NGRNA Russian Crimea could cut off American and European access to Central Asia, while benefiting China.
The article was published at https://nationalinterest.org
Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently held discussions in Paris with European and Ukrainian leaders on the peace process. The primary choice for transatlantic leaders still holds: they can either build up Ukraine as a bulwark against creeping Russian imperialism along the NATO border or sacrifice it to a Russian hoodwink for a Pyrrhic peace. Any peace deal necessitates clear-eyed assessment of transatlantic interests across the region and Ukraine’s territorial integrity—in that order. The recognition of Russian control over Crimea would be calamitous to America and Europe’s interests and standing across the Eurasian landmass.
The Crimean peninsula—like a crown—sits atop the Black Sea exercising control over its length and breadth. A Kremlin Crimea renders the Black Sea a virtual Russian lake, awarding Vladimir Putin sway across the entire Ukrainian coast past Odessa to the Danube Delta as well as Moldova and Romania.
Russia with Crimea and the Black Sea under its control will be free to direct its focus on finishing its subjugation of the South Caucasus. Russia has already made deep inroads in Georgia turning the nation away from Europe. Armenia’s nascent counter-revolution to throw away the Russian yoke will not survive an undistracted Russian thrust to bring it back to the fold.
Putin, with Georgia and Armenia under its heel, will achieve his dream of reinstating Russian control of the Black Sea from the Turkish border in the east to Romania in the west. A Russian Crimea enabling Kremlin control of the Black Sea and the Caucasus will constitute a great victory for its special military operation. For America and Europe, this is a immense strategic defeat.
Russia with Crimea and the Caucasus under its toe will hold sway over the burgeoning Central Asia-Caucasus-Europe Economic Corridor (CACE). CACE or the Middle Corridor offers an alternative regional outlet to the Russian dominated Trans-Siberian Northern Corridor. Russia has been undermining this growing economic thoroughfare, which fosters autonomy for the Central Asia and Caucasus republics.
With Russia firmly in control of Crimea, and by extension, the Black Sea and Caucasus, it will attempt to squeeze the trans-Caspian gateway to Central Asia with an eye to quash the region’s emerging independence. Central Asia’s repository of rare minerals greatly exceeds Ukraine’s, not to mention the abounding reserves of oil and gas that have developed in large parts through American investments. Russian control of Crimea puts America and Europe’s access to the natural resources of Central Asia in jeopardy.
China will be the biggest beneficiary if Russia controls these Eurasian chokepoints between Central Asia and Europe. Russia is increasingly an economic vassal state of China and lacks any leverage to compete with it across Eurasia economically. Chinese engineers are presently paving the road connecting the Iran-Armenia-Georgia-Russia road network. China has inked strategic partnerships with Azerbaijan and Georgia and have secured the concession to operate Georgia’s Black Sea deep water port, Anaklia. Across Central Asia, China has long displaced Russia as the dominant economic actor.
If China stands to benefit the most from a Russian Crimea then NATO members Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria have most to lose. Control of Crimea would greatly enhance Russian regional posture relative to Turkey and allow it to project its influence into the Eastern Mediterranean. The development and operation of natural gas reserves in the western Black Sea by the three NATO members would be subject to Russian disruption and harassment under these conditions. Turkish designs for trade routes connecting it to the Turkic republics of Central Asia will be subjected to Russian control of Caucasus and Black Sea.
American acquiescence of Russian control of Crimea—building on that of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Luhansk, and Donetsk—renders the entire region surrounding the Black Sea from Caucasus to Eastern Mediterranean less secure and settled. Such a beggared peace would sow seeds of generational conflict and justifiably be castigated for decades to follow.
President Trump and Secretary Rubio have both stated that in the absence of progress toward peace the United States will move on. The adage that a bad deal being is worse than no deal is particularly apt in the case of Ukraine. The worthy American effort to end the killing has been hampered by a flawed strategy that undermines rather than optimizes American leverage in negotiating a lasting truce. American failure to assign Russia as the aggressor and exclude Ukraine and Europe from collective peace negotiations shortchanged its leverage.
Bewilderingly, the United States, while not articulating any red-lines of its own, has been willing to entertain Russia’s. American hubris chasing a red herring of breaching the China-Russia “no-limits partnership” would do well not to let Russia drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe.
Early American maneuvers for Ukraine peace have been perplexing at best and at worst extraordinarily self-harming to American interests and standing versus both Russia and China. It is not too late to correct the course in the long-standing American tradition of doing the right thing after exhausting all other options.
The Paris talks with European and Ukrainian partners present a timely opportunity for the United States to reassess and redirect its peace efforts. The United States, along with its Transatlantic partners, would do well to develop a shared understanding of the necessary territorial and regional issues to address and execute a sustainable truce. A shared Transatlantic commitment to a free and open Black Sea should be foremost among them.
Any concessions that exacerbate regional security and stability disadvantaging American and European interests versus that of Russia and China should be non-negotiable. Consequently, a Russian Crimea is a non-starter since it will result in a direct loss of American and European interests and standing across Eurasia and Eastern Mediterranean. Moreover, it may set the stage for a bloodier regional conflict in the future. There is a better way to end the war while we still hold the stronger hand—let’s not fritter away American greatness.
About the Author:
Kaush Arha is president of the Free & Open Indo-Pacific Forum and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and the Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy at Purdue. During the first Trump administration, Dr. Arha was the architect of the Japan-U.S. Strategic Energy Partnership and Japan-U.S. Strategic Digital Economy Partnership as interagency bilateral coordinating forums, and an influential actor in the biannual U.S.-Japan Free and Open Indo-Pacific Dialogue.