Connect with us

Middle East

The Emerging Strategic Axis of Turkey-Ukraine

Published

on

In recent years, Turkey has been paying close attention to the Black Sea, where it is steadily developing an ever closer relationship with another important country in the region, Ukraine. Ankara-Kiev strategic cooperation is gradually expanding into more and more areas, especially security, and has the potential to significantly change the geopolitical balance in the Black Sea.

The annexation of Crimea by Russia and the outbreak of war in Ukraine in 2014 were the turning point in bilateral relations. While previously the two sides did not attach much importance to their relations, apart from the trade side, the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the subsequent escalation of geopolitical tensions in the Black Sea, made Turkish-Ukrainian cooperation a top priority for the two countries. Meetings between high-ranking officials and other diplomatic contacts intensified. In addition, negotiations on the signing of a free trade agreement, which had been suspended in 2013, have resumed.

Turkey, on the other hand, has been cautious and refused to impose sanctions on Russia for its actions, as did the US and the European Union, in order to maintain a balance in its extremely sensitive relations with Moscow. On the other hand, Ankara has clearly supported Ukraine’s territorial integrity and refused to recognize Crimea as Russian territory, a position it maintains to this day.

The main reason for the strongly negative Turkish stance is that the annexation of Crimea changed the balance of military power in the Black Sea in favor of Russia. Previously, the Russian Black Sea Fleet was in extremely poor condition, consisting mainly of old vessels. By imposing its control over Crimea, however, Russia has significantly increased its Exclusive Economic Zone and its Black Sea coastline, which is now almost equal to that of Turkey. Subsequently, Moscow canceled previous agreements with Ukraine, which limited the Black Sea Fleet, and began to strengthen the fleet with new upgraded surface vessels and submarines. At the same time, Russia has installed a dense network of advanced weapons systems on the Crimean peninsula, such as the S-400 anti-aircraft systems. S-300 and Pantsir-S1 and the Bastion-P anti-ship system, as well as various types of radar and electronic warfare systems. The annexation of Crimea means that almost the entire Black Sea is now within the scope of these systems.

The changing balance of military power in favor of Russia has raised fears in Turkey that the Black Sea is gradually turning into a “Russian lake.” But Ankara is reluctant to escalate tensions with Moscow by allowing NATO to increase its presence in the region. Therefore, the development of closer bilateral relations with Ukraine has emerged as a means of balancing increased Russian activity in the Black Sea. In addition, co-operation with a pro-Western state such as Ukraine has made a positive contribution to Turkey’s relations with the United States, which have faced many problems in recent years.

For Kiev, the cultivation of relations with Turkey is part of its general anti-Russian policy and its effort to strengthen the armed forces after the outbreak of the conflict with Russia. Bilateral co-operation with Turkey is a great opportunity, given that Turkey has NATO’s second strongest army and is also a Black Sea country.

In the Turkish-Ukrainian cooperation on common security, the defense industry is prominent. In this area, the interests of the two states are complementary. Turkey seeks to develop its defense industry in order to ensure self-sufficiency in the armaments field. As Ankara’s western partners have not been willing to provide it with the necessary know-how for this purpose, Ukraine is a major alternative. Kiev has a remarkable defense industry, which it inherited from the Soviet Union. In this context, multilateral and mutually beneficial cooperation has been developed, with Ukraine providing military technology and know-how to Turkey and managing armaments programs jointly with the Turkish side,

The foundations of cooperation in the defense industry were laid with agreements signed in 2014, 2016 and 2018. In 2018, Ukraine procured 6 Turkish unmanned aerial vehicles Bayraktar TB2. In 2019, the Turkish Baykar Makina, manufacturer of Bayraktar, and the Ukrainian Ukrpetrskport signed an agreement to create a consortium, with the aim of joint production of modern weapons systems. The co-operation will reportedly solve the long-standing problems of the Turkish defense industry in engine construction. For example, the new Turkish drone Akinci uses a Ukrainian engine. In addition, the two sides have expressed their ambition over the past year to extend this cooperation to the space sector and to the production of satellites, fighter jets, armor and missiles.

In October, during the visit of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to Istanbul, a new general agreement on cooperation in the defense industry was signed. In the last two months, agreements have been signed for space cooperation, for the sale of four Turkish MILGEM warships in Ukraine, as well as for the creation of a new Turkish-Ukrainian consortium, with the aim of producing up to 48 Bayraktar TB2 in Ukraine. Some of them will be deployed near the front in eastern Ukraine, for possible future use against pro-Russian separatist forces.

Another motive behind Turkey’s interest in Ukraine is Ankara’s historical and cultural ties with the Crimean Tatar community. For centuries, the autonomous Tatar kingdom in Crimea was part of the Ottoman Empire. The annexation by Russia in the late 18 th century Russian policies against Tatars brought large population movements in Turkey, during the 19 the 20 the century. Today, the Tatar population in Turkey is estimated at 3,000,000-6,000,000, while Crimea is home to about 250,000 Tatars, accounting for 12% of the population.

The Tatar community in Turkey is active, with more than 50 organizations, and maintains close ties with the ancestral land. The annexation of Crimea further mobilized the Tatar diaspora, as the Tatar leadership strongly opposed Russia because of its historical past. Reports from the Turkish government and the international media point to violations of Tatar rights by the Russian authorities. Turkey, which sees itself as a protective force of all Turkish communities abroad, often expresses concerns about the situation of Tatars in Crimea. Typically, the Erdogan-Zelensky joint statement at the October meeting emphasized discrimination against Tatars and spoke of “joint protection of human rights” in Crimea. Most likely,

The significant development of Turkish-Ukrainian relations over the last seven years or so shows that, despite frequent reports about the Russia-Turkey rapprochement, which is absolutely certain, Turkey still considers Russia a serious threat, which must be treated. Close co-operation with Ukraine demonstrates the common understanding of Turkey and the US-NATO on the geopolitics of the Black Sea. In the long run, if this cooperation continues at the current pace, it is likely to make a significant contribution to military assistance to both Ukraine and Turkey, consolidating a new Euro-Atlantic-backed regional axis, which will pose a serious challenge to Russian interests in the region.

Author’s note: First published in greek at offlinepost.gr

Ioannis Chouliaras is an undergraduate student at the Department of International and European Studies of the University of Piraeus, Greece. He is also a researcher at the Greek Institute of International Relations. His main areas of research are Russia and post-Soviet states, Middle East and North Africa and the Balkans.

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

Saudi Arabia and Iran cold war

Published

on

After almost seven decades, the cold war has reached the middle east, turning into a religious war of words and diplomacy. As Winston Churchill says that “diplomacy is an art of telling someone to go to hell in such a way that they ask for the direction”. So, both the regional powers are trying to pursue a policy of subduing the adversary in a diplomatic manner. The root of the conflict lies in the 1979, Iranian revolution, which saw the toppling of the pro-western monarch shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi and replaced by the so-called supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei. From a Yemini missile attack to the assassination of the supreme commander QassimSoleimani, the political, ideological and religious differences between Iran and Saudi Arabia are taking the path of confrontation. The perennial rivalry between the two dominant Shiite and Sunni power house ins an ideological and religious one rather than being geo strategic or geo political. Back to the time when Saudi Arabia supported Saddam Hussain against the united states of Americathe decline of Saddam and his authoritarian regime was made inevitable and with this, Iran and Saudi Arabia rosed as the powerful, strategic and dominant political forces in the middle east.it was from here that the quest for supremacy to be the prepotent and commanding political powercommenced. The tensions escalated or in other words almost tended to turn into scuffles when in 2016, the Iranians stormed the Saudi embassy as a demonstration of the killing of a Shia cleric. The diplomatic ties were broken and chaos and uncertainty prevailed.

This cold war also resembles the original one., because it is also fueled by a blend of ideological conviction and brute power politics but at the same time unlike the original cold war, the middle eastern cold war is multi-dimensional and is more likely to escalate .it is more volatile and thus more prone to transformation. This followed by several incidents with each trying to isolate the other in international relations. The Saudis and Iranians have been waging proxy wars for regional dominance for decades. Yemen and Syria are the two battlegrounds, fueling the Iran-Saudi tensions. Iran has been accused of providing military assistance to the rebel Houthis, which targets the Saudi territory. It is also accused of attacking the world naval ships in the strait of Hormoz, something Iran strongly denies.  This rivalry has dragged the region into chaos and ignited Shia-Sunni conflict across the middle east. The violence in the middle east due to this perennial hostility has also dire consequences for the economy of the war-torn nations. In the midst of the global pandemic, when all the economic activities are at halt, the tensions between the two arch rivals will prove hazardous and will yield catastrophic results. The blockade of the shipping and navigation in the Gulf, attacks on international ships, and the rising concerns of the western powers regarding this issue has left Iran as an isolated country with only Russia supporting her.

A direct military conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran will have dire consequences for the neighboringcountries. A direct military confrontation might not be a planned one, but it will be fueled due to the intervention of the other key partners, who seek to sought and serve their personal and national intrigues. Most importantly middle east cannot afford a conflict as it is a commercial hub for the world. The recent skirmishes in Iraq sparked fears of wider war when Iraq retaliated for killings of QassimSoleimani. If the US president had not extended an olive branch, the situation might have worsened. The OIC, which is a coalition of 57 Muslim countries has also failed in bringing measures to deescalate the growing tensions. The OIC, where the Saudi Arabia enjoys an authoritarian style of dominance has always tried to empower her own ideology while rising the catch cry of being a sacred country to all the Muslims. Taking in account, the high tensions and ideological and the quest for religious dominance, the international communities such as UN and neighboring countries should play a positiveand vital role in deescalating these tensions. Bilateral trade, communications between the two adversaries with a regional power playing the role of mediator and extending an olive branch to each other will yield better results and will prove fruitful in mitigating the conflict if not totally subverting it.

Continue Reading

Middle East

First Aid: How Russia and the West Can Help Syrians in Idlib

Published

on

Authors: Andrey Kortunov and Julien Barnes-Dacey*

The next international showdown on Syria is quickly coming into view. After ten years of conflict, Bashar al-Assad may have won the war, but much is left to be done to win the peace. This is nowhere more so than in the province of Idlib, which is home to nearly 3 million people who now live under the control of extremist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) with external Turkish protection and humanitarian assistance from the United Nations.

The question of humanitarian access into Idlib is now emerging as a central focus of new international politicking. In so doing, this small province could be pivotal to the future of the larger stalemate that has left the United States, Europe, and Russia locked in an unwinnable status quo.

Russia has said that it plans to veto an extension of cross-border UN aid delivered from Turkey, authorised under UN Security Council resolution 2533, which is up for renewal in July, potentially depriving the population of a vital lifeline amid desperate conditions. Moscow says that all aid should be channelled from Damascus via three new government-controlled crossing points to the northern province. Western governments, to say nothing of the local population, are sceptical, given the Syrian government’s hostility towards the province’s inhabitants. For its part, the UN says that cross-lines aid cannot compensate for a closure of cross-border access.

As ever, the two dominant players—the US and Russia—are talking past each other and are focused on countering each other’s moves—to their mutual failure. It is evident that US condemnation and pressure on Russia will not deliver the necessary aid, and also evident that Russia will not get its wish for the international recognition of the legitimacy of the Syrian government by vetoing cross-border access. While these will only be diplomatic failures for the US and Russia, it is the Syrian people who will, as ever, pay the highest price.

But a mutually beneficial solution to Idlib is still possible. Russia and the US, backed by European states, should agree to a new formula whereby Moscow greenlights a final one-year extension of cross-border aid in exchange for a Western agreement to increase aid flows via Damascus, including through Russia’s proposed cross-lines channels into Idlib. This would meet the interests of both sides, allowing immediate humanitarian needs to be met on the ground as desired by the West, while also paving the way for a transition towards the Damascus-centred international aid operation sought by Moscow.

This imperfect but practical compromise would mean more than a positive change in the humanitarian situation in Idlib. It would demonstrate the ability of Russian and Western actors to work together to reach specific agreements in Syria even if their respective approaches to the wider conflict differ significantly. This could serve to reactivate the UN Security Council mechanism, which has been paralysed and absent from the Syrian track for too long.

To be sure the Syrian government will also need to be incentivised to comply. Western governments will need to be willing to increase humanitarian and early recovery support to other parts of government-controlled Syria even as they channel aid to Idlib. With the country now experiencing a dramatic economic implosion, this could serve as a welcome reprieve to Damascus. It would also meet Western interests in not seeing a full state collapse and worsening humanitarian tragedy.

The underlying condition for this increased aid will need to be transparency and access to ensure that assistance is actually delivered to those in need. The West and Russia will need to work on implementing a viable monitoring mechanism for aid flows channelled via Damascus. This will give Moscow an opportunity to push the Syrian regime harder on matters of corruption and mismanagement.

For its part, the West will need to work with Moscow to exercise pressure on Ankara to use its military presence in Idlib to more comprehensively confront radical Islamists and ensure that aid flows do not empower HTS. A ‘deradicalisation’ of Idlib will need to take the form of a detailed roadmap, including that HTS comply with specific behaviour related to humanitarian deliveries.

Ultimately this proposal will not be wholly satisfactory to either Moscow or the West. The West will not like that it is only a one-year extension and will not like the shift towards Damascus. Russia will not like that it is an extension at all. But for all sides the benefits should outweigh the downsides.

Russia will know that Western actors will respond to failure by unilaterally channelling non-UN legitimised aid into the country via Turkey. Russia will lose the opportunity to slowly move Idlib back into Damascus’s orbit and the country’s de facto partition will be entrenched. This outcome is also likely to lead to increased instability as aid flows decrease, with subsequent tensions between Moscow’s allies, Damascus and Ankara.

The West will need to acknowledge that this approach offers the best way of delivering ongoing aid into Idlib and securing greater transparency on wider support across Syria. The alternative—bilateral cross-border support—will not sufficiently meet needs on the ground, will place even greater responsibility on Turkey, and will increase the prospect of Western confrontation with Russia and the Syrian regime.

Importantly, this proposal could also create space for wider political talks on Idlib’s fate. It could lead to a renewed track between Russia, the US, Turkey and Europeans to address the province’s fate in a way that accounts for Syria’s territorial integrity and state sovereignty on the one hand and the needs and security of the local population on the other hand. After ten years of devastating conflict, a humanitarian compromise in Idlib will not represent a huge victory. But a limited agreement could still go a long way to positively changing the momentum in Syria and opening up a pathway for much-needed international cooperation.

* Julien Barnes-Dacey, Middle East and North Africa Programme Director, European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Middle East

Iran’s Impunity Will Grow if Evidence of Past Crimes is Fully Destroyed

Published

on

No reasonable person would deny the importance of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. But that issue must not be allowed to continue overshadowing Iran’s responsibility for terrorism and systematic human rights violations. These matters represent a much more imminent threat to human life, as well as longstanding denials of justice for those who have suffered from the Iranian regime’s actions in the past.

The Iranian people have risen multiple times in recent years to call for democratic change. In 2017, major uprisings broke out against the regime’s disastrous policies. Although the ruling clerics suppressed those protests, public unrest soon resumed in November 2019. That uprising was even broader in scope and intensity. The regime responded by opening fire on crowds, murdering at least 1,500. Amnesty International has reported on the torture that is still being meted out to participants in the uprising.

Meanwhile, the United Nations and human rights organizations have continued to repeat longstanding calls for increased attention to some of the worst crimes perpetrated by the regime in previous years.

Last year, Amnesty International praised a “momentous breakthrough” when seven UN human rights experts demanded an end to the ongoing cover-up of a massacre of political prisoners in the summer of 1988.

The killings were ordered by the regime’s previous supreme leader Khomeini, who declared that opponents of the theocracy were “enemies of God” and thus subject to summary executions. In response, prisons throughout Iran convened “death commissions” that were tasked with interrogating political prisoners over their views. Those who rejected the regime’s fundamentalist interpretation of Islam were hanged, often in groups, and their bodies were dumped mostly in mass graves, the locations of which were held secret.

In the end, at least 30,000 political prisoners were massacred. The regime has been trying hard to erase the record of its crimes, including the mass graves. Its cover-up has unfortunately been enabled to some degree by the persistent lack of a coordinated international response to the situation – a failure that was acknowledged in the UN experts’ letter.

The letter noted that although the systematic executions had been referenced in a 1988 UN resolution on Iran’s human rights record, none of the relevant entities within that international body followed up on the case, and the massacre went unpunished and underreported.

For nearly three decades, the regime enforced silence regarding any public discussion of the killings, before this was challenged in 2016 by the leak of an audio recording that featured contemporary officials discussing the 1988 massacre. Regime officials, like then-Minister of Justice Mostafa Pourmohammadi, told state media that they were proud of committing the killings.

Today, the main victims of that massacre, the principal opposition Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), are still targets of terrorist plots on Western soil, instigated by the Iranian regime. The most significant of these in recent years was the plot to bomb a gathering organized near Paris in 2018 by the MEK’s parent coalition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). The Free Iran rally was attended by tens of thousands of Iranian expatriates from throughout the world, as well as hundreds of political dignitaries, and if the attack had not been prevented by law enforcement, it would have no doubt been among the worst terrorist attacks in recent European history.

The mastermind of that attack was a high-ranking Iranian diplomat named Assadollah Assadi. He was convicted in a Belgian court alongside three co-conspirators in February. But serious critics of the Iranian regime have insisted that accountability must not stop here.

If Tehran believes it has gotten away with the 1988 massacre, one of the worst crimes against humanity from the late 20th century, it can also get away with threatening the West and killing protesters by the hundreds. The ongoing destruction of mass graves demonstrates the regime’s understanding that it has not truly gotten away with the massacre as long as evidence remains to be exposed.

The evidence of mass graves has been tentatively identified in at least 36 different cities, but a number of those sites have since been covered by pavement and large structures. There are also signs that this development has accelerated in recent years as awareness of the massacre has gradually expanded. Unfortunately, the destruction currently threatens to outpace the campaign for accountability, and it is up to the United Nations and its leading member states to accelerate that campaign and halt the regime’s destruction of evidence.

If this does not happen and the 1988 massacre is consigned to history before anyone has been brought to justice, it will be difficult to compel Tehran into taking its critics seriously about anything, be it more recent human rights violations, ongoing terrorist threats, or even the nuclear program that authorities have been advancing in spite of the Western conciliation that underlay 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Development10 mins ago

Viet Nam’s mango industry: towards compliance with export market requirements

A Swiss-funded project, implemented by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), is helping mango value chain stakeholders in the...

Eastern Europe1 hour ago

Armenia After the Parliamentary Elections

On June 20, snap parliamentary elections will be held in Armenia. The move will ease tensions in the country but...

Human Rights2 hours ago

Free press ‘a cornerstone’ of democratic societies

The United Nations Secretary-General on Monday urged governments to “do everything in their power” to support free, independent and diverse...

South Asia3 hours ago

The World Biggest COVID-19 Crisis: Failure of India’s Vaccine Diplomacy

As over 100 million people in the U.S. are fully vaccinated and the world’s daily count of new cases is...

Finance5 hours ago

New ways of thinking and working are necessary to reap blockchain benefits in capital markets

The World Economic Forum today released Digital Assets, Distributed Ledger Technology, and the Future of Capital Markets. Across the capital...

Development7 hours ago

Ukraine to Modernize Higher Education System with World Bank Support

The World Bank’s Board of Executive Directors approved today a $200 million project to support the Government of Ukraine’s efforts...

Tourism9 hours ago

New Report Shows Value of IP to the Tourism Sector

A new report published jointly by WIPO and the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) on the value of intellectual property in...

Trending