[000:00:00;00] ah, welcome to was a part. as the warning ukraine approaches it 6 months mark, the only party that seems to be eager and willing to meet it is tricky, which is all the more astonishing, given that current continues selling weapons to your brain and growing it straight as russia. well, also remaining a willing, although a bit disruptive member of nato. is there 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. mr. austin is 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 in the lab?

it's been political religiosity, and secularism, etc. and while i don't think that turkish policy is as break, 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. what do you attribute that you? well, i personally don't like the metaphor of being a bridge. and so there were periods that turkey prefers other metaphors rather than a bridge based on based on their trust for me. what we'll do and trust, trust for me, perception of their own capacity and power. that's why a number of people that don't agree with the medical bridge and i'm one of them. ok, which one you prefer for the current times? which metaphors do you think describes the current stance of cherokee to bass random metaphor for

a preferred a rather more a rather more active role attribute to attributes. 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 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 goals and when it comes to international stature, so on. so that's why rather than a metaphor cookie and some 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 live this as, okay. must be a cool country rather than bridge. and you know, in line with the increased increase claim or assertiveness in a 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 you come up with the matter for i think 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 to resist the so called russian aggression in the ukraine. and at 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 personality?

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 songs. so i would say both the ra ellamin, both in person, 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 chill of managing these managing deeds. 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 it? no,

it was basically calling for consistency and rather than rather than being rather than being hawkish against russia. so as a native member, of course, the raw numbers, who would we, we would call as 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 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, and it's because like talking to nathan member and when the law certainly the members who are calling for let's say,

the reactions to ukraine. turkey was aware that it would have to, you know, it was somehow in, includes totally impact, took his policy, or construct the area of many over. that's why and this is, this is what one has done in the us. you know, they would pick the colon out some contradictions, especially when it comes to catching that love to put it more crudely. now you wrote recently that the war warning, the ukraine turkey, where it's the most, that is the economy driving the energy prices, decreasing the flow of tours from both russian ukraine. but there are also some offsides, for example, b, the sales of turkish drones and other weaponry house 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 rushes

energy sources on balance has really been all the negative or anchor on bellows. i would say it's not clear, yes, but i can, i can only, i can only agree that the rob, both ups and downs, but i would, i would say that downs and negative as much more prevalent on those points that you mentioned. i can't agree 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's no regulation with a ukrainian world with andrew and turkey. and that's why that's why i, i think turkey definite, the woods prefer. and in the absence of war, for it's 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 transfer, the 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 yet any, any concrete project that was, that is put in place toki could tech. so that's why the to mean the 2 main ports of advantages you mention, i don't thing on those because the benefit that's why negative size are much more greater than the well i, if i may 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 as russia, which is patient in syria, has dramatically contributed to rising sales. and there is nothing particular

shameful there. because once you download strain, the advocacy of your products 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 better is that if you tell me that was the example is why i don't think the cleaning 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 the credit crisis to be focused on is on not at the very front. that's why i think if there are any impact educating crisis positively on

turkish to explore it. is there a minimum? that's why that's why i said, you know, even without the war, that's why and be with the absence or war even for the staple. excellent. 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 to was very vocal. that it security concerns there were impinged upon by the americans by dealing with the current, by that arming of the current by forming certain areas that could be used for attacks against turkey, man, mainland. and i think back that back down moscow was pretty accommodating of and chris concerns up until a certain point. now we have a situation in ukraine where russia for years have been saying that it security

interest in ukraine being violated by the west army ukraine. and using it, at least from moscow's perspective, as a proxy platform for an aggression or a negative stance against russian. do you think those issues are comparable? the kurdish question and the ukranian question, could they be compared to the states 1st the i'm a close follow up to an issue. that's why i know the details and time spent all the events, and that's why i have a reservation of your, of your statement about when it comes to russia being much more accommodated is national interest because they have a pretty clear incidence that you know, threatens took his interest, all his assets on the ground. and yes, basically it took is much more suffering from united states. also part of the a p y b y, p g presence. but that is not only took

a national interest or security interest in northern syria. and the influx of refugees is another issue. and i would say in the example, russian sponsor, the russian bags assad regime, bombardments have been much more damaging. it is an interest of security at times more than maybe more than probably the 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 is 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 some extent, the russian church to present a very interesting pair of countries that have a ton of divergent security entrance that we all remember, at least in russia, the 2015 incident of i'm tara shooting down they slide, i just, russian fighter jet over syria, how relation deteriorated,

almost over nicer. he became a hemi almost overnight and 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 the tells you, 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 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 compet tool in almost in almost all geographies regions. that we have with

we have interest, we find ourselves on the other side over on the other, on rival camps. but when it comes to by little relation, we have very deep, very strong relationship relational. 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 boundary of the rushing jet. and i believe the existence of those critical strategic by little ties helped help both to overcome and this difficulty. and at the same time as there is a very, very determined its effect where i believe the personal chemistry between present and present. so when it comes to focus russian relations and this spring,

i believe avalon and by literal relationship is a very determinative to the extent that if both leaders are out of office, we can't, we can't, you know, let's say picture the same level of engagement on both sides of the relation while 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. oh, 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 does that conflict with the 1st law show your

identification. we should be very careful about on personal intelligence. the point obviously is to place trust rather than fit with the various jobs with artificial intelligence. real seminar with a robot must protect his own existence with a with welcome back to will department. they'll give us

a researcher at besetti foundation of political, economic and social research in m, correct. mr auster before the break. you mentioned this unprecedented personnel relationship with president putin as president. and let me quote you here in one of your articles. he suggested that who knows no, who is more reliable and trustworthy than ever though on. and i don't know how you know with but i know from my sources that present 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 crime. and 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 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, picking obvious, but i can see the present one as i know him as a citizen and 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 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 their 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 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 ones will keep his word and it is,

and it's to the well again, this is something that is pretty contestable because if you remember back in 2015, we can describe that a tagged by a turkish armed forces against the russian, just as a stab in the back, it was a betray on trust for him for him as a, as a person, not just as a leader, but as a person, as a man. that's why i 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 devised best strategy in the ukranian conflict? because for now and for has been pretty artful in balancing its interest in ukraine

is interest in russia, its interest with what the west, but through the shows it can turn into a rushes enemy. almost overnight about the incident, i understand that there was the russian side of the story as the said in the back. and we 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 war, plain was constantly, it was constantly, you know, violating the s space. that's why we had no choice but down. and so there are 2 versions of the story and when it comes to whether this can be likened to the teacher and the, and the current situation and a civility 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 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 an experience of working together in the, in the format of us on a we had, we had other mechanisms and even took us to dream for example, after that incident. so 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 or the, or the incidence. i don't think it's repeatable, but not because,

but just because it has become a trauma. that tokyo basically, you know, a few below repetition of it. but do we actually $230.00 is viewing ukrainian prices in a, in a company. the difference in probably the difference. let's say framework, that's why i don't think it is as comparable to syria, an issue. 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 right in russia. but when we look at the trade side of things, 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 are good at risk taking. they can push a risk to the limit,

but also take necessary precaution. turns 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, would prefer 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 come, when we talk about balancing that is the that is 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 religious 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 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 crime 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 balancing balancing the call of the call, interested, 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 western general, which is willing to make sure that other countries make a distinct choice. now, a few days ago, as i'm sure, you know, i tried to draw this opposition to nato enlargement by acquiescing to simmons and wittons membership. and i heard you say that it was done because churches, security concerns were listen to you. but 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, is this the seeing the 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 implements as long as, as long as they take into account turkeys, national interests and needs 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 line. 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 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. you'll all, you'll roll into a lot it's, it's interesting that this is pretty much how. let's 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 hope to see you again on will the part i'm with . mm ah, with a with, with you or is with you. i'm

with 7 civilians are killed and the scores more injured after ukrainian force is target our russian controlled city in the her song region using american supplied rocket launcher. also coming up on the program, this our, the u. s. president is to meet his next again counterpart and very tense relation, complicated by numerous disagreements, including the conflict in ukraine, migrant issues, inflation on human rights allegation, europe admitted losing that bottle of nora says over condemning and sanctioning rush about the interest in art heat. content is higher than before the war 5 pounds