Review: US Congress Resolution to support Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova as a manifesto of further confrontation in Eastern Europe

By the RTA editorial board On the twentieth of June a group of American congressmen (both Democrats and Republicans) submitted for consideration to the House of Representatives a draft resolution on support to the nations of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. In the document, the congressmen make Russia responsible; or rather accuse Moscow of destabilizing Ukraine and aggression against it, of occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and also of a military presence in Transdniestria. According to the text, Russia “threatens current and future efforts to combat the proliferation of nuclear weapons,” as its actions against Ukraine allegedly “are in contravention of the Budapest Memorandum” (on security guarantees to Kiev in exchange for its abandonment of nuclear weapons. In the resolution the US House of Representatives condemns Russia’s actions, calls upon it to withdraw troops from Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova and give up the Crimea. The US allies, the United Nations and the international community, according to the document, “should continue to pressure the Government of the Russian Federation”. The congressmen express support to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, commend the ongoing cooperation between them “to resist the destabilizing activities of the Russian Federation” and support strengthening (military) capacity between them and the USA. It also refers to the need to continue to oppose the Nord Stream-2 pipeline project in coordination with European allies, mindful of the threat of this project to the security of Europe. At the same time, the US government is recommended to continue energy supplies to Europe, including through supporting Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) infrastructure. Publication of this document coincided chronologically with the refusal of Denmark to construction of the second gas pipeline in the Baltic, as well as the growing military tension in the east of Ukraine and the vote in the UN General Assembly on withdrawal of Russian troops from Transdniestria. The content of this resolution of American congressmen quite clearly fits into the logic of the current US strategy towards Russia and its influence in Europe. It was described in the report of the US Council on Foreign Relations, published in January this year. It judges that “the United States is currently in a second Cold War with Russia”, and offers an extensive list of measures to contain Moscow. They include further restrictions on Russia’s access to Western credits and technologies, sanctions on defense enterprises, mining industry and the energy sector, deployment of additional military equipment and troops in full combat readiness in Eastern Europe, provision of lethal weapons to Ukraine, an increased number of NATO exercises on the Baltic and Black Seas. Among the ways to implement this strategy, an important role is to promote anti-Russian sentiments and preserve an image of the ‘Russian threat’ to security in Europe. In this context, in practical terms, they implement policy of maintaining the image of Russia as an occupier and an aggressor on various political platforms. The frontier states play a key role here: Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, the Baltic countries as on their key foreign policy issues they are following the lead of Washington. At the same time, the US regularly performs ally’s functions, including symbolically supporting these states in the fight against the ‘Russian threat’. Thus, the US continues tactical actions to weaken Russia’s influence on the territory of the former USSR and to prevent development of favorable trade and economic relations between the Russian Federation and the EU, which is generally part of Washington’s global strategy in the European direction. Obviously, this can also be linked with mainstreaming topic of the withdrawal of Russian troops from Transdniestria that was brought up at the UN level. The current resolution may also be considered another stage in the construction of anti-Russian rhetoric by US congressmen. In February this year, members of the US House of Representatives David Price and Pete Olson also called on Russia to withdraw its military men from the territory of Moldova. It is important to understand at the same time that the information pressure on Moscow’s interests in the region is accompanied by the strengthening cooperation between Moldova and the US in the military sphere, which is explained in Washington by the need to guarantee the security of Moldova. In general, the US policy in the Republic of Moldova in countering Russian influence also consists in formation of an ‘expansive’ image of Russia and practical positional steps to squeeze Russia out of the region. Such an approach, if successful, is likely to be extended to Georgia in the future, not to mention Ukraine, where the situation is aggravated by the ongoing ‘hot’ stage of the conflict in the East. The support to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, according to the June resolution of US congressmen, should also be expressed in torpedoing the Nord Stream-2 project, which, of course, seems to be a certain blackmail and substitution of the real pragmatic interests of the EU by the ‘geopolitical expediency’ requirements. Earlier the German Bundestag already said that Berlin considers the gas pipeline an important economic project that should not be subject to the threat of sanctions. Meanwhile, according to the Foreign Policy Journal, the Trump administration is ready to impose sanctions against five European companies that, together with Gazprom, are involved in the construction of the Nord Stream-2. Discussions around the gas pipeline intensified against the background of criticism by some EU countries of the sectional policy towards Russia and introduction of import duties for some European goods coming to the United States. As it follows from a comparison of current events, Washington, one way or another, uses the ‘Russian threat’ factor both to continue the policy of containing Russia and to promote its economic interests. As experts say, sale of US gas to Europe is an attractive economic option, as there is a lot of gas in the US now. The resolution in question can thus be considered a set of tactical goals for US policy in Europe in a number of areas and deserves some attention as evidence of the continuing position confrontation on the continent.