historical section and contemporary conditions. 2)Romania has close relations with Turkey and in the relations of these countries no potential points for conflicts between them (promising for the US) can be observed at the current stage. Against this background Bulgaria has such prospects and probably, in future Washington may succeed in sustaining some conflict elements in Russia-Bulgaria-Turkey triangle with the help of which one can influence the domestic political processes in those countries. 3) Bulgaria is in more difficult situation of energy dependence on Russia than Romania⁴, this fact may be used by Washington for distancing Sofia from Moscow through consolidation of the positions of Turkey⁵ in Bulgaria and vice-versa⁶.

At current stage the most real prospect for the US for consolidating its positions in Romania and Bulgaria is the installation of the missile-defence system on their territories. It can be assumed that the Obama administration will choose more rational scenario of missile-defence system installation in Europe which solves appropriate tasks and which is as close to the Black Sea region as it is possible (as compared to the plans of the preceding administration on installation of the missile-defence system in Czech Republic and Poland)⁷.

The compensatory efforts of the US in regard to Romania and Bulgaria after the presidential elections in Ukraine are proceeding against the background of coming to terms with Russia on a new Agreement on START and because of this they seem more rational and solving versatile goals. Under such conditions for the US it is important to attach to those efforts collective character of the Euroatlantic partnership and thus distance itself from perceiving those efforts as of purely bilateral character. In the mid-February 2010 it turned out that Sofia and Washington carry non-official negotiations on installing the elements of the missile-defence system on the territory of Bulgaria. This was stated by the US ambassador to Bulgaria James Warlick on February 12, 2010. The later underlined that the issue is in the initial stage of discussion⁸. Such plans of the US on attaching to their efforts the wide Euroatlantic basis have been already manifested in the statement by the Bulgarian officials. Thus, the prime-minister B. Borisov in the mid-February 2010 stated that the decision on joining Bulgaria to the American missile-defence programme did not depend exclusively on him: this issue should be approved by the parliament of the country and reconciled with the European commission because Bulgaria is the EU member. The Bulgarian sources mention that the planned installation of the missile-defence system elements in Bulgaria will not be positioned as the US system, but it will be created under the aegis of NATO.

The statements of the Bulgarian officials made in February found their continuation in April 2010. On April 13 the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria V. Cherneva stated at the press-conference that Bulgaria was ready to install the American missile-defence system on its territory. At the same time the representative of Bulgaria underlined the “geographic argumentation” connecting this issue with the fact that due to its geographic location Bulgaria is sensible as for the issue of availability of missiles by Iran that is why there is no reason for the country to stay away from the American missile-defence system.

Russia attaches special importance to the relations with Bulgaria and Russian expert circles follow the dynamics of those relations attentively. When Bulgaria entered NATO there were suppositions made in Russian expert circles about the expected distancing of Sofia and Moscow which found its confirmation in the current developments in general. At the end of April 2004 a “round table” was held in Moscow on “The Views on Russian-Bulgarian relations after the expansion of the EU and NATO”. The following appraisals were made by the well-known Russian experts at that “round table: “Bulgaria’s EU and NATO membership causes very serious changes in both human and political planes” (K. Zatulin, the Director of the CIS Countries Institute), “appearing among the western countries which use Roman alphabet for which the Orthodox culture is not close and understandable, Bulgaria will face the risk of loosing its self-identity” (O. Butorina, the Head of the Chair of the European Integration at MGIMO University)⁹.

Bulgarian-Russian relations continue to be in abeyance. At current stage that abeyance is conditioned by the absence of progress in definite projects between two countries with which at previous stages high hopes were pinned. Among those projects, besides the project of Burgas-Aleksandrupolis oil pipeline, building of Nuclear Power Plant in Belena in Bulgaria by Russia can be mentioned. Regarding this project Bulgaria is under the pressure of the EU structures. Thus, it is known that on March 3, 2010 the EU Commissioner for Energy G. Oettinger visited Bulgaria and according to the European information sources stated in Sofia that they “are very sensitive about the Belene nuclear power plant project''¹⁰.

¹On April 21 in Kharkov Ukraine and Russia concluded an agreement according to which the presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Crimea is prolonged till 2042 (on 25 years since expiration of the previous agreed term – 2017). According to the results of that agreement the president of Ukraine V. Yanukovich made a number of statements which cannot but to alert the powers which are not from the Black Sea region, as well as such structures as the EU and NATO: “the adoption of the decision on that issue was hastened because in my opinion Russia needed some certainty”; “The Russian Black Sea Fleet is a guarantee of the security of the Black Sea countries”. In return the president of Ukraine got the 30% cut rate of the price for the Russian gas. The gas agreements, according to which the Ukraine will get $100 markdown when the cost of gas is more than $330 for thousand cubic meters, were called by the Ukrainian president unpresidented. According to Yanukovich, thanks to that reduction Kiev in the coming 10 years “will get a real investment resource with the toatal value of $40 billion”. Euro-Athlantic structures treated that Russian-Ukrainian agreement restrained. At the meeting of the Ministers of the Foreign Affairs of NATO member countries in Tallin (April 22-23, 2010) it was decided that it was a bilateral agreement and it would affect the relations of NATO neither with Russia nor with Ukranie. According to the Secretary General of NATO A. Rasmussen that agreement does not affect the prospects of Ukraine’s NATO membership.

²There are two US bases located in Romania – in Babagad and at the Mikhail Kogalnicheanu Airport – as well as two firing ranges – Chinku and Smardan. The US has four points of military presence on the territory of Bulgaria – air base in Bezmer (Yamblo province), air base Graf Ignatievo (Plovdiv province), military training centre in Novo Selo (Sliven province) and military transportation centre in Aytos (Burgas province).

³The brief retrospective review of those relations shows that over the period of more than 130 years Romanian Principalities and Russian Empire, Romania and USSR, People’s Republic of Romania and USSR, with some exceptions, had difficult bilateral relations. The Romanian values which were not reclaimed after they were taken to Russia in custody during the World War I, the aftermaths of the Soviet-German Non-aggression pact, setting of the communist regime in Romania – those are only some of the problems which prevent from Russian-Romanian collaboration. The situation with the relations between Russia and Romania did not change essentially after 1990 either, may be because of the fact that many associated the fall of the communist regime in December 1989 with stopping Russian influence on Romania. To be anti-communist meant to be against the Kremlin. So under the influence of the past any approximation of the Romanian authorities to Moscow was condemned. (Павел Морару, Влад Васиу, Балканы и Имперская геополитика, http://www.geopolitica.ru/Articles/918, 23.03.2010).

⁴In the collective work of Bulgarian experts (Boyko Nitzov, Ruslan Stefanov, Valentina Nikolova, Dobromir Hristov, The Energy Sector of Bulgaria, April 2010), published by Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center, which was founded within the scope of the American analytical centre Atlantic Council and deals with the energy issues in the Black Sea, Caspian and Central Asian regions, it was mentioned that Bulgaria is under the geopolitical pressure because of the uncertainty regarding Turkey’s EU membership, active energy policy of Russia, which is often carried out to spite of the EU energy interests and due to the huge dependence of Bulgaria in the supply of the Russian energy resources – almost 100% dependence on the Russian gas supply, 75% dependence on the supply of Russian energy resources “basket” (oil, gas, nuclear fuel, coal).

⁵Turkish press very attentively follows the smallest changes in the issue of the US missile-defence system elements dislocation. Thus, on April 9, 2010 “Hurriyet” Turkish newspaper published the article where it was mentioned that a day before (on April 8) in Prague a meeting between the US president and prime-minister of Bulgaria took place where the later stated that his country would be an active participant to the American plans on missile-defence in Europe in case if the US officially asked them about that.

⁶In this context the agreement between Turkey and Bulgaria on building two liquid gas storehouses is remarkable. That agreement was concluded during the visit of prime-minister of Bulgaria B. Borisov to Turkey (January 19-30, 2010). According to the Bulgarian party two storehouses should be built at the coast of the Sea of Marmora and Aegean Sea. It is planned to supply the gas from there to Lozenets which southwardly from Burgas port. Besides, the agreement between “Bulgargaz” Gas Company and Turkish “Botas” on gas supply from Turkey to Bulgaria in the crisis situations was signed. The commentators mention that both agreements pursue the aim of creation of the alternative routs and sources of energy carries supply to Bulgaria and lessening its dependence on Russia.

⁷The talks about the dislocation of the missile-defence system in the Black Sea region activated after the signing of the START between Russia and US not only on the expert level but also by the military command of the US. Thus, on April 15 the Commander of the Naval Forces Europe American admiral M. Fitzgerald stated that though the plans on missile-defece dislocation in Europe were still to be clarified but it was obvious that Amrican vessels with the elements of the missile-defence system have to patrol the eastern coast of the Mediterranean and the whole Black Sea. (Officials consider European home ports, http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/04/navy_bmd_europe_041910w/, April 19, 2010).

⁸US Ambassador: Missile Shield Will Be Discussed in Bulgaria, April 18, 2010.

⁹Евроатлантическая Болгария: с Россией или без? // «Россия в глобальной политике», № 3, май-июнь 2004.

¹⁰Oettinger tells Sofia to be ‘wiser’ with energy projects, http://www.euractiv.com, 06.04.2010.

June 2010

Return

Another materials of author