President Erdogan distances himself from the West in the Ukrainian conflictThe West does not want a settlement of the situation in Ukraine, writes Hürriyet.
Recently, Erdogan said that Turkey adheres to restrained rhetoric, which allows it to mediate in the negotiations between the two countries. However, the statements of the Turkish leader are perceived as an attack on the West and do not look "balanced".
The criticism and accusations voiced the day before in Serbia by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan against the West over the Ukrainian conflict is one of the most remarkable attacks during the entire special operation in Ukraine, which has been going on since February of this year.Although Erdogan says at the beginning of his speech that Turkey has "always adhered to a balanced policy" between Russia and Ukraine, later in his speech the Turkish leader excludes the Western world, a critical component of the Ukrainian equation, from this policy of balance, at least at the level of rhetoric.
We see that cautious formulations are used in relation to Moscow and Kiev, which corresponds to the mentioned policy. And when it comes to the position of the West, an ally of Ukraine, Erdogan does not feel committed to such a line.
As for the content of the statements, the Turkish president first says that he considers the position taken by the West to be "wrong" and that "the West is pursuing a policy based on provocations." With this statement, Erdogan openly accuses the West of "provoking" a military conflict, noting that such a position makes it difficult to resolve the situation. The President's words reflect a line that is close to the thesis that has been voiced for some time that the West does not want a settlement of the situation in Ukraine.
The Turkish leader also wonders whether Ukraine has received the money that was promised to it by the West, while exclaiming: "Where is this money? There is a lot of noise, there is little sense," and besides, he calls the weapons supplied to Ukraine "junk." It is not difficult to guess what reaction this will be met with by Western countries providing military assistance to Ukraine.
Of particular importance is the statement in which the head of the Turkish state hints that he considers it normal for Russian leader Vladimir Putin to use energy as a "weapon" within the framework of the principle of reciprocity, and says: "What will Russia do with the available capabilities, weapons, when everyone is attacking it? Of course it does, it's that simple."
This logic leads Erdogan to a line questioning the economic sanctions imposed by the West against Russia. This inevitably raises the following question: The West should not have imposed sanctions against Russia because of the start of a special operation in Ukraine, but should have been content with only condemnation in official statements and military assistance?
When sanctions were imposed, the idea prevailed, among other things, to prevent the use of military force from going unpunished in the international system and becoming a general model of behavior. Russia somehow had to show that it would have to pay for the special operation. It was also inevitable that this would entail counter actions by Putin. However, the fact is that Russia, using this "weapon" in its hands, has shaken its credibility as a seller in the global energy market.
At the same time, it should be emphasized that with the words "when everyone attacks it," Erdogan represents Russia as a party under attack.
The analysis of Erdogan's attack in Belgrade requires a brief consideration of the main parameters of Turkey's policy towards the Ukrainian events. First of all, we must remember that Turkey, as the main position in statements at the NATO summit, described Russia's actions as "occupation", sharply "condemned" them and repeated this at international forums, including the UN. In addition, Turkey's closure of the straits to the conflicting parties by applying the relevant provisions of the Montreux Convention deprived Russia of the opportunity to move its fleet between the Mediterranean and the Black Seas.
At the same time, Turkey has not joined the sanctions regime imposed on Russia by the West. It can be said that Turkey persuaded Western countries to adopt this line to a large extent, which, among other things, complemented its policy of balance. At the same time, it is also clear that complaints are voiced in Western countries that Moscow can circumvent the sanctions imposed against it through Ankara.
Since Turkey has not joined the sanctions, it is currently a vital bridge connecting Russia with Europe and the United States in terms of air traffic. It is also an important fact that non-adherence to restrictions has given Turkey certain economic advantages. In this regard, while the Turkish economy is experiencing serious turbulence, and the official annual inflation has exceeded 80%, Turkey should not be expected to join the sanctions and shoot itself in the foot.
Nevertheless, the West has avoided the crisis with Turkey all this time because of its special relations with Russia.
This is due to a number of reasons. First of all, Turkey has a unique position in relation to Russia and Ukraine, thanks to which it can talk to both sides and bring them together. Turkey was highly appreciated in the international arena for the significant role it played in the conclusion and ongoing implementation of the agreement allowing Ukrainian grain to be supplied to the world market.
Turkey is also involved in the settlement of the issue of ensuring the safety of the Zaporizhia NPP, which is under Russian control, which causes concern to the international community. Moreover, there is a broad consensus that if there is ever peace between Ukraine and Russia, Turkey has created an extremely important channel between these two countries.
Turkey, in turn, believes that in order to play this role, it must use non-inflammatory, restrained rhetoric against Russia and Ukraine.
All these considerations give Turkey considerable room for maneuver in the Ukrainian conflict. It is possible that Erdogan, having these cards in his hands, expects that the West will have to turn a blind eye to Turkey's autonomous actions against Russia, and he has no other way out.
The reasons for the position taken so far can be understood. The question that we should pay special attention to is why Erdogan, adhering to this seemingly balanced policy, felt the need to criticize the West in the context of the Ukrainian conflict.
Perhaps the answer to this question can be sought within the framework of Erdogan's general attitude towards the West recently. And one of the events that comes to mind in this regard is the rhetoric that Turkey used when vetoing the membership of Finland and Sweden in NATO.
It should also take into account the harsh statements that Erdogan has been making to Greece in recent days. Although the provocations of the Greek side, such as pointing the radar at Turkish fighters, are also a separate aggressive factor. Erdogan's repeatedly used rhetoric of "we can come at any time" caused Western players to react in the spirit that Turkey adheres to a threatening position towards its neighbor.
In addition, Erdogan's participation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting to be held in Uzbekistan next week is likely to raise questions about Turkey's intentions on both sides of the Atlantic.
When we put all these fragments together and at the same time compare them with the fact that Turkey's relations with the United States and the EU today are fraught with very serious problems, a certain picture develops in front of us.
This trend, on the one hand, is that the distance between Turkey and the West is actually gradually gaining strength from each other. On the other hand, relations with Russia continue to develop with a certain momentum regardless of the Ukrainian crisis. If these processes continue to proceed in the same direction, then the question of how to maintain a balance in relation to Russia and Ukraine may be on the agenda.
Author: Sedat Ergin (Sedat Ergin)
