Wider Black Sea Region Research Articles

The new EU energy security reality and its impact on the wider Black Sea region

This brief in-depth research “The new EU energy security reality and its impact on the wider Black Sea region” on a security Studies was organized by David Aghmashenebeli National Defence Academy of Georgia, Germany. Its goal is to support the security of the Wider Black Sea Region energy supply chains. The purpose of this project is to answer to the main question: Will EU energy security impact the south-eastern flank of the Euro-Atlantic space. Russia's war in Ukraine has created new problems that are not addressed by outdated security programs and old-fashioned traditional defence approaches. That the war in Ukraine is not the cause of a future conflict against the world order is not a new point of view, furthermore, the war in Ukraine is one of the results of the already existing conflict. It is a real possibility that the Kremlin will continue its aggressive foreign policy towards its neighbours and neighbours of neighbours in order to consolidate global power and "legitimacy". The eternal war in the region exposed the EU’s economic weaknesses in energy exports and supply chains. Military professionals believe that whoever controls the east of the Euro-Atlantic space and/or dominates the Black Sea, can easily project power on the European continent, Central Europe, the Mediterranean, the North/South Caucasus and the Middle East. Russia eternal war has shown us more dependence, weaponization, interference and more vulnerability of the EU Countries; Security is no longer based on the previously established rules. In the near future It’s unlikely that relations between the EU and Russia will be based on beneficial energy relations. The European Union is moving beyond the binary dependency that binds international actors, creating a new reality in which the inclusiveness of energy security extends to several different areas, diversification will be critical for the EU. Supply chains are complicated and messy, it’s implausible to make positive changes overnight. Taking into account Russia sharp growth in military spending, its ability to integrate state resources and masses and it’s "great propensity for risk" makes Russia both a “capable and unpredictable actor”. Russia's blackmail to use nuclear weapons indicates that Kremlin is losing the war due to lack of ammunition and low technological capabilities and in the short term wants to take this war into a protracted or frozen conflict phase. According to the analysis of the processes of the recent past, the stability of the region cannot be successful and effective only with the support of NATO member states on EU's eastern flank. NATO, EU and their partners should have an emergency and long-term assistance strategy for the parties. From the lesson learnt in the last 30+ years on international cooperation issues it is vital that in the next 10-30 years the Euro-Atlantic and regional countries (except Russia) in the region, must counter challenges with collective deterrence of cooperation. Actively promoting stability is possible through the existence of the theory of Russian deterrence. Stability should be achieved by promoting collective deterrence and integration of Russia; a strategy of emergency and long-term assistance not only for alliance members, but also for partners, plus collective deterrence equals fixing and integration of Russia. Speeches and workshops used in editing this paper, Organized by the Research and Policy Analysis Department (RPA) project of Strategic Competition Seminar Series-FY23 SCSS of George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies (GCMC) at Workshop I held in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, 20-24 February 2023 entitled “Alternative Ukrainian Future Trajectories: Implications for Russia and the West” and Workshop II held in Berlin, Germany on 16 May 2023“ (A summary of FY23 SCSS#8 hybrid seminar entitled “What if? Russian Variables, Inflection Points and Game Changers?” at SCSS Workshop II) have been very supportive in the preparation of the paper. For the EU and its partners in the region to support the most desirable outcomes and mitigate the worst considering all scenarios discussed in the paper includes following key take-aways: 1. Relationships and cooperation matter 2. Security guarantees matter

Non-military challenges in the Black Sea

Ethnic groups or national minorities are far from being understood as stable and convergent units in the nation's security efforts. This issue is backed by a substantial scientific record, treated differently in relation to the prevalence of certain political, economic, social and, above all, cultural factors. From an academic point of view, the record of ethnicity-security relations is not uniform and convergent either. Different schools of thought in the political science and security fields look at the issue from different angles. The present article aims to highlight a number of issues related to non-military challenges in the Wider Black Sea Region in the context of the war in Ukraine. We will further assess possible vulnerabilities in the Black Sea riparian states that may become a threat to national security.

Interpreting Russian aims to control the Black Sea region through naval geostrategy (Part Two): ‘Establishing full control over Southern Ukraine and the Donbas is one of the tasks of the Russian Army’

ABSTRACT This is the second article in a study examining the influence of naval geostrategy as a driver influencing Russian policy and military strategy in the Black Sea region. By the mid-2010s, Russia featured a much-improved geostrategic situation in the Black Sea theater as compared to the beginning of the century. Nevertheless, substantial weaknesses remained, some of which Russia has been able to neutralize during the conduct of its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Following an examination of Russian military actions during the Russo-Ukrainian War, the author concludes that the application of military force by Russia in parts of Ukraine and the wider Black Sea region follows a long-term rationale and that Odesa and Mykolaiv, located at the western Black Sea littoral, remain core concerns for Russian military planners, despite the Russian military’s current defensive posture at most sections of the front in southern Ukraine.

THE DYNAMICS OF TURKISHROMANIAN RELATIONS IN THE WIDER BLACK SEA REGION. A NEOLIBERAL PERSPECTIVE

The Wider Black Sea Region is a complex geopolitical construct. On the one hand, the area has a huge potential in terms of raw material extraction, while facilitating the trade between states. On the other hand, within this geographical area there are several frozen conflicts caused by state and non-state actors. In this context, regional geopolitical developments are issues of interest for both Romania and the Republic of Turkey, countries that have numerous common energy, trade and security goals. For this reason, the study starts from the premise that the Romanian-Turkish relations in the Wider Black Sea Region can be viewed from the perspective of the neoliberal theory of international relations. In order to ensure a comprehensive analysis of the subject, a brief history of the political dynamics between the two states, as well as a presentation of the geopolitical aspects of the area were included in the article.

Operațiile și exercițiile maritime – instrumente ale realizării securității regionale la Marea Neagră

After the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Iron Curtain – realities corroborated by the geopolitical implosion of the former USSR in 1989, the Wider Black Sea Region has experienced a phase of acute transition, now becoming the centre of geopolitical and geostrategic interests of major state and non-state actors with global or regional values, as follows: USA, NATO, EU, Russian Federation, Turkey. The sustained interest in ensuring security in the WBSR is represented by the launch and development of various formats of cooperation and exercises that denote an almost continuous presence of Allied forces in the Black Sea basin, respecting the conditions provided by the Montreux Convention. Ongoing training, achieving a higher degree of interoperability through standard procedures and increasing the responsiveness of military and civilian forces through the planning and conduct of maritime exercises and operations in the WBSR is the projection of political will through military initiatives, CIMIC and law enforcement specific instruments.

Maritime Operations and Exercises. Instruments for the Implementation of Regional Security in the Black Sea

After the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Iron Curtain – realities corroborated by the geopolitical implosion of the former USSR in 1989, the Wider Black Sea Region has experienced a phase of acute transition, now becoming the centre of geopolitical and geostrategic interests of major state and non-state actors with global or regional values, as follows: USA, NATO, EU, Russian Federation, Turkey. The sustained interest in ensuring security in the WBSR is represented by the launch and development of various formats of cooperation and exercises that denote an almost continuous presence of Allied forces in the Black Sea basin, respecting the conditions provided by the Montreux Convention. Ongoing training, achieving a higher degree of interoperability through standard procedures and increasing the responsiveness of military and civilian forces through the planning and conduct of maritime exercises and operations in the WBSR is the projection of political will through military initiatives, CIMIC and law enforcement specific instruments.

THE ECONOMIC-MILITARY IMPORTANCE OF THE BLACK SEA – NORTH SEA CORRIDOR FOR ENSURING STABILITY IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE

Abstract: During history, the main channel of communication and cooperation between countries was through commerce and, consequently, through transport. Among all the transport ways, the maritime transport is the one that offers the best cost – benefits ratio. This article is addressed to all the people involved or interested in the economic and military fields and aims to highlight the importance of the Black Sea and North Sea connecting corridor in ensuring peace and stability in Europe in general and in South-Eastern Europe in special. To achieve this goal, we will review the historical conflicts among European countries for waterway control and make a descriptive analysis of the stability situation in the areas affected by them. Furthermore, using the hypothetical-deductive method, we will highlight the manner in which the connection of the Black Sea with the North Sea has influenced economic and military exchanges between riparian states and the impact on stability across European continent. At the end of the article, we will show how economic and military stability in south-eastern Europe is influenced and threatened by geopolitical changes in the wider Black Sea region and how this stability can be maintained and strengthened due to the great possibilities for economic cooperation among the countries of Western and South-Eastern Europe. The novelty of this approach is that it aims to analyze the importance of the Black Sea-North Sea channel in the context of fundamental changes in the politico-military situation in South-East Europe, generated by the expansion of the Russian Federation and the conflict between Turkey and Greece, NATO member countries.

The Romania-US Strategic Partnership and the Security of the Wider Black Sea Region: Historical Landmarks

The Romania-US Strategic Partnership and the Security of the Wider Black Sea Region: Historical Landmarks

Russia, the USA and the EU and the conflicts in the wider Black Sea region: the potential for multilateral solutions in the wake of the Ukraine conflict

The breakaway region around Donetsk and Luhansk is likely to evolve into an entity similar to Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia or Nagorno-Karabakh. Efforts to resolve these conflicts are pursued in multilateral frameworks in which Russia, the EU and the United States serve as co-chairs or participants, among others. The objective behind the larger powers’ participation in these frameworks is to maintain influence over and provide guidance to some of the conflicting parties. Because the three powers pursue divergent interests in the wider Black Sea region and because they are not impartial in the conflicts, they are ill-suited to the roles of mediator. The lack of political will among the conflicting parties to agree on sustainable solutions in combination with the ongoing tensions between Russia and the West makes progress in resolving the conflicts increasingly unlikely. Similarly, while the formation of a multilateral conflict resolution forum for eastern Ukraine is a likely outcome of current diplomatic efforts, the chances of this framework bringing conflict settlement to Ukraine are small.

Blue Black Sea: New Dimensions of History, Security, Politics, Strategy, Energy

of the Caucasus Nations in the New Security Environment”, by E. Mehtiyev, emphasizes the importance of the Black Sea area in the European security system. According to Mehtiyev, as part of the wider Black Sea region, the Caucasus has direct access to Central Asia and Middle East. The next article “Background to the Hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan: From the Prague Process to the Madrid Principles” is also by E. Meytiyev. He says a military action to recover Nogorno-Karabagh from occupation has not of- fered any solution. N. Nechayeva’s paper, “The Georgia–Russia Conflict as an Example of Interdependence in World Politics” examines the evolution of Georgian–Russian relations based on the ever-changing interests of both sides. “The Roles of the Ukraine and the EU in settling the Russian–Georgian Conflict in the Caucasus” by G. Perepelytsia examines the main events in that conflict and describes the valuable contributions provided by Ukraine and EU in pursuit of resolution. “The Security Policies of Turkey and Russia towards Abkhazia and the Internal Georgian Conflict” by G. S. Bozkurt points out that the South Caucasus’ problem forms a serious obstacle in the establishment of a regional security system. “Black Sea regional security after 9/11” by Y. Gaber, stresses the increasing importance of the Black Sea region after the notorious events of 9/11 and analyzes the regional security strategies of the United States, the main “outside actor,” and Turkey, which has recently positioned itself as a regional power. M. Alam’s work “Turkey’s Security Strategies in the Extended Black Sea Region after September 11, 2001” examines the challenges which Turkey faces, such as terrorism, hu- man and narco-trafficking, and illegal trade, most of which emanate from the Middle East. “The US Military Bases in Romania and Bulgaria and their Possible Implications for Regional Security”, by S. Akkaya, focuses on US approach to the Black Sea region from a broader security perspective and in

The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia: Security Issues in the Caucasus

The unresolved dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh is one of the most worrying unresolved conflicts in the Caucasus region, both because it involves two sovereign states and because the three principal regional powers—Russia, Turkey and Iran—all have a differing stance towards the issue. The ongoing conflict undermines security across the Caucasus and wider Black Sea region: it has polarized countries and their allies, and has also created a security vacuum that encourages the proliferation of trans-national security challenges. This paper assesses the impact of the conflict on security across the Caucasus region. It examines the current defense postures of Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as the influence that the ongoing conflict has on their relations with other states throughout the region, demonstrating that the lack of a resolution not only undermines the security of those directly involved and of their neighbors, but also undermines the potential for regional co-operation, as well as economic development and stability, deterring vital investment.

Amerika’nın Karadeniz Politikasını Yeniden Değerlendirmek

The Black Sea Region has gained importance for the United States in terms of security, energy, the liberal political and economic values, balancing Russia, the accessing and controlling Central Asia and the Middle East after the Cold War era. For this purpose a new strategy which was named under ‘the Wider Black Sea Region’ was put into practice by America. The United States has mostly reached the objectives identified for the Black Sea Region and have applied the transatlantic policies in harmony with EU. But, the changing security perceptions and the revival of Russia have removed the ‘power gap for the United States in region. In article, it has been reached at conclusion that the United States has begun to present low-intensity attention to Black Sea due to shift of the strategic priorities of the U.S. from Europe to East Asia, the Pacific region and the Middle East.

Managing distrust in the wider Black Sea region

The wider Black Sea region – understood in a broad sense and including Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey – is a region torn by instability and distrust. This special issue is based on the belief that trust is a key element in establishing long-term security and effective cooperation between and inside states. Even in the absence of direct military conflict in the wider Black Sea region, the threats to regional stability are serious: weak and poor states with disputed uncontrolled zones are fertile seeding grounds for organized crime, human trafficking and irregular migration. Human security remains weak and distrust of corrupt authorities is widespread in many places in the region. Many of these challenges are transnational in character. The solution of these threats and as well as regional economic development needs a cooperative and regional approach from the states and other actors in the region. This issue explores the current politics of trust and distrust in the wider Black Sea region on multiple levels and their implications to security and stability in the region. This introductory article contemplates various dimensions of trust and distrust. It also discusses the approaches and findings of existing research on trust in international relations, international security and transition studies.

Strategies for nurturing trust in the wider Black Sea region

There is no absolute measure of security in international relations. A situation that one actor perceives as threatening, does not appear that to someone else in a similar situation. Security is essentially about subjective judgements and therefore the role of psychology should not be ignored in security studies. Trust influences the ways states and other actors behave towards each other. This concluding article considers different strategies for managing distrust and building trust in such a way that enhances fragile stability and security and encourages peaceful cooperation between different actors in the wider Black Sea region. Managed distrust means that distrust between actors is under control in such a way that a full-blown conflict is unlikely and that some restricted and carefully monitored cooperation to advance mutual goals is possible between the distrustful actors – be they states or non-state actors. The article starts with analytical consideration of the regional context and then summarizes the current trust-related policies discussed in the empirical case studies included in this volume. Finally, potentially effective trust-building strategies in the region will be considered.

The Transnistrian conflict – new opportunities and old obstacles for trust building (2009–2010)

Among the four unsettled conflicts in the wider Black Sea region the Transnistrian one is often described as the most solvable. Between 2009 and 2010 the conflict in Transnistria emerged as an important security issue on the European agenda. This article intends to demonstrate how a myriad of global, regional and domestic developments provided a fresh start for building trust between the key regional actors, and synergy for creating a favourable setting for a sustainable solution in the long run. However, these new tendencies around Transnistria evolved in parallel with the inertia of old agendas and competing regional security logic. Hence, the article will also address the obstacles which precluded progress towards a propitious environment for conflict resolution. It will conclude with considerations of where the conflict settlement stands and what may be expected in the mid and long term.

The United States and security in the Black Sea region

In the last half decade, the wider Black Sea region has emerged as an increasing security issue for the United States. This has been reflected in a growing number of articles, briefings, books and policy papers devoted to the issue of security in the wider Black Sea area. Within the US government, as well, US officials have begun to pay increasing attention to the region and have attempted to craft a more coherent and comprehensive strategy toward the region. The Russian invasion of Georgia has underscored the importance Moscow attaches to preserving its influence in the region and the difficulties the United States faces in trying to develop a coherent policy toward the area. However, Russia’s position has weakened considerably since the Georgian invasion as a result of the global economic crisis. This could give Moscow an incentive to cooperate with the United States in managing security challenges in select areas, including in the wider Black Sea region.

Black Sea security as a regional concern for the Black Sea states and the global powers

The ‘Black Sea security’ as a concept must be judged, unfortunately, from the ‘insecurity’ point of view. Since 1991, there is more debate about Black Sea ‘insecurity’, rather than regional ‘security’. The contextual problem is not only due to the fact that in this region there is a concentration of ‘frozen’ conflicts. The war between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia in August 2008 actually reinforced the need for strengthening military security in this explosive region, and energy security in particular. The ‘post‐Cold War’ security situation in the Wider Black Sea region has been developing through constant geopolitical tensions on different systemic levels with the simultaneous involvement of a number of insiders and outsiders. The last decade has thus been marked by new challenges that have to be dealt with.

Geopolitics and Energy Security in the Wider Black Sea Region

This article explores the links between geopolitics and energy security in the Black Sea region. Geopolitical factors are important given the location of energy resources and the difficulties faced in transporting this energy to European markets. These issues impact on the foreign policies of interested states. The position of Russia as a significant energy producer, key transit state and major strategic player is considered. The potential and actual roles of the other Black Sea littoral states as energy transit states are examined, and the increasing interests of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in the region are discussed.

The Black Sea Region: Meaning and Significance*

Abstract This article contains personal answers to a series of questions designed to determine how Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), the region's only full-fledged regional organization that has accumulated extensive political experience and a legal basis, can contribute to relationships throughout the world. It maintains that if BSEC is not reformed, recalibrated, and adjusted to new strategic realities, all of the speculations and observations made in the article about the future perspectives of the Wider Black Sea Region will amount to wishful thinking.

Marine Pollution via Transboundary Watercourses — An Interface of the' Shoreline ' and ' River-Basin ' Regimes in the Wider Black Sea Region

AbstractA significant proportion of pollution of the marine environment is transmitted into the sea by transboundary rivers. The state of the marine environment increasingly depends upon the behaviour of states that do not belong to a particular maritime region. There is an obvious regulatory dichotomy between the environmental legal regimes dealing with marine pollution ('shoreline' regimes) and those governing international watercourses ('drainage/river-basin' regimes), which have historically evolved independently of each other. This creates problems of consistency and compatibility across different regimes, which have to be addressed in order to ensure the effectiveness of pollution-control measures throughout the entire pollutant transportation process. State practice has developed various practical ways of dealing with the issue of marine pollution from land-based activities in a transboundary context. The situation with river-borne pollution in the Danube River-Black Sea Basin provides an interesting case-study for critical examination as regards the practical aspects of the interface between such regimes.