ah, ah, a 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 tricky, which is all the more astonishing given that her continued 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 is something about these. i 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 organs 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 that's been it's been wow, that's been political religiosity, and secularism etc. and while i don't think that turkish policy is a way, i think it can be pretty cynical terms. 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 is that there were periods that toki preferred other metaphors rather than a bridge based on, based on that trust for me, will do. and trust,

trust me, perception of their own capacity empower. 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, 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 over. so turkey does not obviously want to be such as a passive being. it has its own. it does 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 cookie and some, some cooks 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 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 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 this 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 songs. so i would say both, there are the right elements, 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. 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 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 i was calling for 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 to deter the so called russian aggression? no, 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 add to just the whole brain, turkey, it was aware that it would have to, you know, it was somehow in influencing impacts 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 will be calling out some contradictions, especially when it comes to where catching that bluff to put it more crudely. now you wrote recently that the war war in the ukraine, turkey, where it's the most, that is the economy driving of the energy prices and decreasing the flow of tours

from both russia and ukraine. but there are also some offsides, for example, the, 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 toki benefitted. that's why negative sites are much more greater than the 5. well, i,

if i may just mentioned that it seems to be a little bit reserved about the weather in the ukrainian company has led to the increase sales of turkish jones. and i can say from russia's experience that russia, which is patient in syria, have 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, 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 exact point why i don't see you planing war, you know, increase the sales any because when it comes to showcase your products efficacy and

marketing, it's carol box, libya, syria, all already, you know, quite enough and in the cleaning process to be fair topics, drones are not activated. forefront. that's why i thing, is there any impact you're creating present positively speak onto the export. it is the minimum. that's why this was, i said, you know, even without the war, that's why and be with the essence or war even for the staple, if working 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. it was very vocal that if you cured concerns, there were impinged upon by the americans, 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 it security interest in ukraine being violated by the west arming ukraine and using it at least from moscow's perspective, as the prophecy 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 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 is national interest because never pretty clear incident

that you know, threatens turkey is the interest of his assets on the ground. and yes, basically it took me as much more suffering from united states. also part of the p y d y p g presence. but that is not the only took of national interest or security interest in northern syria. the influx of refugees is another issue, and i would say in the example russian sponsor, the russian bags. 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. actually not,

that's not that clear. absolutely. and, you know, to give everything, i mean, i think, to some extent, russia and try to present a very interesting pair of countries that have a ton divergent security interest. as we all remember, at least in russia, the 2000. and 15 incident of, i'm tara shooting down a flight, just rush and fight 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, 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 and, but at the same time it involves the element of cooperation on the one hand and i,

and i call this 3rd 5th is a 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 had with. we have interest. we find ourselves on the other side of the camp on the other, on rival camp. but when it comes to buy, let's 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 bellman of the russian jet. 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 adeline and present 50. so when it comes to focus russian relations and this range, i believe avalon and bilateral relationship is a 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 while mister are sir on that point, actually disagree with you strongly, but we will continue our discussion in a few moments after a short break. thank you. ah

ah ah, no, honda was a recall with this with you or is with you. i'm with

welcome back to will department, they'll get us turk researcher at besetti foundation of political, economic and social research in m. correct. mr. austria, before the break, he mentioned this unprecedented personnel relationship with been president, putin as president air 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 we didn't know, but i know 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 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 their personal relationship. but then put in an area on i agree with what you said. i mean, it is a result of the outcomes of the result of a calculation and knowing your part of the world. but i still think that there was a, there is an extra elements in this personal relationship that is maybe lacking in other personal relationships. both i would want to put in the same respect each other as respectable leaders. and when it comes to and i can speak before president putin obviously, but i can super present on, as i know him as a study citizen and an observer office politics. and he

is, he is a leader who is personalizing his relationships with other leaders or with other leaders. and when is 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 those difficulties between turkey and russia, these 2 leaders somehow managed to see, you know, solve their problems. and this is, this is based on their list a truck record with one another. for, for the past, for the past, the experience or in their relationships. and i believe both leaders think that's what when we agreed on something, the other one will deliver will keep his words. and i, and i think this is not always the case with been leaders, and that's why i believe these to leave the despite all the differences,

they hold this element daily, both as one and 2, tim. and that's why i think that's why i thought that was that put in those. no one more trustworthy than everyone. i think it is. one thing for sure is know that the other one will keep his word and it is and 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 and 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, 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

devised best strategy in the ukranian conflict? because for now and for have been pretty artful in balancing its interest in ukraine is interest in russia, its interest with what the west but of history shows if 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 ident warplane. it 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 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 and you know, after those incident it's been, it's been years and interpret russian relations. many things happen since then we had, we had close relations, we had, we had inexperienced the, over the working together in the, in the format last 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 exit and all the, all the incidence. i don't think it's repeatable. but not because just because it has become a trauma that turkeys basically, you know, a few below repetitions with but do we actually 230 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 as 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, 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 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 also take necessary precaution. so turn pretty good when it comes to business and 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, or would they prefer it 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 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 that's rate

when it comes to our energy project, when it comes to our defense, you know, co corporation in the palm of $400.00 and other trade and tourism, so on. and so for the relation of 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 before the war is the, was damaged and hurting. took his national interest. it is, it is happening in the immediate neighborhood. it has your article consequences. and ukraine is, is, is another deer and valuable partner. turkey basically does not want to choose between the 2. and it is and it is gaining. it's a train 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 court on the court. 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 we came in the united states and the western 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, tried to draw itself position 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 is security will increase as a result of native barging? because clearly that's not going to bring anything positive for the relations between russian. nathan well took is to the seeing the principal quality even even if we did not did not apply for membership is principles position was a bring neighbors 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 opposite 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 ticket with the interest, find any one and one. welcome in natal nato. a line. so that's,

that's why that's why it's a quest to that. that memorandum and whether it's bill, 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, it can, you can continue your role in this alliance. it's interesting that this is pretty much how i must 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. thinking and thank you for watching called to see her again, and we'll depart,

ah with mm ah, ah, ah ah, the u. s. foreign policy had joseph burrell lament the west has failed to win the battle of narratives when it comes to your great, well that's not the only battle of narratives. the west is losing. the entire neal

liberal project is being called into question. it's legitimacy, quickly eroding. ah yes, absolutely. okay, well with the, with the sheet push is much harold lanier, you mean what is material that was supposed to be left recently? so be example, graham, it was some live well enough to fill that up. it's nice to meet and walk slowly helped me from my little w as good.