Russian martial arts
A bit of Turkish motives
Russia's soft power can be realized not so much in direct competition with the United States — it’s impossible to win in such a format as by using American failures. To conduct a successful foreign policy, it is important to understand the motives for the actions of opponents, allies and partners, as well as outside players. No matter what the motives are, although, as a rule, they are purely selfish and pragmatic.
In Soviet times, it was easier. There was a theory of class struggle, and it should be guided by it. Fortunately, the lack of religious dogma and internationalism made it possible not to overload the Soviet foreign policy strategy with unnecessary details.
True, class consciousness did not force the working people of the Third Reich during the Patriotic War to go over to the side of the world's first state of the proletariat and the working peasantry. Nor did it affect the position of the American workers — neither in the Korean war, nor in the Vietnamese war. However, the experience of the USSR in interacting with national liberation and revolutionary movements, as well as countries of socialist orientation, which could supplement the theory with practice, was not analyzed by domestic experts.
Experiments without compliments
Class theory can serve as a guide to action at a certain stage of the public worldview. However, in modern conditions it is of little use. The experience of the revolutions of the beginning of the new century - the post-Soviet “colored”, “Arab spring”, the Ukrainian Maidan or the “umbrella revolution” in Hong Kong makes it possible to speak about this quite definitely. However, the spread of democracy in its Western version is no more successful than attempts to export socialism — this can be said with confidence.
The violent introduction of democracy in all countries where it takes place leads to such consequences, which strengthened the conspiracy theorists in the opinion that the USA is creating "controlled chaos" in the world. The author is not inclined to treat American politicians, experts and the military intelligence community with more respect than they deserve, believing the idea of a deliberate implementation by the United States at the present time of a long-term foreign policy and especially of a military strategy as an unjustified compliment.
The confidence with which US politicians and government officials pretend that everything that happens in their area of interest is the result of such a strategy, or minor deviations from it, is a bluff. Creating a myth about the omnipotence of the country, including aimed at destroying a stable system that is not controlled by it, is a component of the information war. Some she forces to seek the location of America. It keeps others from conflicts with it and makes them agreeable in situations that harm their interests. Those who are ready to challenge the US are disorienting, pushing for waste of energy with minimal results.
As far as can be understood, the deplorable results to which the experiments of Washington and its allies result are not the result of a premeditated policy, but of self-confidence, lack of professionalism and incompetence with an excess of financial and military resources. Plus - the need to severely limit oneself in time, at all costs to avoid significant loss of life among its citizens. Western leaders have to do not what is necessary, but what is possible. And from the point of view of not professionals, but populist politicians.
A special topic is external lobbying (including bribery) and the need to strike a balance between the mutually exclusive interests of America’s partners. What in practice leads to the fact that the United States is dissatisfied with everything, since the interests of Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan, by definition, do not coincide and cannot coincide. Each country has its own national priorities and its own motivation for action. The pressure exerted by Washington in situations where these priorities collide, as a rule, does not lead to anything good for the United States, which is confirmed by the Soviet experience. The relations of the USSR with the allies and satellites were also not cloudless ...
On different sides of Damascus
Speaking about today's relations between Russia and countries or intergovernmental blocs - political and military, with which it has to interact, their priorities and motives for action should at least be understood and taken into account. The potential for influence in Russia is not so great, however, the need for this is much less than that of the United States, the European Union and NATO. Active aggressive policy, subordinated to the logic of ensuring total control over events occurring on the entire planet, has its flaws - and the West is fully concerned.
The soft power of Russia, about which political scientists talk a lot, can be realized not so much in direct competition with the United States - it is impossible to win in such a format as by using US failures. What distinguishes fist fight without rules from martial arts, in which strength has a certain value, but possession of technology is much more important. However, judo for the highest national leadership is quite familiar art.
Russian martial arts
The use of adversary’s blunders typical of this kind of strategy and his own efforts to achieve an advantage in confrontation with him led to the reunification of Crimea with Russia, and the southeast of Ukraine could not be defeated, despite the efforts of allies of official Kiev. Let us consider in more detail the motives for the actions of those who participate in the new “Big Game”, which Washington and Brussels imposed on Moscow. As soon as the possibility of equal European integration of Russia cannot (and, it seems, initially could not) be realized, it remains to try to understand with whom and with what it will have to deal in the course of the new cold war.
Turkey is a neighbor and one of the largest trading partners of our country. Dependence on Russia in the field of energy supplies is absolute. Thus, in the first half of 2013, Turkey imported from the RF 12,9 a billion cubic meters of natural gas. Over the same period, 2014-14,07 billion cubic meters, an increase of nine percent. However, this forces Ankara to look for alternative sources of oil and gas, supporting any projects that can provide it with an opportunity to reduce the volume of supplies from the Russian Federation, be it the Trans-Caspian gas pipeline or the Nabucco project.
It was the prospect of transporting hydrocarbons from Saudi Arabia and Qatar to the EU through Syria and Turkey that caused R. T. Erdogan and B. Assad to rapidly cool, turning the border regions of the latter into a base for the opposition trying to overthrow the regime in Damascus by force. Here the inconsistency of Ankara’s policy manifested itself. Shortly before the beginning of the Arab Spring, the Turkish leadership announced a special relationship with Libya and Syria, including a visa-free regime and a free trade zone. After this, Ankara’s support of the coalition that overthrew M. Gaddafi and the formation of anti-Assad detachments from Syrian deserters and foreign jihadis with her participation is forced to treat any obligations of Ankara, including in relation to Russia, as temporary. They can be revised at any time.
Turkey, on whose territory there are about a million Syrian refugees, across the border of which there is a continuous stream of jihadists - back and forth - is the only front-line state of the initiators of the civil war in Syria. The statement of the US Vice-President D. Biden about the regional allies of the USA supporting the terrorists was painfully perceived by the Turkish leadership precisely because it corresponds to reality.
At the same time, Ankara got bogged down in the Syrian civil war: expenses are rising, refugees need to be settled, militants controlled, and Assad’s army could not be destroyed. It is not by chance that the Turkish leadership has set the overthrow of the ruling regime in Damascus as a condition for the participation of its army in the US operation against the Islamic state (IG): armed opposition units supported by Ankara, Riyadh and Doha cannot do it themselves.
The participation of Turkish troops in the war on the territory of the Arab state against its central government will inevitably provoke a tough reaction in the countries of the Arab world based on the “genetic” memory of the recent historical the time when they were nothing more than vilayets of the Ottoman Port. This will strengthen Assad’s position in Syria, turn his opponents into Turkish puppets in the eyes of a large part of the local population, intensify the supply of Russian arms and military equipment to him, and provoke an unpredictable response from Iran and the Shiites of Lebanon and Iraq. At the same time, Turkey cannot balance to infinity on the brink of war.
Fights in the Syrian Kurdistan between militants of the Islamic State and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) Kurds lose. This is indicated by the demonstrations of their supporters in Turkey and the EU countries, accusing Ankara of deliberate inaction. The key city of the border region - Kobani is partially captured by the IG in the absence of any reaction from Turkey, in addition to admitting part of the refugees to its territory (at the time of writing this article - up to 200 thousands). Ankara is clearly counting on the fact that the Islamists will maximally weaken the Kurdish PKK detachments, which intensified with the onset of the anti-terrorist operation against the IG, especially since the PKK’s withdrawal from the military confrontation with Turkey was frozen.
October 2 Turkish Parliament approved the mandate to conduct operations against the IG and other terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. The solution is supported by 298 votes against 98. The mandate is valid for one year and entered into effect on October 4. According to him, the Turkish army has the right to conduct anti-terrorist operations in Iraq and Syria. Ankara can lend the territory of the country and its military bases to the forces of the international coalition against the Islamic state.
It should be noted that it was precisely the ousting of a significant number of Islamists from Turkey to Syria after the start of the counter-terrorist operation strengthened Jabhat al-Nusra and the IG, which attacked the positions of the Syrian Kurds. Thus, Ankara weakened both the Islamists and the PKK in the border area, giving the forces of the head of the Kurdish autonomy in Iraq M. Barzani, with whom strong relations were built, a chance to take the place of the PKK detachments. This is not the first attempt supported by the Turkish intelligence services: in 2013, with the help of MIT, Barzani’s militants were transferred from Iraqi Kurdistan to Kurdish regions of Syria, but the PKK was driven out.
Experts believe that the Turkish intelligence services are secretly consulting with the IG. This is evidenced by the release of 46 employees of the Turkish consulate captured by the Islamists in Mosul, in contrast to Western hostages. It is characteristic that the protection of diplomats was transferred to the MIT Special Forces, which will be deployed in all Turkish embassies in “problem” countries. Their duties include agent intelligence in the immediate vicinity of the diplomatic mission. It is about intensifying the intelligence segment under the diplomatic "roof". Its gain indicates a change in the mode of intelligence activities. This usually occurs before major military operations.
The overthrow of the regime of President Assad remains on the agenda of the United States, despite the IS problem. Russia and Assad’s local allies, primarily Iran, need to be prepared for the Americans to implement a force scenario in which the US Air Force attacks on IS positions are only reconnaissance combat before being used to destroy fortified areas, armored vehicles and aviation Damascus This is indirectly indicated by the fact that the Western bloc conducts air operations against the Islamic State without the coordination with the Syrian government and the Iranians, which would be necessary if the Islamic Republic was the main goal of the coalition. The position of Turkey confirms this version.
It is characteristic that the main stream of smuggled oil, which exports from Syria and Iraq at prices reduced by two to four times relative to the world market, gives the IG up to three million dollars a day, mainly through Turkey (mainly through the port of Ceyhan). Ankara's obligations to Washington to stop this flow are not fulfilled. The United States looks at it through its fingers, as well as at the export of oil from Iraqi Kurdistan bypassing Baghdad. The arrest imposed in August by a US court on an oil batch of one million barrels and worth 100 million dollars, delivered by tanker to Texas from Iraqi Kurdistan, was an exception to this rule.
Where the breeze blows
From the point of view of strategic Russian interests, Turkey’s position on the situation in the Black Sea basin, including the Crimea, is no less important than on piping issues. In this regard, NATO’s Breeze 2014 exercises, which were held July 4–13 off the coast of Bulgaria, and the planned maneuvers of the Ukrainian Navy and NATO Sea Breeze 2014, which took place on September 8–10 in the northwestern part of the Black Sea, are characteristic. At the same time, Russia conducted large-scale exercises of the Black Sea fleet (Black Sea Fleet).
In July, NATO engaged seven vessels of the Turkish Navy (including two submarines). The Turkish frigate Aruj participated in the September exercises. At the same time, despite the planned nature, both the first and second demonstrated the support of Kiev in its confrontation with Moscow. Although the exercise programs did not include the participation of strategic ships, the Sea Breeze-2014 corrected the US missile cruiser Vella Gulf.
It should be borne in mind that the ships of the Turkish Navy are part of the second permanent mine-mine group of NATO (SNMCMG2). The refusal from the selective admission of NATO ships to the Black Sea, as demonstrated by Ankara in 2014 (unlike the 2008 war of the year with the Russian Federation), draws it into closer cooperation with NATO and raises the question of the feasibility of maintaining Russian-Turkish cooperation at the current level. The existence of such organizations as Bleksifor and Black Sea Harmony, as well as the cooperation of Russia and Turkey on the non-proliferation of the NATO program Active Endeavor in the Black Sea are at risk.
In the Caucasus direction, the Turkish Armed Forces have an absolute advantage over the Russian ones, not counting the presence of nuclear weapons. In the water area of the Black Sea, the Russian Navy has an advantage in missile carriers, but in terms of the size of the Turkish Navy, the Black Sea Fleet surpasses the Black Sea Fleet threefold, and in the total fire power, by one and a half times. Ankara builds up and qualitatively updates its fleet. By 2015, this program should be completed. The new composition of the Turkish Navy includes a multipurpose military landing ship built on national shipyards. In addition to use in the Aegean, Black and Mediterranean seas, it is designed for swimming in the Indian and Atlantic oceans. The modernization program for the Russian Black Sea Fleet should end only in 2020.
It should not be forgotten that Moscow remains for Ankara a “historical” enemy. This is evidenced by the decision of the National Security Council of Turkey, adopted in October 2010. According to the new version of the National Security Strategy, for the first time after the collapse of the USSR, Russia is viewed as a potential adversary. At the same time, Syria and Iran were excluded from the list of countries representing an external threat to Turkey.
The entry of the Crimea into Russia despite the efforts of the United States and the European Union, on the one hand, caused satisfaction in the highest political echelons of Turkey: relations between R. Erdogan and B. Obama, A. Merkel and F. Hollande remain cool. Moscow’s independent Ukrainian policy on the crisis in Ukraine opens up wide opportunities for Ankara to solve its own problems, including the issues of Northern Cyprus and the spread of influence to the regions of Syria and Iraq, which are considered in Turkey as a zone alienated by European states, including Aleppo and Mosul.
On the other hand, the rupture of Erdogan’s relations with Nursa leader F. Gulen, who lives in the United States, excluded from the agenda of Russian-Turkish relations the problem of the schools of the Nurcular movement, which were closed after President Putin came to power. Ankara’s lobbying of its Islamists in the post-Soviet space has ended - the campaign to close the educational institutions they control not only does not cause Turkey’s protests, but is carried out in coordination with the leadership of this country.
This does not mean that the ruling Justice and Development Party has ceased to be Islamic. However, the frontal advancement of the interests of its sister structures from an extensive network of parties and movements belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood (BM) is irrelevant in Russia at this stage. Turkey’s open confrontation with Israel and Egypt because of their struggle with BM and Hamas and in disguised form with Saudi Arabia because of the dangers of the ruling kingdom of dynasty, which is political Islam for Riyadh, is more than sufficient for Ankara.
Against this background, the contacts maintained by the Russian Foreign Ministry with Hamas leave the Turkish Islamists in the Russian direction without arguments addressed to Israel and the United States. At the same time, the use of Islamic radicals against Russia in the Crimea by the Ukrainian and American intelligence agencies in the near future could aggravate Ankara’s relations with Moscow. At the same time, the Crimean Tatar factor is especially important for the author of the “neo-Ottomanism” strategy of Turkish Prime Minister A. Davutoglu, due to his ethnic origin - it is through his office that this kind of combination can be played.
Under the action of anti-Russian sanctions, Turkey is ready for the development of large projects in the Crimea, primarily aimed at public funding. However, it is also ready to invest in the peninsula. In addition, the sanctions provide an opportunity to increase bilateral trade, amounting to more than 33 billions of dollars. Machine builders and farmers of Turkey are ready to increase exports to Russia at times, replacing Western partners. Given the importance for Ankara of the Akkuyu nuclear power plant project implemented by Rosatom, this makes it possible to count on acceptable relations between Russia and Turkey for a long time, despite the disagreements over Syria and pressure from the United States.
Russia's soft power can be realized not so much in direct competition with the United States — it’s impossible to win in such a format as by using American failures. To conduct a successful foreign policy, it is important to understand the motives for the actions of opponents, allies and partners, as well as outside players. No matter what the motives are, although, as a rule, they are purely selfish and pragmatic.
In Soviet times, it was easier. There was a theory of class struggle, and it should be guided by it. Fortunately, the lack of religious dogma and internationalism made it possible not to overload the Soviet foreign policy strategy with unnecessary details.
True, class consciousness did not force the working people of the Third Reich during the Patriotic War to go over to the side of the world's first state of the proletariat and the working peasantry. Nor did it affect the position of the American workers — neither in the Korean war, nor in the Vietnamese war. However, the experience of the USSR in interacting with national liberation and revolutionary movements, as well as countries of socialist orientation, which could supplement the theory with practice, was not analyzed by domestic experts.
Experiments without compliments
Class theory can serve as a guide to action at a certain stage of the public worldview. However, in modern conditions it is of little use. The experience of the revolutions of the beginning of the new century - the post-Soviet “colored”, “Arab spring”, the Ukrainian Maidan or the “umbrella revolution” in Hong Kong makes it possible to speak about this quite definitely. However, the spread of democracy in its Western version is no more successful than attempts to export socialism — this can be said with confidence.
The violent introduction of democracy in all countries where it takes place leads to such consequences, which strengthened the conspiracy theorists in the opinion that the USA is creating "controlled chaos" in the world. The author is not inclined to treat American politicians, experts and the military intelligence community with more respect than they deserve, believing the idea of a deliberate implementation by the United States at the present time of a long-term foreign policy and especially of a military strategy as an unjustified compliment.
The confidence with which US politicians and government officials pretend that everything that happens in their area of interest is the result of such a strategy, or minor deviations from it, is a bluff. Creating a myth about the omnipotence of the country, including aimed at destroying a stable system that is not controlled by it, is a component of the information war. Some she forces to seek the location of America. It keeps others from conflicts with it and makes them agreeable in situations that harm their interests. Those who are ready to challenge the US are disorienting, pushing for waste of energy with minimal results.
As far as can be understood, the deplorable results to which the experiments of Washington and its allies result are not the result of a premeditated policy, but of self-confidence, lack of professionalism and incompetence with an excess of financial and military resources. Plus - the need to severely limit oneself in time, at all costs to avoid significant loss of life among its citizens. Western leaders have to do not what is necessary, but what is possible. And from the point of view of not professionals, but populist politicians.
A special topic is external lobbying (including bribery) and the need to strike a balance between the mutually exclusive interests of America’s partners. What in practice leads to the fact that the United States is dissatisfied with everything, since the interests of Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan, by definition, do not coincide and cannot coincide. Each country has its own national priorities and its own motivation for action. The pressure exerted by Washington in situations where these priorities collide, as a rule, does not lead to anything good for the United States, which is confirmed by the Soviet experience. The relations of the USSR with the allies and satellites were also not cloudless ...
On different sides of Damascus
Speaking about today's relations between Russia and countries or intergovernmental blocs - political and military, with which it has to interact, their priorities and motives for action should at least be understood and taken into account. The potential for influence in Russia is not so great, however, the need for this is much less than that of the United States, the European Union and NATO. Active aggressive policy, subordinated to the logic of ensuring total control over events occurring on the entire planet, has its flaws - and the West is fully concerned.
The soft power of Russia, about which political scientists talk a lot, can be realized not so much in direct competition with the United States - it is impossible to win in such a format as by using US failures. What distinguishes fist fight without rules from martial arts, in which strength has a certain value, but possession of technology is much more important. However, judo for the highest national leadership is quite familiar art.
Russian martial arts
The use of adversary’s blunders typical of this kind of strategy and his own efforts to achieve an advantage in confrontation with him led to the reunification of Crimea with Russia, and the southeast of Ukraine could not be defeated, despite the efforts of allies of official Kiev. Let us consider in more detail the motives for the actions of those who participate in the new “Big Game”, which Washington and Brussels imposed on Moscow. As soon as the possibility of equal European integration of Russia cannot (and, it seems, initially could not) be realized, it remains to try to understand with whom and with what it will have to deal in the course of the new cold war.
Turkey is a neighbor and one of the largest trading partners of our country. Dependence on Russia in the field of energy supplies is absolute. Thus, in the first half of 2013, Turkey imported from the RF 12,9 a billion cubic meters of natural gas. Over the same period, 2014-14,07 billion cubic meters, an increase of nine percent. However, this forces Ankara to look for alternative sources of oil and gas, supporting any projects that can provide it with an opportunity to reduce the volume of supplies from the Russian Federation, be it the Trans-Caspian gas pipeline or the Nabucco project.
It was the prospect of transporting hydrocarbons from Saudi Arabia and Qatar to the EU through Syria and Turkey that caused R. T. Erdogan and B. Assad to rapidly cool, turning the border regions of the latter into a base for the opposition trying to overthrow the regime in Damascus by force. Here the inconsistency of Ankara’s policy manifested itself. Shortly before the beginning of the Arab Spring, the Turkish leadership announced a special relationship with Libya and Syria, including a visa-free regime and a free trade zone. After this, Ankara’s support of the coalition that overthrew M. Gaddafi and the formation of anti-Assad detachments from Syrian deserters and foreign jihadis with her participation is forced to treat any obligations of Ankara, including in relation to Russia, as temporary. They can be revised at any time.
Turkey, on whose territory there are about a million Syrian refugees, across the border of which there is a continuous stream of jihadists - back and forth - is the only front-line state of the initiators of the civil war in Syria. The statement of the US Vice-President D. Biden about the regional allies of the USA supporting the terrorists was painfully perceived by the Turkish leadership precisely because it corresponds to reality.
At the same time, Ankara got bogged down in the Syrian civil war: expenses are rising, refugees need to be settled, militants controlled, and Assad’s army could not be destroyed. It is not by chance that the Turkish leadership has set the overthrow of the ruling regime in Damascus as a condition for the participation of its army in the US operation against the Islamic state (IG): armed opposition units supported by Ankara, Riyadh and Doha cannot do it themselves.
The participation of Turkish troops in the war on the territory of the Arab state against its central government will inevitably provoke a tough reaction in the countries of the Arab world based on the “genetic” memory of the recent historical the time when they were nothing more than vilayets of the Ottoman Port. This will strengthen Assad’s position in Syria, turn his opponents into Turkish puppets in the eyes of a large part of the local population, intensify the supply of Russian arms and military equipment to him, and provoke an unpredictable response from Iran and the Shiites of Lebanon and Iraq. At the same time, Turkey cannot balance to infinity on the brink of war.
Fights in the Syrian Kurdistan between militants of the Islamic State and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) Kurds lose. This is indicated by the demonstrations of their supporters in Turkey and the EU countries, accusing Ankara of deliberate inaction. The key city of the border region - Kobani is partially captured by the IG in the absence of any reaction from Turkey, in addition to admitting part of the refugees to its territory (at the time of writing this article - up to 200 thousands). Ankara is clearly counting on the fact that the Islamists will maximally weaken the Kurdish PKK detachments, which intensified with the onset of the anti-terrorist operation against the IG, especially since the PKK’s withdrawal from the military confrontation with Turkey was frozen.
October 2 Turkish Parliament approved the mandate to conduct operations against the IG and other terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. The solution is supported by 298 votes against 98. The mandate is valid for one year and entered into effect on October 4. According to him, the Turkish army has the right to conduct anti-terrorist operations in Iraq and Syria. Ankara can lend the territory of the country and its military bases to the forces of the international coalition against the Islamic state.It should be noted that it was precisely the ousting of a significant number of Islamists from Turkey to Syria after the start of the counter-terrorist operation strengthened Jabhat al-Nusra and the IG, which attacked the positions of the Syrian Kurds. Thus, Ankara weakened both the Islamists and the PKK in the border area, giving the forces of the head of the Kurdish autonomy in Iraq M. Barzani, with whom strong relations were built, a chance to take the place of the PKK detachments. This is not the first attempt supported by the Turkish intelligence services: in 2013, with the help of MIT, Barzani’s militants were transferred from Iraqi Kurdistan to Kurdish regions of Syria, but the PKK was driven out.
Experts believe that the Turkish intelligence services are secretly consulting with the IG. This is evidenced by the release of 46 employees of the Turkish consulate captured by the Islamists in Mosul, in contrast to Western hostages. It is characteristic that the protection of diplomats was transferred to the MIT Special Forces, which will be deployed in all Turkish embassies in “problem” countries. Their duties include agent intelligence in the immediate vicinity of the diplomatic mission. It is about intensifying the intelligence segment under the diplomatic "roof". Its gain indicates a change in the mode of intelligence activities. This usually occurs before major military operations.
The overthrow of the regime of President Assad remains on the agenda of the United States, despite the IS problem. Russia and Assad’s local allies, primarily Iran, need to be prepared for the Americans to implement a force scenario in which the US Air Force attacks on IS positions are only reconnaissance combat before being used to destroy fortified areas, armored vehicles and aviation Damascus This is indirectly indicated by the fact that the Western bloc conducts air operations against the Islamic State without the coordination with the Syrian government and the Iranians, which would be necessary if the Islamic Republic was the main goal of the coalition. The position of Turkey confirms this version.
It is characteristic that the main stream of smuggled oil, which exports from Syria and Iraq at prices reduced by two to four times relative to the world market, gives the IG up to three million dollars a day, mainly through Turkey (mainly through the port of Ceyhan). Ankara's obligations to Washington to stop this flow are not fulfilled. The United States looks at it through its fingers, as well as at the export of oil from Iraqi Kurdistan bypassing Baghdad. The arrest imposed in August by a US court on an oil batch of one million barrels and worth 100 million dollars, delivered by tanker to Texas from Iraqi Kurdistan, was an exception to this rule.
Where the breeze blows
From the point of view of strategic Russian interests, Turkey’s position on the situation in the Black Sea basin, including the Crimea, is no less important than on piping issues. In this regard, NATO’s Breeze 2014 exercises, which were held July 4–13 off the coast of Bulgaria, and the planned maneuvers of the Ukrainian Navy and NATO Sea Breeze 2014, which took place on September 8–10 in the northwestern part of the Black Sea, are characteristic. At the same time, Russia conducted large-scale exercises of the Black Sea fleet (Black Sea Fleet).
In July, NATO engaged seven vessels of the Turkish Navy (including two submarines). The Turkish frigate Aruj participated in the September exercises. At the same time, despite the planned nature, both the first and second demonstrated the support of Kiev in its confrontation with Moscow. Although the exercise programs did not include the participation of strategic ships, the Sea Breeze-2014 corrected the US missile cruiser Vella Gulf.
It should be borne in mind that the ships of the Turkish Navy are part of the second permanent mine-mine group of NATO (SNMCMG2). The refusal from the selective admission of NATO ships to the Black Sea, as demonstrated by Ankara in 2014 (unlike the 2008 war of the year with the Russian Federation), draws it into closer cooperation with NATO and raises the question of the feasibility of maintaining Russian-Turkish cooperation at the current level. The existence of such organizations as Bleksifor and Black Sea Harmony, as well as the cooperation of Russia and Turkey on the non-proliferation of the NATO program Active Endeavor in the Black Sea are at risk.
In the Caucasus direction, the Turkish Armed Forces have an absolute advantage over the Russian ones, not counting the presence of nuclear weapons. In the water area of the Black Sea, the Russian Navy has an advantage in missile carriers, but in terms of the size of the Turkish Navy, the Black Sea Fleet surpasses the Black Sea Fleet threefold, and in the total fire power, by one and a half times. Ankara builds up and qualitatively updates its fleet. By 2015, this program should be completed. The new composition of the Turkish Navy includes a multipurpose military landing ship built on national shipyards. In addition to use in the Aegean, Black and Mediterranean seas, it is designed for swimming in the Indian and Atlantic oceans. The modernization program for the Russian Black Sea Fleet should end only in 2020.
It should not be forgotten that Moscow remains for Ankara a “historical” enemy. This is evidenced by the decision of the National Security Council of Turkey, adopted in October 2010. According to the new version of the National Security Strategy, for the first time after the collapse of the USSR, Russia is viewed as a potential adversary. At the same time, Syria and Iran were excluded from the list of countries representing an external threat to Turkey.
The entry of the Crimea into Russia despite the efforts of the United States and the European Union, on the one hand, caused satisfaction in the highest political echelons of Turkey: relations between R. Erdogan and B. Obama, A. Merkel and F. Hollande remain cool. Moscow’s independent Ukrainian policy on the crisis in Ukraine opens up wide opportunities for Ankara to solve its own problems, including the issues of Northern Cyprus and the spread of influence to the regions of Syria and Iraq, which are considered in Turkey as a zone alienated by European states, including Aleppo and Mosul.
On the other hand, the rupture of Erdogan’s relations with Nursa leader F. Gulen, who lives in the United States, excluded from the agenda of Russian-Turkish relations the problem of the schools of the Nurcular movement, which were closed after President Putin came to power. Ankara’s lobbying of its Islamists in the post-Soviet space has ended - the campaign to close the educational institutions they control not only does not cause Turkey’s protests, but is carried out in coordination with the leadership of this country.
This does not mean that the ruling Justice and Development Party has ceased to be Islamic. However, the frontal advancement of the interests of its sister structures from an extensive network of parties and movements belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood (BM) is irrelevant in Russia at this stage. Turkey’s open confrontation with Israel and Egypt because of their struggle with BM and Hamas and in disguised form with Saudi Arabia because of the dangers of the ruling kingdom of dynasty, which is political Islam for Riyadh, is more than sufficient for Ankara.
Against this background, the contacts maintained by the Russian Foreign Ministry with Hamas leave the Turkish Islamists in the Russian direction without arguments addressed to Israel and the United States. At the same time, the use of Islamic radicals against Russia in the Crimea by the Ukrainian and American intelligence agencies in the near future could aggravate Ankara’s relations with Moscow. At the same time, the Crimean Tatar factor is especially important for the author of the “neo-Ottomanism” strategy of Turkish Prime Minister A. Davutoglu, due to his ethnic origin - it is through his office that this kind of combination can be played.
Under the action of anti-Russian sanctions, Turkey is ready for the development of large projects in the Crimea, primarily aimed at public funding. However, it is also ready to invest in the peninsula. In addition, the sanctions provide an opportunity to increase bilateral trade, amounting to more than 33 billions of dollars. Machine builders and farmers of Turkey are ready to increase exports to Russia at times, replacing Western partners. Given the importance for Ankara of the Akkuyu nuclear power plant project implemented by Rosatom, this makes it possible to count on acceptable relations between Russia and Turkey for a long time, despite the disagreements over Syria and pressure from the United States.
Information