The Crimean Peninsula, Black Sea and Black Sea Region in the Western Military and Political Agenda: Doctrinal Level

In the article the research team proceeds with study of broad security issues of the Black Sea region (BSR) in its various geopolitical configurations (the BSR as including seven riparian states; the Wider BSR as including seven riparian states, Armenia and Azerbaijan; the Baltic-Black Sea region; the Black Sea-Caspian region; and the BSR as the “nerve” of the Greater Mediterranean) through the lens of Russia’s national interests. The paper examines the policies adopted by the USA, the EU, Great Britain, NATO and Ukraine toward the BSR after 2014 at the conceptual and doctrinal levels. The article analyzes the doctrinal papers of the actors revealing their Black Sea strategies, goals and objectives. The study of the doctrinal and, to some extent, conceptual issues of the policies implemented in the BSR allows for determining the degree of compatibility, conflict and possible compromise between various regional and global actors competing for positions in the region in its various geopolitical configurations. The research draws on political realism, combined with constructivism as well as systems and geopolitical approaches. Contextual and discursive analysis of documents as well as qualitative content-analysis are basic applied methods. The analysed doctrinal papers of the collective West (NATO 2022 Strategic Concept, A Strategic Compass for Security and Defence, Integrated Review Refresh 2023, Ukraine Maritime Security Strategy, US Black Sea Strategy 2022–2024) reflect the evolution of the Wider BSR concept of 2004–2006. The concept leaves no room for any military, political or other Russian presence in the Black Sea basin. The UK’s aspiration to play the leading role reflects its traditional desire to be present in the Black and Caspian Seas and to build its line of defence, while pushing Russia back to Eurasia. The authors view this as Britain’s desire to implement its traditional geostrategic approaches, which were developed by H. Mackinder: to control the Heartland through Central Asia (1904) and Eastern Europe via the Baltic-Black Sea bridge (1919). Now we see a combination and synthesis of Mackinder’s two approaches: the West is seeking to create a Baltic-Black Sea-Caspian sanitary belt to “contain” Russia, with two maritime entrances into the region: the Baltic and the Black Sea. However, Britain’s historical experience also includes a period when Russia was temporarily excluded from the Black Sea-Mediterranean game in the wake of the Crimean War. From the Western perspective, its influence on the Black Sea region should result into Russia’s expulsion from the region, with a simultaneous reduction of Turkey’s influence, This could be achieved by eroding and circumventing the Montreux Convention, as well as by establishing the permanent presence of NATO military forces in the Black Sea in addition to the regional forces of Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria, including through alternative routes to the Black Sea Straits.

1. Ananieva E. (2023). Sunak obnovliaet Strategiiu natsional'noi bezopasnosti [Sunak’s Refresh of the National Security Strategy]. Mezhdunarodnaia Zhizn' [International Affairs]. Available at: https://interaffairs.ru/news/show/39433 (accessed 5 February 2025). (In Russian).

2. Avatkov V. (2024) Turetskaia Respublika v 2023 godu [Republic of Turkey in 2023]. Svobodnaya Mysl [Free Thought] (1): 133–142. (In Russian).

3. Demeshko N.E., Irkhin A.A., Moskalenko O.A. (2024) The Black Sea Region as a New Geopolitical Reality in the Materials of Western and Turkish Analytical Centers (2014–2023). Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences 94(6): 290–301. DOI: 10.1134/ S1019331625600167.

4. Gaber Ye. (2024) A New Security Reality: Strategic Approaches for the Wider Black Sea Region. The Clock Tower Series. George C. Marshall ECSS. Available at: https:// www.marshallcenter.org/en/publications/clock-tower-series/new-security-realitystrategic-approaches-wider-black-sea-region/new-security-reality-strategicapproaches-wider (accessed 5 February 2025).

5. Irkhin A.A., Moskalenko O.A. (2021) Chernomorskii region v konkurentsii geopoliticheskikh proektov velikikh derzhav v 1991-2019 gg. [The Black Sea Region in the Contest of Geopolitical Projects of the Great Powers, 1991–2019]. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriia: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia [Vestnik RUDN. International Relations] 21(3): 498–516. DOI: 10.22363/2313-0660-2021-21-3-498-516. (In Russian).

6. Irkhin A.A., Moskalenko O.A., Demeshko N.E. (2024) «Turetskii balans», ili Vneshnepoliticheskaia strategiia Turtsii v Chernomorskom regione na fone spetsial'noi voennoi operatsii [Turkish Balance, or Türkiye’s Foreign Policy Strategy in the Black Sea Region Following the Special Military Operation]. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriia: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia [Vestnik RUDN. International Relations] 24(1): 7–22. DOI: 10.22363/2313-0660-2024-24-1-7-22. (In Russian).

7. Irkhin A. (ed.) (2024) Kliuchi ot Evrazii. Rossiia i Turtsiia v Chernomorskom regione [Keys to Eurasia. Russia and Turkey in the Black Sea Region]. Moscow: Aspect Press. (In Russian).

8. Komleva N.A. (2021) Spetsifika geopoliticheskoi ekspansii ostrovnykh imperii [Specifics of the Island Empires Geopolitical Expansion]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriia 27. «Globalistika i geopolitika» [Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 27. Global Studies and Geopolitics] (3): 79–96. (In Russian).

9. Lancaster M. (2023) Troubled Waters – How Russia’s War in Ukraine Changes Black Sea Security. Preliminary Draft Report 020 DSCFC 23 E, 7 October. NATO PA. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/4d4esh6v (accessed 7 May 2025).

10. Lanozska A., Rogers J. (2022) ‘Global Britain’ and the Black Sea region. Council on Geostrategy. Policy Paper. March. Available at: https://www.geostrategy.org.uk/app/uploads/2022/05/SBIPP07-29032022-2.pdf (accessed 5 February 2025).

11. Mackinder H. (2024) Geograficheskaia os' istorii [The Geographical Pivot of History]. Moscow: AST Publishing House. (In Russian).

12. Moskalenko O. A., Muradov G.L., Irkhin A.A. et al. (2023) Konventsiia Montre posle nachala SVO. Status-kvo ili denonsatsiia: diskurs mezhdunarodnykh aktorov i vozmozhnye geopoliticheskie posledstviia dlia Chernomorskogo regiona [The Montreux Convention After the Beginning of the Special Military Operation. Status Quo or Denunciation: Discourse of International Actors and Possible Geopolitical Implications for the Black Sea Region]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriia 27. «Globalistika i geopolitika» [Vestnik RUDN. International Relations] 23(4): 643–661. DOI: 10.22363/2313-0660-2023-23-4-643-661. (In Russian).

13. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky V.P. (2014) Novorossiia. Krym [Novorossiya. Crimea]. In: Makarov A.G., Makarova S.E. (comp.) Malorossiia. Novorossiia. Krym: polnaia istoriia iuzhnogo russkogo kraia [Malorossiya. Novorossiya. Crimea: a Complete History of the Southern Russian Region]. Moscow: Algorithm, 2014. (In Russian).

14. Speakman N. (2022) Geografiia i vneshniaia politika [Geography and Foreign Policy]. In: Speakman N., Schmitt K. «Novaia Atlantida». Geopolitika Zapada na sushe i na more [“The New Atlantis.” Geopolitics of the West on Land and at Sea]. Moscow: Rodina, pp. 6–75. (In Russian).

15. Tsantoulis I. (2016) Towards a Genealogy of Regions in International Relations: an Autopsy of the Black Sea (Region). Doctoral Thesis. London: University College.

16. Vandam A. (2022) Velichaishee iz iskusstv [The Greatest of Arts]. In: Fursov A. Russkie o glavnom protivnike [Russians about the Main Enemy]. Moscow: Nashe Zavtra. P. 236–268. (In Russian).