ah mm mm mm welcome to was apart. as shakespeare contended for centuries ago, war makes for strange bedfellows. a principle that turkey seems to have taken too hard in the current ukrainian conflict. on the one hand, present, aradonda calls on nature to take concrete steps to deter the so called russian aggression. on the other hand, anchor keeps deepening its relationship with moscow and handsomely benefiting from it. what is turkey's game? well, to discuss it, i'm now joined by you not to because a member of the turkish parliament and the countries for ma'am bastard to re breton, and as ever, john, it's great pleasure to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. thank you

for inviting me. now. i mentioned the war in ukraine in my introduction and we are going to monitor the 10 month anniversary of would soon. and what's interesting about it is it is a very peculiar synchronicity because you and your party issue the statement 2 days before the official launch of that operation in which you warrant about the increased risk of a burning conflict. did you see that were coming before it began? that the voice of a actually predicted a kind of a military operation. and the thought that it would be dangerous for the whole region. because since the disintegration of the former soviet union, turkey has developed to equitable relations both with russia and ukraine. and both countries are neighbors at the black sea by the sea side of course. but of course, if those 2 countries says that to some kind of a nation or how to conflict,

that would of course create the serious danger for the whole region. that was the reason why we wanted to reach that it wouldn't happen. and we also explained that they do not recognize the developments indeed done. it's a later on in your speech before the council of europe, your call this operation. i'm justified and unprovoked and described it not as a war between russia, ukraine, but as a war between democracy and authoritarianism. even if i take this contention without arguing, excepting that russia is indeed an authoritarian state and your crane is a burgeoning democracy. do you think authoritarian states have no security interests worth defending? no, that's not what i meant actually. so certainly every country has its own definition of its own security concerns and perceptions. but the issue here is that the development of democratic values, which are generally defended by the western countries,

was probably extending through ukraine towards the russian borders. and i think that could be perhaps the concern, which is the government did not exactly expect a course. in addition to the so called democratic values that you are referring to, there was also very rapid expansion of military infrastructure, which is not disputed by any of the size. now it's public record the, you know, it be seen in the american budget and their public statements of american officials . don't you think that it was this, the expansion of military infrastructure that was far more threatening for the russian government than abstract and democratic values that if i do not challenge, of course, to concerns that the russian side had about its own security concerns. i would probably refer to the history and they probably go back to 2007 and in 2007 when a president put in made

a very interesting speech at the mean executive conference. that was probably not well understood or was taken by the west. and i think it all start that. then that is the reason why we have to be careful. and i urge that of course, that we have to be careful in a development of these is, how would i say message is coming from the west about a possible membership of 3 grain today. so it's not just the messages. i mean, i understand your that i kind of leave it, i can't judge and i cannot confirm that. i mean of also they have used several reports about the military infrastructure developing and, but i don't think that that would end up with some kind of war declared by ukraine towards asha. it was simply a, probably a kind of the preparation, which of course nobody wanted to happen. but the issue here is, and what has happened has happened. but we have to return that process and we have

to being is stability to our region. and we have to find the solution to the conflict because it is not to the benefit of the people. these people are a, i mean, they have been growing together. let's talk about how it could be brought back to the negotiating table. because in that, the seemingly prophetic statement that you made on the eve of the russian military operation, you called for non periodic consistent and peaceful policies to resolve the tensions rather than arbitrating the issues. and i'm really interested in these non periodic. what did you mean by that? i don't recall what i said in what context i mentioned. but when i say non periodic, if i did and then probably a it should not be confined even there in a certain time period and it should be lasting and it should be a continuing case. so that is probably the reason why i may have referred to that kind of work. but the issue here is, if we have to be careful about not building new,

do i think walls or dividing lines in europe. it is in the heart of europe. and if that continues, and if that conflict develops into a more serious a confrontation, which is actually over the case. i mean, i know that in russia officially, it does not accept it as a war, but the turkey has it, right. it has declared that it is actually a situation of or because we wanted to implement the articles of wants or treaty elemental conventions based on the concept of war. and the perception from turkeys point of view us a community operation. this started by russia for ukraine was the beginning, because now i'm sure you heard the russians complaining before the peace process itself has been abused by ukraine and it's western beckers when, when they signed certain agreements in order to get respite from military fighting,

rather than with any intention to execute them in good faith. do you agree with that? having observed that process, and if so, do you think that would influence russians readiness for future talks? it is a fact that the mince process has failed, and then i can't make any judgment about who has been responsible for the failure of the miss process. but if the miss process and it's subsequent, the implementation was successful, then it would probably not be in a position like that. but once that the missed process has failed. and once that it has been perceived as a kind of effect perception by the russian side, then it probably should try to find a remedy it to revisit and it's already have it's 8 the missed process. the solution should not be a kind of humility, a solution. we need dialogue and we need

a continuous attempts for diplomatic solutions to accomplish that and your own country. turkey has probably made the most for it because it has actually tried practically tried to bring the russian that they bring us together for preliminary talks in this symbol last spring, which seemed to be fairly successful on the surface, but nonetheless failed. what do you think was missing in the, in the symbol talks? i think the, the trust and confidence between the 2 countries has disappeared. and it, although there was a very successful meeting in the stumble, both the locations that are probably close to and understanding. and the delegations who have got together and who met each other. they're not the final parties who took the decisions when they went back to their capitals. i think the, the decision making process, it was influenced by other personalities here being extremely diplomatic. here i

see all your previous experience in that one answer, but let me be a little bit more precise with the facts here because according to present, put a if we can trust him. after the stumble talks, the ukrainian side submitted in written form is conditioned for peace, which included the neutral nuclear free and non block status ukraine, and its refusal from trying to reclaim crimea by force in exchange for international security guarantees. a few days later it walked away from them, but do you think you could still form the basis for continuous talks? i think it was a good beginning and the bus at kind of a proposal which could to stop the whole negotiations and it would continue for constructive and positive result. but the fact that it has failed. unfortunately, a couple of days later, it brought us to this a current situation today. a probably there have been some factors that i can not judge and i can understand who have influenced this process. but as you had

mentioned, that all those fantasies we've offered by the gains that at the outset seem to be a good beginning year among others, referred to the russian military operation as a, as an aggression. and at times you called it unprovoked and justified. but turkey itself has never been shy of extraterritorial operations for the sake of its own security be in syria in iraq or as a member of nato in yugoslavia. i wonder if you see any strategical moral difference between what the russians are doing in ukraine and what the turks were doing or are still doing in syria or did in the yugoslavian. i think a separate case because yugoslavia is a kind of a nato action and turkey has not been participating in the military operations. we provided us for that moment. yes, but they did not provide the fight. it troops

a major difference. they didn't provide the humans, but they provided the weapons, they may have provided the weapons, but they're also providing, for example, the white up the ukraine. so it is a kind of a different situation, but i don't want to make the distinction here is that the us of case is something different. because toki participate in the u. s. law. the alteration in decide or for i'll to europe in union and also by nato operations only for the medicaid purposes. whereas in comparison between a what has happened in ukraine and the turkish armed forces, taking certain operations in syria, are entirely incompatible because turkey was reacting to a kind of a terrorist activity, which was actually intruding into the touch territory. and turkey wanted to stop this terrorist activities or anything from p k, k. and also from the area from the i p g. where does the, i don't think that there has been any kind of military or terrorist attack into the

russian territory from ukraine. so that is the reason why i may have used the unprovoked and i'm justified. well, there have been some, a terrorist activities by ukrainian nationalist on the russian territory. but apart from that, i'm sure you're aware of the syrian government strongly objected to any turkish operation on the syrian sovereign syrians summer. and i'm to be getting into the same sort of argument of one man's freedom fighter and other men's terrorists. i mean, if, if you recognize your country's security concerns as the gentleman, why would you deny my country in seeing if security concerns as legitimate, especially given that russia has taken plenty of matters to negotiate with the west, what it deems us threatening. i think both countries failed to continue. the dialogue and turkey interrupted the dialogue with the mosque was in 2012, and the military operations came only in 2016. but if the dial continued had to

continue, then there could have been a solution without any kind of a military operation. a probably it is the same because russia also interrupted the dialogue and sees to seek for some benefit diplomatic solution to the company for the confrontation that it had it. ukraine. a both countries should have used did not mean style. oak and a should aim also to find the peaceful resolution to the conflicts. i think from this point of view, both countries have committed the same stake. well miss a temper cuz we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments station. ah

ah. a money a money. it gets a little money in with

it. a welcome back to worlds apart. smith, you now have a casa member of the turkish parliament, and the country's former ambassador. you are there by john and great britain, mister chevy, because it's clear that you are very strong advocates of diplomacy and we shouldn't be. but do you believe that that ever comes a point when diplomacy simply exhausts itself on more forceful measures to defend countries, existential interests are required. we have a saying a, which is a kind of a legacy that we have received from i took, i took, as you know, was of course a military commander and went off to woods or d e sentences,

or the mottos that he used was a, unless your national interests are valiantly challenged. war is now dish set, i think is that simply implies that it, i think it also sees wrong. is it very, very less useful? now, one thing that i think differentiates any of the turkish operations and syria from the russian operation in your brain, is the fact that the map in practical terms has already changed. regardless whether or not the international community recognizes the accession of 4 former eastern ukrainian regions into russia on all, you know, that's, that's already the, the facts on the ground. so to say, what do you think is the best outcome for ukraine and the current circumstances? so some people are talking about sci fi, but sci fi is not permanent. it is a temporary situation that sees for perhaps, or for rental arms, for

a certain period is necessary, but it has to stop in ultimate aim, of establishing peace. peace is the ultimate key word here, and they both sides should sit at the table, not for continuation of p stokes, but reaching to the piece itself. and if they are determined to do that, and then is the side of the will not be a long period, it will probably end up with the p c t. but as you had mentioned, that having so many developments that a russian apartment, for example, has passed certain resolutions. that's amazing, the annexation of certain areas of east and ukraine to russia. all these have to be serious, the washington. i don't think that it will change over time. i overnight. i don't think that it will happen overnight. it will probably need several, several years. but in order to achieve that, to both countries and will people have to re establish trust and confidence against

one another. do you think it's just between ukraine, russia? i mean, are we calling a spade a spade here? because i'm sure you know that from the russian perspective, the russian see themselves in the war with the west, north, with ukraine, but with the west. that is the reason why i have referred to the speech of president putting in 2007, that dominion security conference probably hasn't put in at that time and made a very interesting remark about the growing possible danger or the perception that he is vision. and have a family and then explicitly a gave and drew his red lines. it was probably the former, so edited the dead line for president put an end to russia that could, of course, being taken seriously, but by the west. and it would have been

a kind of diplomatic negotiations, and it could probably end up with some kind of them will just be then the kind of an understanding which would never russia. or we would never allow russia to perceive certain tech perception coming from the west, but hasn't put in an today actually minister level in his speech. also mentioned that at the vest has neglected the tech perception of russia and expend towards the russian territory. when you look at the history in russia always needs a kind of a live instrument or a kind of a buffer zone to get into its own security. and it probably would be unacceptable for the ukrainians because they also said that of course, they had an independent and a sovereign nation, and they have to make their own decisions. but the issue here is when we prepare the nato russia founding act in 1997. and we made it very clear that there would be

no veto power for russia, for a possible extension extension or a possible development of nato or other countries. choice to become members of nato that wouldn't be vetoed by russia, but i can i it because this is a very interesting argument that is mentioned that time and time again by various native american officials. if you give russia no veto power, doesn't that essentially mean no power at all? and one does leave russia with no choice, no other than doing what it did? no, it is not what i mean. what i am seeing here is that there are certain conditions about all the interpretation of this natasha founding. at 1st, it is true that russia should not feel that it is a veto power about the decisions of nato or a quote that is not what i'm saying. a,

what i'm saying here is it all those developments should also be taken into consideration whether it is threatening the security of russia or not. and russia probably has been always thinking that it, all these develop ones have been not taken into consideration from the national perspective has been neglected. that it was a kind of perception and a growing set perception for russia if that is neglected. and if it is the understanding of russia and then there's a problem there, and that is simply because of lack of dialogue. you mentioned this worth neglect a couple of times and i wonder if it's the correct one. if it's the accurate one, because there are many political scientists not only russia, but also in the west, who believe that the ultimate goal of the west is essentially belkin, ice russia. to put an end to russia as a, as a sovereign state. they see this threat to and they would rather have russia broken

into several parts that continue service, western energies. but what do you think neglect is the right word, or was it deliberate, denial of russia's security considerations? some people may think that it was a deliberate denial, a, but i don't think so because i have been involved in this process as a draft and of the need to rush upon the and that either very sincere tuwana, i mean, together with them best. so should i give from wellcare, i tell frequently to moscow at that time and even have meetings, it is the way to distinguish station and mr. premier off of a generous alana. and it was a very open, innovative fit. and of a candid conversation that we always said, and finally came to an understanding that the nato, russia founding ag plus the proper or the instrument, which would perhaps give us the opportunity to build it. come on european think your dad could think. sure. and that. gotcha and nato, that

a believe to be or perceived about one another as partners. i think a neglect is probably right from my point of view, but i wouldn't make any comment about other views because there may be several other people in different countries who may have envisaged other adventures is solutions you've just referred to you on another experience of yours professional experience of yours because in addition to being a problem in terry and in the high ranking department, they are also served at nature in the early 9 tonight. just said that critical moment when nature was tasked with the read of finding or it's a central task finding a new purpose for itself. and it was a time when the russia was truly infatuated with the west. that it even fantasized about joining about a lines one day. do you think and why do you think we are back to this? and i'm also to given that everything seems to be so rosie, after the cold war,

i think it was a clique. the developments took place in rapidly. a you remember in 1989 when the warsaw pact disappeared. nato immediately found that something is changing and bipolar that it is probably a softening and probably it's coming to an end. it certainly came to an end at the end of $1091.00 when the soviet union disintegrated. but the dissolution of warsaw pact was a very interesting development and then need to react to that by establishing the not that lengthy corporation council. by inviting the former warsaw pact, countries as partners as a barrier partners, or do you well partner, well partners, partners, but it was a different body. the body itself was the called, the north atlantic corp counsel. and it was a kind of a new buddy. the for give it kind of it equal chance to all the partners who the members of the not that has equal chance yet. but then of course,

nato always tried to adapt itself to the new conditions after the disintegration of the former soviet union. for example, they post soviet geography and all the new, the independent states that also invited to the next to didn't know if that led to corporation counsel. and then in $1094.00, you would you call that the partnership for peace idea was promoted. russia always thought that partnership for peace was an interesting idea, but it could perhaps create a kind of an unjustified equality to russia with the other countries. and i always sold that it was a, it had to be treated differently by nature. and that was not be for security reason a given the size that scale and was just a reason why the, for the nato russia council. that's the reason why i need to rush a finding x plus sign. so it was a very privy station to situation. and it was a very privileged offer to russia. i'm the only for russia, it was wonderful russian where it all its privileges. own display right now on the

your korean battlefield. i very, my g grant, they failed. so i mean, it is, it hurts because if you're involved in a process, and if you think that you are doing something good for the humanity and for the p. s. stability of europe. and if you see that it is not functioning, it is failing. then, you know, well that the russia and turkey have a very complicated history between the 2 of them coming from one war to peace, to confrontation again to corporation. again, do you think there's anything that nature and perhaps the west more generally can learn from the way most grand and kind of have been managing the very complicated relationship very, you know it's, it's a kind of relationship that's laid into the, with lots of, um, potential disagreements and yet it's, it seems to be striving. this is not the 1st time that it is happening because when you look at the history during the cold war, turkey has always had

a very peculiar relations with the soviet union as well as turkey was one of the 2 countries which was dated. having a land border with the soviet union, the other one was in the non flag norway, but turkey just because of this fact and because of geography and also history. a tried to have a kind of a cool year and a very balanced approach towards the soviet union. it didn't that a crack nato. it did not harm nate those solidarity, but also from turkey. so point turkey's point of view, it was a vague with development. and the soviet union has invested into the development of industrial it infrastructure of turkey in 1960 s, for example, nobody challenge that. now we are experiencing a kind of the same thing which is not happening. and although there are sanctions which i implemented by the western countries, which i mean the by the european union and turkey legitimate that says that as we

are not a member of to european union vito, not a feel to be obliged to comply with the european union and sanctions, but as far as the united nations sanctions that concern of course, vi abiding by them. but here, i think a turkey is a giving some kind of in image to the whole world that it's a very important facilitator. i have mentioned that turkey has been always equidistant to ukraine and russia after the disintegration of the soviet union. and that's the reason why i told you does not want to see an unstable environment. and particularly a war situation just in the not of it's joe griffey. and this is also endangering the whole $72.00 of the black sea basin. so that's the reason why turkey is probably taking the needs as compared to any other western country to find some and it's a compromise between the 2 countries. so negotiate the grain deal for example, and then we will also continue to invest out efforts for the united solution of the

a whole confrontation and conflict. well, as we hear in moscow, definitely wish you success in this very difficult endeavors. that easy. it's that easy, but people continue to try. it's been a fascinating conversation. thank you very much for your candor. i thank you very much and thank you for watching hope to see her again on the world's apart. ah with mm ah, what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race. this is very dramatic development only personally and

getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successfully, very critical of time. time to sit down and talk. a crux dog on senior clergy as president zalinski wage is a crusade against russian orthodox religious institutions. with moscow. peruse declares a state of emergency after 2 testers dialing in clashes with the college. the non immediate elections with washington. they said to host african leaders for.