The Black Sea triangles: Is there a solution?

Andrei KLIMENKO, BSNews

Translation from Russian
by Alexey SOLOVIEV, BSNews

The end of June 2010. The conference "Triangle Ukraine - Romania - Moldova: ...” organized by the Odessabranch of the National Institute for Strategic Studies. It was there, when even the first, superficial glance at the almost unknown in the Crimea Transnistrian conflict developed into persistent image that the whole Black Sea coastline is dotted with identical, still different, but at the same time impalpably similar triangles of conflicts.

Moldova (Romania) – Transnistria – Ukraine (Russia); Moldova – Romania – Ukraine; Crimea - Ukraine – Russia... What one can then say about the exoticism of the Caucasus, where dozens of triangles embedded and superimposed on each other andwhimsicallyintertangled: Armenia (Nagorno-Karabakh) - Azerbaijan (Nakhichevan) – Turkey; Abkhazia (South Ossetia) - Russia – Georgia; Ossetia - Ingushetia – Russia; Russia - Armenia – Azerbaijan; Turkey - Iraq – Kurdistan, etc and etc… Probably in the Greater Caucasus one can tell the actual number of such triangles only by multiplying by three the number of major local nations and ethic groups...

Let us put forward the first hypothesis:

inside each triangle, one can run indefinitely without any success (or artsy-craftsy imitate running activity) in assumption that this or that problem is to iron itself out, while the conflict cannot be solved in principle.

Thus, the second hypothesis stems out:

“Defrost” and subsequent solution of such kind of conflicts are possible only from outside, as it was demonstrated by both cases: the one of the Balkans and the one of August 2008.

If our hypotheses on inability to resolve the conflict within such triangles are true – then, for example, it is pointless to continue to consider the Crimean problems within the framework of the familiar triangle: the Crimea – Kyiv – Moscow. It is anything, but simple. Triangle is a rigid figure.

To break out of the triangles, we must set up the wider framework - the natural geographical one - the Black Sea region ...

In the 21st Century transit of energy from the Caspian area to Europeby sea and/or by land becomes the main mission of the Black Sea region.

The terms “pipeline war” and “pipeline troops” came into being. Exciting plots of fight between the South Stream and Nabucco with their various alterations and leadaways, as well as involvement of the EU, U.S., the Black and non-Black Sea countries have already become evident.

It would seem, the very fact of new activity in the transit of energy should lead to prosperity of the countries involved: Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Bulgaria, Rumania, Ukraine.

But instead we see the opposite, no matter how tough it sounds: the Black Sea region faces the building up of the risk of military conflict. It is more and more often regarded as one of the most contentious regions of the world.

It is very likely that the region now draws on itself the dubious laurels of the Balkans. After the European Union has almost unleashed the Balkan knot through the EU admittance of the former Yugoslavia’s fragments, geopolitical tension shifted to the next segment of the arc of instability – the Black Sea and Caspian regions. Being the outermost part of the arc of instability is not good. For the economy this means political risks for businesses. And the issue of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the Crimea should be considered in this projection …

And one more point. The Black Sea in the 21st Centuryhas developed into a buffer area between the European continent and the global hotbed of instability – Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

If to agree to the fact that probability of conflict is on increase, here comes the question: "Well, actually, what is to be done about it?"

Speaking of the Black Sea region, we can consider two theoretical, abstract models, realizing at the same time that – as famous writer A. Chekhov once put it – a riflehanging on the wall, will in the third act, or sooner or later, go off. It can really go off or shoot as military people are keen to fight and this is what they are needed for.

Or it can be a shooting accident – a few years ago in Sevastopol one of the naval ships gave a fighting volley at the city from the gun, which was left undischarged after training exercises. Thank God that everything turned out well.

Of course, if we do not want any gun shooting, then complete demilitarization of the Black Sea is the ideal answer to the situation.

This means to pull out all the fleets and to leave only the Coast Guards and Marine Guards to fight against smuggling, secure the border regime, control the fishing in the economic zones, etc. This is a hypothetical scheme and it is most unlikely to happen in the particular historical situation.

There is an opposite extreme – if demilitarization is impossible, then there is a need for an international militarization.

Forexample, let’s imagine again hypothetical and ideal situation: for stability and protection of investments in the Crimea and all over the Black Sea region to have an international squadron at anchorage in the heart of the region in Sebastopol. And let it include: a Russian cruiser, a Ukrainian frigate, a Romanian assault landing ship, a Bulgarian corvette, a Turkish landing ship, a Georgian missile boat, etc.

Such squadron with declared primary mission of operational cover, anti-aircraft and counter missile defense and anti-terror operations, would become a strong factor of stability in the region.

Naturally, the question arises: defense from whom? Modern threats aren’t any secret. A missile can come from Iran or Pakistan direction or a terrorist network could snap into action. At long last, hard-hitting man-made disasters, emergency situations, natural disasters may occur – the entire Black Sea region is a seismic one.

Just cast mind back to the year of 2007, when in the Kerch Strait and in the eastern part of the Black Sea about a dozen ships drowned immediately – then all over the sea they were looking for a towing hawser able to get afloat the crippled ships with relatively small – 5 thousand tons – displacement. It turned out that the forcewith modern air, sea, underwater equipment and facilities is not available to provide quick and efficient assistance to those who are in distress at sea.

So, theoretically, we have here two extremes. Thus, demilitarization is impossible, while the number of prerequisites is in existence for militarization, which is the word used by the author without any political complexion.

A number of naval programs has long existed in the Black Sea – Blackseafor, and Black Sea Harmony, and the Active Endevour and the Black Sea Synergy, and Sea Breeze – which to different extend involve the navies of all Black Sea states, even the ones in the conflict.

Among the above mentioned, one of the most interesting is the Blackseafor, as there despite the current relations between Russia and Georgia, the Georgian navy sailors are involved in the activation of Blackseafor along with the Russian ones and the command is periodically handed over from one country to the other country, while the naval group conducts regular exercises.

At the same time Sevastopol should be for sure considered as the base of such combined squadron. For the city thiscan be the best way out from the dead end which it faces now.

After Kharkov agreements between Ukraine and Russia on prolongation of the naval base lease by the Black Sea Fleet of Russia till 2042 were signed, even the small air ventilation aperture, not a real window, but really a small aperture for investment opportunities and possibilities of the economic breakthrough, which Sevastopol expected due to withdrawal of the Black Sea Fleet of Russia, was shut.

Forever or not? – Nothing stays forever. Most likely, for sometime. Certainly, after Kharkov agreements many foreign investors who have recently studied really promising prospects of Sevastopol development pressed the brake and took a pause at least, if not abandoned the idea at all.

In this context, Sevastopol has certainly lost, and this loss will soon become pretty evident within the framework of the fleet modernization, which is to take place inevitably. According to media reports on the warships to be built for the Russian Black Sea Fleet, their characteristics will be as follows: small in size, high tech modern ships with a very small crew... This will inevitably lead to continuation of decline of the role of the navy as an employer, a taxpayer, a source of cash flow to the area. Sevastopol has still to think about employment of its population. And the investment pause, which occurred after the Kharkiv agreements is, for sure, not in its favor.

As for the Crimea, signing of Kharkiv agreements resulted in the immediate peak reaction – more Russian tourists visited the Crimea this year.

The figures are not clear yet, but the outer indicators and interviews of tourism business professionals prove: there was reaction of the Russians. This reaction was predictable, as the tourism business law is: nobody wants to go on visit to enemies or spend holidays among them. After Kharkov they caught their breath – "Wow, everything is fine, the navy stays" – the main reason for the Russian-Ukrainian hatred is eliminated, thus one can go to the Crimea for holidays.

But the issue is: in this very situation, the Crimea has as usual acted as a single visit resort. Tourists came after long absence due to their fears, concerns and lack of desire and realized again that holiday standards in the Crimea remained at the same level, and that the well known problems though saw some slight improvements, but still remained there. The following year they again will go to Turkey, Bulgaria, Egypt, Romania, despite the fact that Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania are the countries of, using the Soviet times term, "aggressive NATO bloc".

Sooner or later the whole climate in the region will be seriously influenced by the geopolitical rivalry between Russia and Turkey.

Despite the increased economic cooperation between Russia and Turkey, it is clear that in its present state Moscow will hardly tolerate Turkish intent to become the apparent leader not only in the Black Sea, but also in the Black Sea-Caspian and Black Sea-Mediterranean regions.

Moreover, it is already termed as the new Pan Osmanizm and the new Pan-Turkism as result of observations of such analogies in Turkish foreign policy activity, which in recent years powerfully and unexpectedly denoted claims for regional leadership on the international level.

As it turned out, extension of the term of stay of the Russian Black Sea Fleet was just one action out of the manifold set of Russian foreign policy. Extension of military bases in Armenia for an equally long period was the second action.

We understand that it has already produced reaction – the first stove-piping on Turkish military base in Nakhichevan as a response to the words of the Russian president at the CSTO meeting in Yerevan, that in the case of military conflict Russia would support Armenia, including the military means.

Deployment of S-300 missiles both in South Ossetia, and, possibly, in Abkhazia has became a reality. It will overlap with installation of the anti-ballistic missiles system (ABM system) in Romania and other efforts to upgrade the armed forces of the region against the background of the pipeline war, which will be gaining momentum.

All this might instigate a new round of the arms race in the Black Sea.

We are to live in an increasingly dangerous region. Regarding the outlook for the next 5-10 years it will not add stability needed for tourism and investment.

Within this context, one should speak on the Black Sea Policy of Ukraine, and the initiation of this policy by the Crimea in terms of designing a normal future for the whole Black Sea region.

The Crimea is more than anyone interested in peace in Transnistria, Abkhazia, Ossetia, as well as in all the diseased triangles. There is no one other area more interested objectively in peace in the Black Sea region and partnership than the Crimea. Let us recall the situation of 2 years ago – a five-day Russo-Georgian war ... Well, who would go to the Crimea, when fighting with the use of aircraft, missiles, etc is taking place 400 km away, while fighting ships of one participating party are based in the Crimea ...

Taking all the aforesaid into consideration, we can say that the Black Sea region as a kind of regional community does not yet exist, while “the Black Sea breakout” is in existence …

Region – if to regard it not merely as "a fragment of a map" – is something interconnected or united through activities, history, common problems, cultural codes, projects, etc.

In this article we are not going to delve into the specifics of the concept of "region". If our readers express any desire we can later dedicate separate articles to the review of this curious notion. Right now let's ask a couple of simple questions:

1. Do countries, washed by the waves of the Black Sea, consider themselves to be responsible for preservation of peace and stability in the Black Sea region?

2. Is any of the countries, washed by the waves of the Black Sea, ready to form a powerful "Black Sea policy" aimed at consolidating and harmonizing the interests and efforts of all riparian states and not only to its own benefit?

3. What kind of relations the coastal states of the Black Sea have with each other?

4. Are people of those countries interested in what is happening on the opposite shore of the Black Sea?

5. Are there any examples of joint economic projects that have been successfully implemented over the last 20 years with participation of at least the majority of the Black Sea region countries?

You can carry on along the same lines, but still everything is clear ... Something prompts - if one seriously analyzes the theme of "the Black Sea region", the conclusion will be, as follows:

The Black Sea region as a kind of some united community does not exist. History of the Black Sea region seems more often to be the history of confrontation. The Black Sea divides more than unites ...

But if it is so and if (so far?) we deal not with the Black Sea region as a system of cohesiveness but with the "Black Sea breakout" as a system of conflicts, the main issue for the region is security.

So it would be correct if the civil society, government and parties of the Crimea reach beyond the limits of triangle Crimea-Kiev-Moscow and would look around the Black Sea area and come out with a number of initiatives able to reduce political risks in the region.

Such initiatives could be:

1) development of one joint naval project in the Black Sea,

incorporation of all naval co-operation projects into one. This is the issue of Heads of State level. Therefore in the foreseeable future it is necessary to initiate in the Crimea – in a year and a half or two - the new Yalta conference, the summit of Heads of States, top officials of the Black Sea region, plus the European structures, plus the international security structures and raise there questions about the entire system of political risks in this region.

In this system of political risks there is one of the Crimean problems - the relationship of the Crimean Tatar people with the Slavic majority on the territory of the Crimea. By the way, this is the case, where the Crimea could export its experience, because in comparison with the Armenian-Azerbaijani relations or relations between Transdniestria and Moldova, the sparks that run between the Crimean Tatars and the Slavs in the Crimea are just “child's babble on the lawn”. There, everything is manifold more painful, complicated and explosive. And the very fact, that throughout 20 years here, by us, we have not brought the matter to an acute massive conflict - it is our positive heritage, our value, it is our, if you want, export commodity.

2) the reform, reorganization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, which is on decline during the last few years.

3) creation of the Black Sea free trade area, the introduction of visa-free travel among all the Black Sea countries, establishment of the Black Sea Union in the long run.

* * *

Habitually our politicians, journalists and society in general use approaches of the 20th Century to talk about security issues, military bases, the Black Sea Fleet, and for some reason do not realize one plain thing, though they all watch American action movies. The issue is that it is not the war of the future, but it is already the war of the nowadays, when somewhere in California an operator uses a joystick or a mouse to control a group alignment of unmanned aerial vehicles, stationed 25 thousand miles away. And just by pressing the Enter key on the keyboard launches a high-precision missile aimed at a specific motor car with a leader of terrorists.

This modern war is absolutely not the war which needs ships with huge gun mounts. This is the war which needs engineers, technology, computer systems and satellites. All the rest traditional military "metal pieces" are mostly just a tourist attraction, a tribute to the past, a symbol of some kind ... In the best of cases - a means to disperse demonstrations. But hardly a means to safeguard security.

Terminology of the 20th century should be left to historians to use, we are to learn to think in terms of the 21-th ... And one thing more. It is necessary to think, whether it is possible to solve the problems of "the Black Sea triangles" at once rather than individually? This approach might seem fantastic, but it is worth trying.

What if? The goal is worth it ...