One of the conspicuous issues of the last days are the critical statements of the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about the Turkish policy and the reaction they have caused in Turkey. In an interview with a Greek journalist, Zelensky said: «On the one hand, Turkey is acting as a mediator and supporting Ukraine with important steps, and on the other hand, we see the simultaneous preparation of several tourist routes specifically for Russian tourists. And as the president, if we want to have friendly relations, I must say that this is impossible. This is a double standard. This is unfair. Therefore, I draw Turkey’s attention to such contradictions, I believe that it cannot be like this, because we have to make a choice — for the truth or not?».
Reactions to these accusations in Turkey have ranged from calls for Zelensky to use a «very respectful style of speaking to the Turkish people» from the leader of the second largest party in government (MHP), Devlet Bahçeli, to explicit insults, for example, from Shamil Tayyar, a member of the leading party in government (AKP). At the same time, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other official representatives of the Republic of Turkey have refrained from making statements.
What can be said about this? First of all, it is necessary to distinguish between questions of form and content. Speaking about the form, Zelensky, as a relatively inexperienced politician in the world, made a clear mistake by choosing such a tone for the public dialog with the Turkish side. And the double mistake was to do it in an interview with a Greek media, against the background of the fact that he did not address similar grievances to Greece.
It is necessary to understand that Turkey’s foreign policy is what it is. Not only when, on the one hand, it recognizes Ukraine’s rights to Crimea and supplies it with Bayraktar and, on the other hand, creates corridors to circumvent Western sanctions imposed by Russia. But also when, on the one hand, it criticizes Russia’s policy in Syria and defends the rebel enclave of Idlib against it, and on the other hand, in exchange for several protectorates, effectively helps it to maintain and stabilize the Assad regime in the rest of the country. Or when, on the one hand, it publicly condemns Israel’s policies and opens Hamas offices in Turkey and, on the other hand, increases trade with Israel and negotiates joint gas transportation. There are many examples of this, and it has been written about many times.
By taking on serious geopolitical burdens, Turkey at a certain point faced the fact that it had many enemies and competitors, but no one to rely on. That is why such maneuvering tactics were chosen to ensure its survival. And those who want to cooperate with Turkey will have to accept this as a fact. Especially considering the rather tough nature of its current leader, who will not let himself be lectured, especially by someone he considers a political novice who still has to prove his right to exist.
On the other hand, in terms of content, this situation can not only be seen as the inexperienced President Zelensky voicing childish complaints against the political wolf Erdogan. The point is that against the backdrop of the Russian-Ukrainian war, the geopolitical configuration of the world is beginning to undergo tectonic changes.
Meanwhile, Turkey’s policy of maneuvering in relations with Russia and the West was formed in previous years and under different circumstances. In those circumstances, there was a gap that allowed Turkey to occupy an advantageous niche as a mediator between them. Moreover, it was this role that Turkey assumed in the initial phase of the Russian-Ukrainian war, which allowed it to act as the most effective mediator capable of reaching a peaceful agreement between the opposing sides.
However, the situation is changing very fast. And now that the West has decided to provide Ukraine with maximum, massive support, it is becoming clear that Ukraine is no longer interested in concluding a peaceful agreement with Russia that would require any significant compromise. This was clearly stated yesterday by the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, Oleksiy Danilov, when he said that his country is ready to sign an act of surrender with Russia, not a peace treaty.
Understandably, at this stage of the war, it is premature to talk about anyone’s capitulation. Moreover, this war, if it gains momentum, can last for a long time — from several months to several years. But the point is that having received the necessary support to wage such a war, Ukraine has decided to go all out and fight this war to a victorious conclusion. At least until Russian troops withdraw to their positions before February 24, 2022, and perhaps even to regain control over Donbass and Crimea afterwards. Especially since military operations have already shifted to Russia’s border regions — Belgorod, Kursk, Voronezh, Bryansk.
But now we are not talking about the prospects for the development of the Russian-Ukrainian war, but about its international consequences. And not only for Ukraine’s relations with Russia, but for the entire geopolitical configuration. The essence of the question is that Turkey’s current foreign policy strategy was built on the necessity and possibility of having a gray zone between the West and Russia, in which Ankara could pursue its own goals.
But now it is becoming more and more likely that there will be no place for this gray zone and there will be no need for intermediaries with Russia, because the goal of the West will be to achieve its complete capitulation. In this case, there will inevitably be a need to establish a new international order, which Erdogan himself has spoken about on many occasions and which we have discussed in our articles on his ideas for reforming the UN.
However, now Kyiv is trying to further develop this initiative, aiming in the future, on the one hand, to push Russia out of the club of the world’s leading countries and, on the other hand, to take its place together with its allies on the basis of new principles. In fact, the head of the Ukrainian presidential administration, Andriy Yermak, writes about this in his programmatic article in the Times magazine, translated into Russian by one of the Ukrainian websites.
And it must be admitted that the implementation of such an approach will make Turkey’s chosen strategy of balancing between Russia and the West since 2016 impossible and irrelevant. This will require new strategies from Turkey, which may come to the fore at the same time when it faces the question of choosing its power and thus the course of the country as a whole — tentatively in 2023.
On the other hand, the realization of these ambitious plans by Kyiv and its allies is far from guaranteed at the moment. Therefore, Turkey theoretically still has a chance to conclude the desired peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine and thus capitalize on its role as a mediator and peacemaker. However, these chances are diminishing by the day, and now Ankara has to hurry up and pressure Moscow to make significant concessions in the negotiations with Ukraine in order to realize these chances. So far, we see the opposite, namely the escalation of militaristic hysteria in Russia with routine calls for nuclear strikes.
In any case, if the Ukrainian leadership wants to keep Turkey as a backup platform for a negotiated solution, it should certainly choose a different tone for its public statements. However, both the Turkish establishment and especially Turkish strategists should better assess the changes taking place in the world in order to be on board the international order that may emerge as a result of this war, rather than being left behind.