there were periods that turkey preferred other metaphors rather than abridge, based on, based on their transforming will do and trans transport me perception of their own capacity and power. that's why the raw number of people who don't agree with the medical bridge and i'm one of them. okay, which one you prefer for the current times? which metaphors the thing describes the current stance of turkey, the bad random metaphor for, for a very long time, many turks preferred rathermore a rather more active role attributes, attributes to so as 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 it does not obviously want to be such as a passive 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 statue so on. so that's why rather than a metaphor, turkey and from from 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 international community in the, in the previous decades, we used to conceptualize this as okay, must be a cool country rather than bridge. and you know, in line with increased increased claim or assertiveness in a foreign policy. so that's, that's a little bit summing up, summing up of how we think about this. now, why we haven't been able to come up with a matter. i think one term that would describe tricky sounds at this point of time

is ad g because president on has down things that are pretty polarizing. i mean, he was pretty straightforward and calling on may that you resist that this so called russian aggression in the ukraine. and that the same time he managed to not only maintain but i think deep and he's dialogue with the kremlin. is that about the personality of the leader, or is it as something institutional, you know, the country stands rather than the influence of the particular personality? i would say both because there are, there are certain elements, even in the opposition. and he appreciate, appreciate how prison avalon is handling this issue. while at the same time, there are, there are still opposite to figures. he called for full engagement with the, with the western block, so to speak, against russian stalls. so i would say both,

there are other elements, both in person, but in his personality and turkey. as a, as a country, i would say, as a country, what he's been doing has been being appreciated by the why the public. while at the same time, it depends on his personality is kill of managing these, managing these, let's say contradictory conflict through 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 enough. 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 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 full action just to just in,

just to 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 russian aggression? no, it's, and it's because like talking isn't it a member? and when the law certainly the members who are calling for, let's say, the reactions to just the brain, turkey, it was aware that it would have to, you know, it was somehow in influencing. impact took his policy or construct the area of maneuver. that's why, and this is, this is what everyone has done in the us. you know, they will be calling out some contradictions, especially when we're catching that bluff to, to put it more crudely. now you wrote recently that the war

warning ukraine, turkey, where it's for the most that is the economy driving the energy prices, decreasing the law of jurors from both russia and ukraine. but there are also some offsides, for example, b, 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 ears. decision to decrease its relies and rushes energy sources on balance has really been all the negative, or anchor and bellows. i would say it's not clear. yes, 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 those points that you mentioned a con, we accomplish with them fully because in terms of drone exports even

without even without the ukrainian crisis. and the drone exports were doing really well. and actually, there was no, there's no regulation with a ukrainian war with android experts, turkey. and that's why, that's why i, i think turkey definite, the woods prefer. and in the absence of war for the export of drones rather than the present war. and at the same time when it comes to being a hub of natural gas or transfer transport, european natural gas needs. in theory. yes. other other hubs the other. let's say markets will be, will be important, but in practice we haven't seen a yet any, any data or concrete project that was, that is put in place. toki could test. so that's why the to mean the 2 main ports of advantages you mention. i don't thing on those because turkey

benefit that's why negative sides are much more greater than the 5. well i, if i may and just mentioned that it seems to be a little bit reserved about the weather. the in the ukrainian company has led to the increase sales of turkish jones. and i can say from russia's experience that russia dissipation and 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, 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 is what influenced our decision. i'm not suggesting that turkey is benefiting from this war purposefully, but there are obviously some indirect benefits also when it comes to weapon sales.

now that is the that is that it's made, there was the exact point. why i don't think the plaintiff war, you know, increase the sales any because when it comes to showcase your products efficacy and marketing, it's carol box, libya, syria, we're all already. you know, quite enough and inequality across is to be fair, to be strong as are not activated. forefront. that's why i think if there are any impact you're creating crisis, positively speak on to explore it as 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. excellent. well, i think we're, 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 turkey was very vocal. that if you cured concerns, there were impinged upon by the americans by dealing 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 property platform for an aggression, for a negative fence 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 close follow up to 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 russian be much more accommodated to is national interest because never pretty clear incident that you know, threatens turkey, the interest of his assets on the ground. and yes, basically it took me as much more suffering from the united states. also part of the p y b y, p g presence. but that is not the only took a national interest or security interest in northern syria. the influx of refugee is another issue, and i would say in the example, russian sponsor, the russian bags. region bombardments, have been much more damaging to talk, is an interest of security at times more than maybe more than probably what the g y, p g is threat. so in that sense, yes, locally speaking,

when it comes to discourse and narrative. yes, russians are much more accommodated is national interest, but we've come suppressed this. actually not, that's not that clear. absolutely. and, you know, to give everything, i mean, i think, to some extent, russia and her to present a very interesting pair of countries that have a ton of divergence security interest. as we all remember, at least in russia, the 2015 incident of, i'm cara shooting down, they slide it just russian fighter jet over syria. how relations deteriorated almost over nice turkey became a enemy almost overnight. and yet 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 a model for, for other conflicts? well that's, that's the tells you know, tells me enough about the complexity and special build this relationship. it includes both elements of, you know,

come competition and even even conflict. but at the same time, it involves the elements of cooperation on the one hand, and i and i call this 30th is a 3rd areas of interest in those areas of interest. russian interests are quite comfortable in almost in almost all geographies region that we had with. we have interest. we find ourselves on the other side of the camp 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 areas and regions and where when it comes to even the even the, even the height of questions such as the bellman of the russian jets. i believe the existence of those critical strategic by little pies helped help both to overcome 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 $150.00. so when it comes to the russian relations and this range, i believe avalon and bilateral relationship is very determinative to the extent that if both leaders are out of office and we can't, we can't, you know, let's say picture the same level of engagement on both sides of the relations. well mister, our 3rd 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 rich nevada with world is with you or is with you? i'm with b l. look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human

beings accept where such order that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. and the point obviously is to great trust, rather than fear i would like to take on various jobs with artificial intelligence, real summoning with a robot must protect its own existence with awe. welcome back to wells fargo with a researcher and they set a combination of a political, economic, and social research in m correct. mister

o started before the break. he mentioned this unprecedented personal relationship. it's been president, putin as president area on and let me quote you here in one of your recent articles, he suggested that putin knows no one who is more reliable and trustworthy than ever go on. and i don't know how you know, with those. but i know from my sources that present air dawn 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 partner's interests and motivations 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 until idealizing the personal relationship. but then put in an area on with what does that mean?

it is a result of the outcomes of the result of a calculation and knowing, knowing your partner role. but i still think that there was a, there was an extra elements in this personal relationship that is maybe 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 picking, 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 relationship with other leaders with other leaders and when is trust is betrayed in is, you know, they're gravely annoyed and there are,

there are consequences in those occasions. and that's why i believe, despite all those difficulties between turkey and russia, these 2 leaders somehow managed to see, you know, sol, their problems. and this is, this is based on the list a truck record with, with one another for the past, for 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 also put in no, no one more trustworthy than everyone. i think it won't be for sure. i know that the other one will keep his word and it is, and it's a lot to that. well, again,

this is something that is pretty contestable because if you remember back in 2015 and describe that attacked by a turkish armed forces against the russian, just as a sab and back, it was a betrayal of trust for him. and for him as a, as a person, not just as a leader, but as a person, as a man. that was, that 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 its interest in ukraine is interest in russia its interest with what the west, but as history shows it can turn into

a russia down to me almost overnight about the incident. i understand that there was the russian side of the story as the in the back. and we be also followed those coverages at the time, but there was also the 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, you know, violating the s face. that's why we had no choice but down. and so there are 2 billions of the story and when it comes to whether this can be likened to the procedure 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, off of those incident as 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 a, working together in the, in the format the last on a we had, we had other mechanisms and even took us to 3 for example, after that incident. so many things happen and i think the trust and the relationship or the regime or the relationship matured and gained a lot of experience. and that's why that's why i think the accident, although the incidence, i don't think it's repeatable. but not because just because it has become a trauma, that tokyo basically, you know,

a few below repetition of it. but do he actually to turkey is viewing ukrainian crisis in a, in a company. the difference in a copy of a difference? let's say framework. that's why i don't think it is comparable to syrian issue. well, the hearing issue was a hope of really complex and i would suggest that the complexities have some similarities. nevertheless, as i said, turkey has been pretty good at balancing its interest in ukraine and right in russia. but when we look at the trade side of things, and we know the church was pretty shrewd, businessman i read somewhere, i think it was in harvard business review that the big international companies preferred to hire turkish executives because they're good at risk taking. they can push a risk to the limit, but all to take necessary precautions. so turn pretty good when it comes to business trade. this russia 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, that is a 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 that clear and not only on the trade when it comes to our energy projects, when it comes to our defense, you know, co corporation in the form of $400.00 and other trade and tourism, so on and so for the relation manifold. 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 the war. the war is the what is the damage and hurting, took his national interest. it is, it is happening in the immediate neighborhood. it has your political consequences. and ukraine is, is, is another deer and valuable partner. okey dokey basically does not want to choose between the 2. and it is and it is gaining. it's a training based on based on the balancing between the 2 so, 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 that the ukraine for the sake of russia, now balancing balancing is the court on the court. and i don't think 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 which i mean 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, i'm sure, you know, i tried to drop that position to nato enlargement by acquiescing to send length and width and membership. and i heard you say that it was done because turkey security concerns were listen to. do you think tricky security as a member of nato, as a country bound by the collective defense capture? chapter 5, do you think it's secure? it 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, is this the seeing a principal quality even even with an apple and not does not apply for membership?

so is principles position was a bring nathan is enlarged for the past years. that's why there is 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, as long as, as long as they take into account took his natural interest and need, if the month. so that's why that's why there is no surprise there if they agree taken into consideration in national ticket with the interest, find any one and one welcome in natal a lot. so a lot. so that's, that's why that's why it's a quest to that. that number on them, and whether it's will, whether it will say increased security, that is, that is another that has another issue and whether,

whether be to increase or decrease, i don't think i don't think there was and there's 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. you'll, you'll roll into a lot. it's interesting that this is pretty much how. let's go with frame. it's policy ukraine, and you don't want to increase the 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. thank you for watching calls to see again i will depart ah, with

mm ah, with with both both the models you need to do both got nothing to do with a guy nobody. a lot of them bought a a

with a phone number that we are loaded with. what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy even foundation, let it be an arms race is on, often very dramatic development. only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very difficult time. time to sit down and talk with

ah, with .