The Geopolitical Interests of the U.S., U.K., and NATO in Ukraine and the Caspian Basin

Hypothetical Scenario Analysis:

In a hypothetical scenario where the NATO alliance, led by the U.S. and the U.K., is interested in securing access to the oil-rich Caspian Basin, supporting Ukraine in taking over Crimea could align with their strategic interests. Here’s an exploration of how this might unfold:

1. Geopolitical Leverage
   Crimea’s strategic location on the Black Sea makes it a critical geopolitical asset. Control over Crimea could provide NATO with enhanced access to the Black Sea, allowing for more effective power projection into the region. This, in turn, could facilitate easier monitoring and protection of key trade routes and pipelines transporting oil and gas from the Caspian Basin to Europe and beyond.
2. Energy Security
   The Caspian Basin is a significant source of energy, holding vast reserves of oil and natural gas. By supporting Ukraine in reclaiming Crimea, NATO might strengthen its influence over the Black Sea region, providing greater leverage over energy routes like the Southern Gas Corridor, which bypasses Russian control. This could help secure energy supplies for Europe, diversifying away from dependence on Russian energy resources.
3. Limiting Russian Influence
   Controlling Crimea would weaken Russia’s naval capabilities in the Black Sea, limit its access to warm-water ports, and potentially disrupt its influence over the flow of energy resources from the Caspian Basin to global markets. By aiding Ukraine in retaking Crimea, NATO could strategically undermine Russia’s position, reducing its ability to use energy as a geopolitical tool.
4. Broader Strategic Positioning
   Beyond energy interests, supporting Ukraine in regaining Crimea aligns with NATO’s broader strategic objectives: deterring Russian aggression, supporting European stability, and maintaining the integrity of international borders. This approach would serve to contain Russian expansionism, thereby preserving the strategic balance in Eastern Europe.
5. Potential Risks and Consequences
   While these factors provide a rationale for why NATO could theoretically benefit from such a strategy, it is crucial to recognize the significant risks involved. These risks include the potential for direct military confrontation with Russia, increased geopolitical tensions, and possible repercussions in other areas of U.S. and U.K. foreign policy.

Hypothetical Consideration of U.S. Support for Zelensky’s Leadership

If the U.S. were hypothetically interested in aligning Ukraine’s leadership with its geopolitical objectives, it might be speculated that they would support the rise of a leader like Volodymyr Zelensky, whom they perceive as more closely aligned with Western strategic interests or better say, more controllable.

1. Geopolitical Strategy
   If the U.S. and NATO focus on countering Russian influence in the region and securing interests in the Caspian Basin, they might favor a Ukrainian leader committed to strong Western alliances and integration with European and transatlantic institutions. A leader like Zelensky, who has advocated for closer ties with the EU and NATO, could be hypothetically seen as more favorable to Western interests compared to one aligned with Russian geopolitical goals.
2. Controllability and Alignment
   If the U.S. aims to exert more influence over Ukraine’s decision-making, they might prefer a leader perceived as more cooperative or amenable to Western guidance. This could align with the theory that they would back someone they could “control” or collaborate with to ensure that Ukraine’s policies support broader Western goals, such as resisting Russian expansionism and aligning with NATO.
3. Support for Key Strategic Goals
   Supporting Zelensky hypothetically could also be aimed at ensuring that Ukraine continues its efforts to regain control of Crimea, thereby weakening Russia’s position in the Black Sea and securing energy routes in and around the Caspian Basin. Having a leader who shares these goals would provide a unified front in diplomatic and military efforts to counter Russia and potentially secure access to or influence over critical energy resources and routes.
4. Context and Considerations
   Complexity of International Politics: While this hypothetical scenario could explain certain U.S. actions, it’s important to recognize that international politics is complex. Leadership changes often involve multiple factors, including domestic political dynamics, public opinion, historical context, and other geopolitical considerations.

Limitations of Control: Even in this hypothetical scenario, it is challenging to “control” a leader of a sovereign nation, unless the level of corruption is so high that the western leaders could reach the cash requirement to produce such incentive particularly one facing numerous internal and external pressures. Leaders like Zelensky operate within a domestic political framework and must navigate their own country’s unique challenges and interests, when he can’t he destitutes the entire cabinet as he recently did a few days ago.

Analysis of Reluctance to Negotiate Peace with Russia
Aligning the hypothetical scenario with the geopolitical interests of the U.S., U.K., and NATO could suggest a motive for why these powers might be reluctant to see Ukraine negotiate peace with Russia under certain conditions.

1. Control Over Strategic Regions
   The U.S., U.K., and NATO have substantial strategic interests in the region, including access to energy resources in the Caspian Basin, countering Russian influence, and securing energy routes to Europe. A peace agreement that leaves Russia in control of critical areas such as Crimea or the Donbas might be seen as reinforcing Russian dominance in the Black Sea region and beyond, potentially threatening Western access to key energy supplies and undermining broader strategic objectives.
2. Preventing Russian Expansion
   A peace deal that consolidates Russia’s control over Ukrainian territory could be perceived as a precedent for further Russian territorial ambitions. NATO and Western powers might believe that preventing Ukraine from negotiating on terms favorable to Russia would deter further Russian expansionism, aligning with their strategy to contain Russian influence and maintain stability in Eastern Europe.
3. Maintaining Pressure on Russia
   Supporting Ukraine militarily and diplomatically, rather than pushing for peace negotiations with Russia, could be viewed as a way to maintain pressure on Russia. This strategy might aim to weaken Russia economically, politically, and militarily, reducing its capacity to challenge Western interests in regions like the Caspian Basin, Central Asia, or even the Middle East.
4. Energy Security and Influence in the Caspian Basin
   If the ultimate goal includes securing access to or influence over the rich oil and gas resources of the Caspian Basin, controlling strategic routes and allies around Russia’s periphery could be essential. A Ukraine more aligned with the West and actively resisting Russian encroachment would serve as a counterbalance to Russian control over energy corridors, enhancing Western leverage in the region.

Conclusion
From this perspective, the geopolitical interests of the U.S., U.K., and NATO could provide a motive for resisting peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, especially if such negotiations are likely to favor Russian objectives. This alignment of interests with broader strategic goals—such as controlling key regions, ensuring energy security, and countering Russian influence—could explain a preference for continued support to Ukraine rather than a push for immediate peace talks.

However, it is essential to recognize that these interpretations are speculative and depend on various factors, including the specific terms of any potential peace agreement already destroyed by Boris Johnson under the Minsk Agreement, the evolving geopolitical context, and internal decision-making processes within NATO and its member states will not be reachable after recent attempts of invasion promoted by Kiev and supported by NATO with a new batch of weapons.