[000:00:00;00] ah, in welcome to wells apart. as the warning ukraine approaches its 6 months mark, the only party that seems to be eager and willing to meet it is turkey, which is all the more astonishing, given that anchor and continue selling weapons to your brain and growing its trade with russia. well, also remaining a willing, although i've been disruptive member of nato, is there is something about design, guys that everyone understands and others don't want to discuss it. i'm now joined by a researcher and they set a foundation for political, economic, and social research in ankara. is there a great to talk to you? thank you very much for your time. thank you very much. now one of the most sided

and popular metaphor is in turkey, political very natural or is that a breach a breach that's been east and west, been political religiosity, and secularism, etc. and while i don't think that turkish policy is athletic, i think it can be pretty cynical at times. i do think it's remarkable in a sense of being able to reconcile the reconcile and hold the office is that other countries are not able to hold. one, do you attribute that to? well, i personally don't like the metaphor of being a bridge. and so there were periods that turkey prefers are the metaphor rather than a bridge based on, based on that trust for me, will do, and trust me perception of their own capacity and poa. that's why a number of people that don't agree with the medical bridge and i'm one of them. ok, which one do you prefer for the current times which metaphors the thing describes

the current stands of tricky to bass random. the 444 has been a long time. many turks preferred rathermore, a rather more active role attribute to attributes to so being a bridge is kind of a passive metal. it's basically bridges something where, you know, vehicle, you know, people just, you know, pass over. so turkey does not obviously want to be such as a passive and being, it has its own, it has its own claim for itself. it has sort of things to contribute to gold and when it comes to international stature, so on. so that's why rather than a metaphor, turkey and some, some a turkey that has national interest. it is capable of seeing its own national interest,

but at the same time being and meaningful and valuable member of the international community. in the, in the previous decades, we used to love this as so if you must be a core country rather than a bridge and you know, in line with increased increased claim or assertiveness in foreign policy. so that's, that's a little bit coming up coming up of how we think about this. now why we haven't been able so far as to come up with a matter for i thing one term that would describe turkeys. sounds at this point of time is ad g because president on has done things that are pretty polarizing. i mean, he was pretty straightforward. and calling on maybe you with this so called russian aggression in ukraine. and that the same time he managed to not only maintain but i think deeper and he's dialogue with the kremlin. is that about the personality of the leader? or is it something institutional, you know,

the country sounds rather than the influence of the particular person? now, if you, i would say both because there are, there are certain elements even in the opposition, and he appreciate the appreciate how president avalon is handling this issue. but at the same time, there are, there are still opposition figures. he called for full engagement with the, with the western block, so to speak, against russian stalls. so i would say both the ra elements, both in person, but in his personality and turkey as a, as a country, i would say, as a country, what he's being doing has been being appreciated by the why, the public. but at the same time, it depends on his personality is kill or managing these managing deeds. let's say contradictory, contradictory roles and stances. and when it comes to,

when it comes to his, let's say, why, why not rushed? why not natal is doing it? no, it was basically calling for consistency and rather than rather than being rather than being hawkish against russia. so as a nathan member, of course, the raw numbers, who would we, we would call as the war mongering. but at the same time and nothing, nothing or things were not enough to let's say, need the worst. that's why that's why was calling action just to just in just do they invite the other other members to consider what he was there to provoke in this regard. but if we are serious, what kind of action do you think he was calling for? what kind of action native could really take this to deter the so called a russian aggression? no, it's. it's because like turkey is nathan member and when the law certainly the

members who are calling for let's say, the reactions to just the brain, he was aware that it would have to, you know, it was somehow in includes totally impact, took his policy or conflict the area of maneuver, that's why and this is, this is what one has done in the us. you know, there are people calling out from contradictions, especially when catching that love to put it more quickly. now you wrote recently that the war warning ukraine, he turkey, where it's for the most, that is the economy driving up the energy prices, decreasing the flow of tours from both russia and ukraine. but there are also some offsides, for example, the sales of turkish drones and other weaponry has, have increased dramatically. the prominence of turkey as the natural gas hub also has risen,

especially in the aftermath of the decision to decrease its relies and rational energy sources on balance hasn't really been all the negative or ankara on bellows . i would say it's not clear yet, but i can, i can only, i can only agree that there are both ups and downs, but i would, i would say that downs and negative 5, much more prevalent on, on those points that you mentioned cognitively with them fully because in terms of drone exports, even without even without the ukrainian crisis, the drone exports were doing really well. and actually, there was no, there is no regulation with a ukrainian war with drilling explicit turkey. and that's why that's why i think turkey definitely would prefer. and in the absence of war for its voice export

of drones rather than the presence of war. and at the same time when it comes to the being a hub, natural gas or a european natural gas needs. in theory. yes. other hobbs, other let's say markets will be, will be important. but in practice we haven't seen yet any, any sustainable concrete project that was, that is put in place that took you could so far. that's why the 2 main, the 2 main advantages you mention, i don't thing on those accounts, it benefits it. that's why negative size are much more greater than the size. well, i just mentioned that is going to be a little bit reserved about the weather. the in the ukrainian company has led to the increased sales of turkish jones. and i can say from russia's experience, that russia, which is station in syria,

has dramatically contributed to rising sales. and there is nothing particular shameful there. because once you demonstrate the advocacy of your product on the battlefield and many countries, and in fact, i've seen some statements coming from countries that are willing to purchase, purchase your equipment, saying that they, they've seen those drones in action. and that, that is what influence that decision. i'm not suggesting that turkey is benefiting from this war purposefully, but there are obviously some indirect benefits. also when comes to weapons. and now that is the that is that if i made, that was the exact point. why i don't think it raining, will increase the sales any because when it comes to showcase your products efficacy and marketing, it's kara bought libya, syria all already, you know, quite enough. and in the crating crisis to be fair,

to focus drones on at the very front. that's why i think if there are any impact you're creating crisis positively onto the stress export. it is a minimum. that's why that's why i said, you know, even without the war, that's why and be with the essence or war even for the staple floating. well, i think we would prefer that to, i mean, if russia could solve this issue in any other way, i'm sure it would do that. speaking of which i remember when they were in syria was proceeding church. it was very vocal that if you curious and concerns, there were impinged upon by the american, by the dealings with the courage, by the arming of the courage, by forming certain areas that could be used for attacks against turkey, men, mainland. and i think that, that back down, moscow was pretty accommodating of anchor as concerns up until a certain point. now, we have

a situation in ukraine where russia for years have been saying that if security interest in ukraine being violated by the west, arming ukraine and using it at least from macos perspective, as the prophecy, platform for an aggression, for a negative sense against russian. do you think those issues are comparable? the kurdish question and the ukranian question, could they be compared like the states 1st the amend close followed through an issue. that's why i know the details and time time spent all of the events, and that's why i have a reservation of your, of your statement about when it comes to rushing, be much more accommodating to is national interest because there were pretty clear incidents that you know, threatens turkey, the interest of his assets on the ground. and yes, basically took is much more suffering from united states. also part of the

a p y d y p g presence. but that is not the only took his national interest or security interest, northern syria and the influx of refugees is another issue. and i would say in the example, russian sponsor, the russian backed assad region. bombardments had been much more damaging. this is an interest of security at times more than maybe more than probably b, y, p, g, y, p, g trip. so in that sense, yes, locally speaking, when it comes to discourse and narrative, yes, russians are much more accommodated national interest, but when it comes to practice, it is not, that's not that clear. absolutely. and, you know, give everything, i mean, i think to, to some extent, the russian church to present a very interesting pair of countries that have tons of divergent security interest . and we all remember, at least in russia, the 2000. and 15 incident of,

i'm kara shooting down a flight. i just rush and fight a job over there and how relation deteriorated, almost over nice. turkey became a, me almost overnight and we have the 2 countries have been able to walk that back and resume some practical corporation. what do you think allowed for that? and do you think that could serve as but say a model for, for other conflicts? well that's, that's says the tells you know, tells enough about the complexity and special build this relationship. it includes both elements of, you know, come competition and even even conflict and, but at the same time, it involves the elements of corporation. on the one hand, and i, and i call this to see if there's a 3rd areas of interest in those areas of interest. russian interests are quite

comfortable in almost in almost all geographies regions that we had with the we had interest. we find ourselves on the other side over on the other, on rival camps. but when it comes to buy, let's relation, we have very deep, very strong relationship relations. and that's why and for the staples, i believe, for the sake of those critical and strategic corporation areas. in bilateral relations, we tend to overcome the difficulties and differences over the 3rd, the areas and regions, and where when it comes to even the, even the, even the height of christ, such as the bell name of the russian jets. i believe the existence of those critical strategic by little ties helped help both to overcome and this, this is, it will be and at the same time as there's a very, very determining factor,

i believe the personal chemistry between present and present. so when it comes to focus russian relations and this spring, i believe avalon and bilateral relationship is very determinative to the extent that if both leaders are out of office and we comp, we come to, you know, let's say picture. same level of engagement on both sides of the relation while mister are sir on. that's what i actually disagree with you strongly, but we will continue our discussion in a few moments after a short break. thank you. ah ah.

i look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except where such order that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about personal intelligence. the point obviously is to place trust, rather than a job with artificial intelligence. real, somebody with a robot must protect its own existence. with

with walking back to will's apartment, building a researcher at the cell phone nation of a political, economic and social research in m. correct. mister o started before the break. he mentioned this unprecedented personal relationship with president putin as president. erin, though, i'm, and let me quote you here. in one of your articles, he suggested that putin knows no one who is more reliable and trustworthy than air, though on. and i don't know how, you know, what with those. but i know from my sources that prison i go on is perhaps one of the least trusted leaders for the kremlin. but that's that, that is what makes dealing with him so much easier because it's not about trust or principle for, for the kremlin. it's about sober calculation of your partners interests and motivation and trying to need them half way, you know,

have certain things for yourself, and also making sure that your partner is satisfied to, to at least, to some extent, onto idealizing the personal relationship. but then put in an area on with what does that mean? it is a result of the outcome to the result of a calculation and knowing nothing of the world. but i still think that there was a, there was an extra elements in this personal relationship that is baby like in other personal relationships. both $1.00 and $2.00 can, let's say respect each other as respectable leaders. and when it comes to and i can't speak before present to him obviously, but i can see the present one as i know him as a citizen and as an observer of his politics. and

he's, he's a leader who is personalizing his relationships with other leaders, with other leaders. and when his trust is betrayed, is, is, you know, they're greatly annoyed. and there are, there are consequences in those occasions. and that's why i believe, despite all the difficulties between turkey and russia, is 2 leaders somehow managed to see, you know, sol, their problems. and this is, this is based on their list a truck record with, with one another for the past of the past. let's say experience in their relationships, and i believe both leaders think that when we agreed on something, the other one will deliver will keep his word. and i think this is not always the case. it's been leaders. and that's why i believe these to leave the slide all the differences. they hold this element daily,

both as one and 2 team. and that's why i think that's why i would that in the nose . no one more trustworthy than everyone. i think i think it won't be for sure, but i know that the other one will keep his word and it is, and it's use a lot to the well again, this is something that is pretty contestable because if you remember back in 2015 we can describe that attacked by a turkish armed forces against the russian just as a stab in the back. it was a betrayal of trust for him in for him as a, as a person, not just as a leader, but as a person, as a man. that was, was huge. but i think the, the reason why they have been able to overcome that is because both leaders have an ability to put that country's interest before their personal sentiments. so regardless of whether they liked each other or not, they see the value in collaborating with one another. speaking of which do you think that incident of 2015 is taken into account by the turkish strategist as they

divide that strategy in the ukranian conflict? because for now and for it has been pretty artful in balancing. it's interesting. ukraine is interest in russia. it's interest with with the west, but he shows it can turn into a rush of enemy almost overnight. about the incident, i understand that there was the russian side of the story as the 7 the batch. and we also followed those coverages at the time, but there was also the token side of the story. and incidence and crisis or accidents happen in a relationship. and if you ask the side of the story and they would reply that, there was reply that there was them, there was an, an identified warplane. it was constantly, it was constantly violating the s space. that's why we had no choice but down. and so there are lots,

billions of the story and when it comes to whether we can be likened to the 5 digit and the, and the current situation and us ability to turn into a conflict between the 2 side. i don't think so. i mean, not just because of the accidents in the past, down the jet and by the same time and took in, you know, after those incident it's been, it's been years. and in total russian relations, many things happen since then we had, we had close relations. we had, we had inexperienced, over the working together in the, in the format, the last honor we had, we had other mechanisms and even took us to 3 for example, after that incident is so, so many things happen. and i think the trust and the relationship or the regime or the relationship mature and gained

a lot of experience. and that's why that's why i think the accident or the, or the incidence. i don't think it's repeatable, but not because, but just because it has become a trauma that turkeys basically, you know, a few below repetition of it. but do we actually $230.00 is viewing ukrainian crisis in a, in a company. the difference is probably the difference. let's say framework, that's why i don't think it is comparable to syrian issue or, well, the hearing issue was a hope, a really complex and i would suggest that the complexities have some similarities. nevertheless, as i said, tricky has been pretty good at balancing its interest in ukraine and, and right in russia. but when we look at the trade side of things, we know the turks. that's pretty shrewd. businessman i read somewhere. i think it was in harvard business review that the big international companies preferred your

higher turkish executives because they're good at risk taking. they can push a risk to the limit, but all to take necessary precaution. so turn pretty good when it comes to business straight. this brush up is 4 times larger than that trade with ukraine for now they've been able to sort of balance both. but if push comes to shove, de thing turks would choose with preferred to follow the money. all would they prefer to follow some sort of a principle that the often allude to in your writings. and again, when it comes, when we talk about balancing that is the end of the core interest of turkey. and i understand that if you just compare the importance of the 2 countries to turkey based on praise, the pitch was clear, but the reality is clear. and not only that's all the trade

when it comes to our energy projects. when it comes to our defense, you know, called corporation in the palm of 400 and other trade and tourism, so on. and so for the relation medical and even based on even based on that there is no comparison. but these reasons are not the, are not the one you know and determining is attitude toward this to this war. the war is the, was damaged and hurting, or took is national interest. it is, it is happening in the immediate neighborhood. it has your article consequences and the ukraine is, is, is another deer and valuable partner. okie dokie basically does not want to choose between the 2 and it is and it is gaining. it's a training based on based on this balancing between the 2. so it doesn't, it doesn't want to basically choose between the 2. and no matter how big the trade

with, with russia and even even other corporation areas. it's not necessarily a reason to, let's say, this ukraine, for the sake of russia. now a balancing balancing is the cause of the call and i don't think a russia is actually pushing or pressing turkey in that direction. russia foreign policy is also based on balancing, but there is another big player there by return in the united states and the west in general, which is willing to make sure that the countries make a distinct choice. now, a few days ago, as i'm sure, you know, turkey dropped its opposition to nato enlargement by acquiescing to simmons and wittons membership. and i heard you say that it was done because turkey security concerns were listen to a do you think tricky, security as a member of nato, as a country bound by the collective defense capture. chapter 5,

do you think is security will increase as a result of nathan barging? because clearly that's not going to bring anything positive for the relations between russian. nathan, well, turkey is the thing. a principal policy, even even if we did not, did not apply for membership is principles position was favoring neighbors. enlargements the pass is that's why there's no, there is no inconsistency in that. the only the on the point is i'm sure you are well aware that took, it does not have categorical principles opposite to sweden anthem, and as long as, as long as they take into account took his national interest and needs, if the month. so that's why, that's why there is no surprise there if they agree taken into consideration took in national ticket with the interest fun. anyone, anyone welcome in natal nato. a line. so that's, that's why that's why it's

a quick quest to that. that memorandum and whether it will, whether it will say increase security, that is, that is another, that is another issue. and whether, whether be to increase or decrease, i don't think i don't think there was and such and such an impact is just basically maintaining your security as it is. either you don't necessarily have to increase it. but as long as you make sure that you are secure, you can, you can continue your role in this alliance. it's interesting that this is pretty much how most go with frame it's policy in your brain, and you don't want to increase your security, but you want to protect the existing balance of power, but we are out of time for now. thank you very much for your insights today. thank

you. and thank you for watching calls to see again and we'll the part ah with . mm hm. with i will go with this with you. i guess with you, i'm

with the 7 civilians are reportedly killed and 60 injured as the ukranian army hits a town in the region. local authorities say us delivered high precision weapons. we used to be in wiley, you officials on the alarm over ukraine bound western weapons ending up on the