MAY 23-25,
2014 Did a Neoliberal Energy Grab Backfire? Crimea: an EU-US-Exxon Screwup by PIERRE M. SPREY and FRANKLIN C. SPINNEY
On 17 May, William BroadÕs piece, ÒIn Taking
Crimea, Putin Gains a Sea of Fuel ReservesÓ, appeared in the New
York Times. Broad explained how the annexation of Crimea by Russia
changed the legal claims for exclusive access to the maritime resources for the
littoral nations of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. At the core of the
change is the 200 NM exclusion zone promulgated by the Law of the Sea, 1982. Typically
for the Grey Lady (AKA ÒThe New York TimesÓ), Broad spun this fact into an
anti-Putin tapestry using a charged mix of verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. Nevertheless,
BroadÕs report contains tantalizing information that hints at a fascinating
alternative explanation for the events leading up to the Crimean
annexation.
The facts in BroadÕs report appear to come almost entirely from an
interview Broad had with Dr. William B. F. Ryan, a marine geologist at the
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, including the
maps showing each littoral countryÕs Law of the Sea exclusion zones. RyanÕs
facts are not in dispute.
A point not mentioned by Broad is that no geographic location in either
the Black Sea or the Sea of Azov is more than 200 NM from a coastline of the
six littoral nations — Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, or
Georgia. This can be seen by superimposing the 200 NM scale on the map
below (Figure 1). The overlap of all the ÒexclusionÓ zones covers
100% of both seas, with the six areas divvied up according to the separation
rules codified by the Law the Sea. The extensive overlap means the change
in the Ukraine-Russian border produces a profound shift in the exclusion zones
belonging to Russia and Ukraine, shown in Dr. RyanÕs before and after
maps (Figure 2 below).
Figure 1
The division of exclusion zones in the Black Sea is a big deal, because many geologists
believe the floor of the Black Sea, like that of the North Sea,
contains massive reserves of oil and gas, especially in deep water.
We have added the 600 foot depth contour in red on Figure 1. This
contour marks the beginning of the medium blue transition zone between the
shallow coastal shelf waters and the deep sea waters outlined by the 6000 feet
contour enclosing the deep blue area in Figure 1. (note: the contour lines in
Figure 1 are in fathoms; 1 fathom = 6 feet.) With the exception of the
northwestern portion of the Black Sea, coastal waters with depths of less than
600 feet cover only small distances from the national coastlines. Now letÕs turn our attention to the
exclusion zones. The Ryan maps in Figure 2 break up the Black Sea and Sea of
Azov into the six exclusion zones introduced above. They show how RussiaÕs
annexation of Crimea did not change anything for Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, or
Georgia.
Figure 2.
According to RyanÕs maps, the annexation of Crimea added 36,000 square
miles, more than doubling RussiaÕs legal claims from 26,000 square miles in the
Black Sea and Sea of Azov to 62,000 square miles. Ukraine lost a
corresponding amount. More importantly, the overlay of the 600 foot
contour shows that Ukraine no longer has access to any deep
water. This change is a verifiable consequence of annexation.And it has
profound implications. Dr. Ryan also speculates the deep regions gained
by Russia may be Òthe bestÓ of the Black SeaÕs deep oil reserves, although it
must be remembered these reserves are not fully explored. In fact, as of
2012, less than 100 exploratory wells have been drilled in the Black SeaÕs deep
water, and only one well has struck pay dirt. That well, ÒDomino 1,Ó
drilled in Romanian waters at a depth of 3200 feet, lies beyond the 600 foot
contour line near the NE edge of the Romanian exclusion zone, close to what is
now the Russian exclusion zone.
So, at first glance, it is easy to accept the picture slyly suggested by
BroadÕs charged verbs, adverbs, and adjectives: the annexation of Crimea
by Russia was, at least in part, an aggressive energy grab by the Machiavellian
Russian chess master, ÒVlad the BadÓ Putin. Such a conclusion is
certainly comforting to those in the US neoliberal establishment intent on
starting a new cold war and grabbing control of even more state property of the
former USSR via privatization, austerity economics, and good old fashioned
bribery. But putting aside the
tendentious verbiage, there are facts in BroadÕs reportage that suggest quite a
different picture. Note BroadÕs several references to ExxonÕs involvement
and investment in Ukraine during 2012. Does this not raise the
possibility that the US and EU-inspired putsch in Ukraine may have been allied
with the lust of western oil and gas multinationals for a stranglehold on
European energy supplies? If so, the figures compiled by Dr. Ryan may
show how that coup blew up in our face.
To fully savor the possible
dimensions of a US-EU-Exxon screw-up, letÕs look at a chronology of the recent,
none-too-subtle moves on the EU-Ukraine-Russian chessboard. The EU started openly pushing Ukraine for a
really raw, exploitative trade deal in March 2012. A month later, in April
2012, Putin signed up with ENI-Italy to explore Russian Black Sea oil/gas. In
August 2012 Exxon put up big bucks to outbid RussiaÕs Lukoil for exploring
Ukrainian Black Sea oil/gas (a deal crucial to ExxonÕs breaking of RussiaÕs
stranglehold on gas supplies for Europe). Over the next year, Yanukovych (no
doubt convinced by massive contributions to his Bahamian bank accounts) pushed
the Ukrainian parliament to pass all the laws required to meet the EU/IMFÕs
draconian austerity requirements. (see Michael HudsonÕs ÒNew Cold War
Ukraine GambitÓ for an explanation
of neoliberal looting economics.) When it looked like he
might succeed, Putin quickly imposed the gas/trade embargo on Ukraine in August
2013, starting a precipitous drop in the Ukrainian economy–and Yanukovych
started backing away from the EU deal.
ThatÕs when the EU-US-EXXON
made their monumentally stupid move of unleashing the coup against Yanukovych,
beginning with the November 2013 Maidan protests leading to the neo-fascist
incited riots that ended in the coup of 27 February 2014. The US-EU inspired
coup, of course, gave Putin the perfect opening to welcome the grateful
Crimeans back into the Russian fold–thereby swelling PutinÕs domestic approval ratings enough to keep him in power
for the next ten years. (For a good analysis of how Putin may view the
world, see Mark AmesÕ analysis of
how he is exploiting the politics of resentment in Russia, Nixon-style.) And,
perhaps not coincidentally, welcoming the grateful Crimeans also happened to
more than double PutinÕs Black Sea oil/gas holdings, while ruining ExxonÕs
chances for breaking his stranglehold on European gas supplies. Putin certainly
isnÕt the greatest European strategist since Bismarck. But it doesnÕt take much
to win when opposed by dumb, ultra-greedy opponents guided by the
arrogance of ignorance. All Putin needed was seeing one tiny move further
ahead. The only thing dumber than the transparent US-EU-Exxon moves was the
American and European mediaÕs slavish coverage of the same.
Pierre M. Sprey, together with Air Force Cols John Boyd and
Everest Riccioni, brought to fruition the F-16; he also led the design team for
the A-10 and helped implement the program. He is one of a very small
number of Pentagon insiders who started the military reform movement in the
late 1960s. Franklin ÒChuckÓ Spinney is
a former military analyst for the Pentagon and a contributor to Hopeless: Barack
Obama and the Politics of Illusion, published by AK Press. He be
reached at chuck_spinney@mac.com