so i didn't go going ahead there can be woken deal which can be did in indian who if you'd like to delve deeper into that or into any of those stories. this r r t dot com as you've covered, fresh content, a lively discussion. always to be fun. there 2, goodbye. oh, what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms. race is often very dramatic. development only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical. i'm time to sit down and talk with

welcome to wells apart. as the warning ukraine approaches it's 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 continued selling weapons to your brain and growing its trade with russia. well, also remaining a willing, although a bit disruptive member of nato. is there something about design, guys that present 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 they're all still great to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. thank you very much. now one of the most cited

and popular metaphor is in turkey, political very natural or is that a breach, a breach has been east and west been political religiosity, and secularism, etc. and while i don't think that turkish policy is a, i think it can be pretty cynical at terms i do think is remarkable in the sense of being able to reconcile the irreconcilable and hold the offices that other countries are not able to hold. what do you attribute that to me? well, i personally don't like the metaphor of being a bridge. and there were periods that turkey preferred other metaphors rather than abridge, based on, based on their transforming will do, and trust me perception of their own capacity and power. that's why the ra, a 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, a attribute to so and being a bridge is kind of a passive metaphor. basically bridges something where, you know, vehicle, you know, people just, you know, pass over over. so turkey does not obviously want to be such a, such a passive and being, it has its own. it has its own claim for itself. it has to contribute to gold and when it comes to international stature, so on. so that's why rather than a metaphor, turkey 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 conceptualize this, as, okay, must be a core config and bridge. and you know, in line with increase, increase claim or estimates for policy. so that's, that's a little bit of summing up of how we think about this. now while we haven't been able so far to come up with the matter for, i think one term that would describe a sense 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 navy to resist the so called russian aggression in ukraine. and then 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 the 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 the right elements, both in person, but in his personality and turkey as a, as a country, i would say, as a country, what is being doing has been being appreciated by the why the public. while at the same time, it depends on his personality is chill 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 do they invite the other other numbers to consider. well, he was there, provoking 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 to do, sir? the so called russian aggression. know it's, and it's because like talking isn't it

a member and when the law certain members who are calling for, let's say, the reactions to just the ukraine, 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 one has done in the us. you know, they would pick the colon out some contradictions, especially when we're catching that. i'd love to put it more quickly. now you wrote recently that the war warning ukraine heat turkey, where it's for the most that is the economy driving up the energy prices and decreasing the flow of tours from both russian ukraine. but there are also some oxides, for example, be 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 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 the rob, 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 candidly, 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 andrew and turkey. and that's why that's why i seeing 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 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 yet any, any data or concrete project that was, that is put in place that he could test. so that's why the to mean the 2 main ports of advantages you mention, i don't thing on those because toki benefitted. that's why negative sites 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 is experienced

russia, which is patient in syria, has dramatically contributed to rising sales. and there is nothing particular shameful there. because once you demonstrate 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 that 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 weapons sales. now that is the that is that it's made, there was the exact point. why i don't see the plaintiff war increase the sales any because when it comes to showcase your products efficacy and marketing, it's carol bog, libya, syria, we're all already. you know, quite enough and inequality crosses to be fair,

to be strong as are not activated. forefront. that's why i thing, if there are any impact you're creating crisis, positively speak on turkish truth explored. it is the minimum. that's why that's why i said, you know, even without the war, that's why and be with the truth 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 turkey was very vocal, that it's secure to concern. 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 prophecy, platform for an aggression, for a negative stance 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 rushing, be much more accommodating is national interest because there were pretty clear incidents that you know, threaten turkey, the interest of his assets on the ground. and yes, basically took as much more suffering from the united states. also the part of the

p y, b, y, p g presence. but that is not the only took national interest or security interest in northern syria. and the influx of refugee is another issue, and i would say in the example, russian sponsor, the russian bags, assad region bombardments have been much more damaging that oak is the 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. picture is not, that's not clear. absolutely. and you never give everything. i mean, i think, to some extent, the russian church to present a very interesting pair of countries that have a ton divergence security interest. as we all remember, at least in russia,

the 2000. and 15 incident of, i'm tara shooting down, they slide just rush and fight over syria. how relations deteriorated. almost overnight, turkey became a enemy 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 a model for, for other conflicts? well that's, that's the tells you know, it 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 element, the corporation, on the one hand, and i, and i call this 3rd 5th, is the 3rd areas of interest in those 3rd areas of interest. russian interests are quite compet tool in almost in almost all geographies region that we have

with we have interest. we find ourselves on the other side of the can on the other, on rival can. but when it comes to by 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. and 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 and present 50. 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 can't, we can't, you know, let's say picture the same level of engagement on both sides of the relation. well, mr. 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 hi. ah,

with a in welcome back to was a parts a researcher and they said a foundation of a political, economic and social research in m correct. mister auster before the break. he mentioned this unprecedented personal relationship with been president putin as president. 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 ever

go on. and i don't know how you know with those. but i know from my sources that present aragon 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 to hold 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 and 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 your part, the role. but i still think that there was a, there isn't 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 study 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 it's 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 the 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 track record with,

with one another for the past of the past, let's say experience in their relationship. and i believe both leaders think that when we agreed on something, the other one will deliver will chief his words. 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 those no one more trustworthy than everyone. i think i think it won't be for sure. 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 attack by a turkish armed forces against the russian, just as a stab and the back it was a betrayal of trust for him 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 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 that 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 he shows it can turn into rushes out of me. almost overnight about the incident. i understand that there was the russian side of the story as the said in the back, and we be also followed the 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 to the side of the story and they would reply that they would reply that there was, 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 of the story and when it comes to whether this 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 a, working together in the department the last on a we had, we had other mechanisms and even took us to 3. and for example, after that incident, is so many things happen. and i think the trust and the relationship or the regime of the relationship matured and gained a lot of experience. and that's why that's why i've being the exit and all the, all the incidence. i don't think it's repeatable, but not because, but just because it has become a trauma that you know, toby's 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 a company, the difference, let's say framework, that's why i don't think it is comparable to simply an issue. well,

the hearing issue was the 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, and right in russia. but when you 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 prefer to hire turkish executives because they are good at risk taking. they can push the risk to the limit, but also 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 followed the money, or 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, co corporation in the palm of 400 and other trade and tourism for one. 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 to this, to the war. the war is the was damaging and hurting his 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, so it doesn't, it doesn't want to basically choose between the 2. and no matter how big the trade 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 court on the call. and i don't think a russia is actually pushing or pressing turkey in that direction. rushes foreign policy is also based on balancing, but there is another big player there by which i'm in the united states and the western general, which is willing to make sure that all the countries make a distinct choice. now, a few days ago, as i'm sure, you know,

turkey drop this opposition to nato enlargement by acquiescing to us in length and width and membership. and i heard you say that it was done because turkey security concerns were listen, you, 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 security will increase as a result of native margin 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 do not apply for membership turkeys, principal position was a ring, naples enlargements 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. opposition to sweden, as long as, as long as they take into account took his national interest and need, if the month. so that's why that's why there is no surprise there if they agree taken into consideration took in national security interest, find any one and one. welcome in natal, a lot natal line. so that's, that's why that's why it's a quest to that. that memorandum and whether it's will, whether it will, if they 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 then there's such and such an impact. it's just basically maintaining your security as it is easily, 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 the ukraine, 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 called to see her again on worlds apart and with . mm hm. in the u. s. foreign policy had joseph burrell lament the wes has failed to win the

battle of narratives when it comes to you. great. well, that's not the only battle of narratives. the west is losing. the entire neo liberal project is being called into question. it's legitimacy. quickly. you wrote a, this hours headline story. 7 civilians are killed on scores more injured after ukrainian forces target our russian control city in the hearse on legion using american supplied rocket launchers. us and mexico agreed to further cooperate on energy and migration with our disagreements on the conflict in ukraine, rump and inflation. i'm a legit human rights violations, a long wait with the euro slides. the party with the u. s.