Turkey’s stake in the Russia-Ukraine conflict

Recent geopolitical and military multipolarity has given many of the world’s autocrats opportunities to build new alliances and break free of the US-led international rules-based order.

Across Africa, former colonies have deepened economic ties with China and Russia, exchanging vast mineral wealth for loans and military assistance. Few examples of this strategic pivot have been more pertinent than when Mali’s military government hired Russian contracting firm Wagner Group for military assistance, breaking their traditional relationship with France and the Francophone world. The Wagner Group, in fact, shot to notoriety again this week, with reports that the group has been contracted to undertake high level killings in Ukraine.

In Europe, the Hungarian government, until recently, had sought closer and more fruitful relationships with the Kremlin despite being members of NATO, while the Solomon Islands has made their relationship with China clear to the world.

Geopolitical and military alliances have also proven shaky with more traditional allies of the United States over recent weeks.

At the recent UN Security Council vote condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates and India – countries many of whom believe to be close operating allies of the West – abstained from condemning Russia. Both abstentions do not come as a surprise, as India and Russia have had a close military and trade relationship for decades while Russia and the UAE are in the midst of a trade renaissance.

This renewed multipolarity between the US, China and Russia may pose significant threats to the international rules-based order.

Anne Applebaum writing in The Atlantic suggested that these burgeoning alliances, in which autocrats flirt with autocrats, have enabled the creation of shadow trade and governance organisations to rival the West. In fact, these organisations can be used to promote trade and military assistance to mitigate the impact of Western sanctions and threats.

VIEW ALL

“Neither have decades of US sanctions changed the behavior of the Iranian regime or the Venezuelan regime, despite their indisputable economic impact. Too often, sanctions are allowed to deteriorate over time; just as often, autocracies now help one another get around them,” Applebaum wrote.

Following years of instability in the United States and a haphazard withdrawal from Afghanistan, it appears that more than ever, autocrats around the world are weighing up their options for alliances. Perhaps the end of the US century is around the corner.  

Writing in War on the Rocks this week, Selim Koru predicted that overlapping geopolitical and military interests between Turkey and Russia may bring an expansionist Ankara into Russia’s sphere of influence.

An analyst with the Economic Policy Research Foundation and Black Sea Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, Koru’s prediction may appear unthinkable to students of history.  Competing ambitions in the Black Sea, the Balkans and Caucasus, and dreams of an Orthodox and Slavic Constantinople have sparked centuries of conflict between the two nations.

However, a proclivity towards autocracy and the objective of regional expansion in an era defined by international law has built a bridge between the two nations.

In his analysis, Koru rejects the notion that Turkey is an enthusiastic supporter of Ukraine – rather, a Russian victory in Ukraine would hasten a shift from the US-led rules-based order.

“In fact, the opposite appears more likely. If President Vladimir Putin wins a major military victory against Ukraine, and is able to weather the economic and diplomatic consequences, it will only accelerate Turkey’s move into a post-NATO stance,” Koru explained.

“The failure of NATO to stop Moscow’s irredentism will confirm Ankara’s beliefs about the waning relevance of the alliance and fuel its hopes for a new era in geopolitics.”

In Koru’s thesis, there are several overlapping objectives that would draw Ankara into the orbit of Moscow and even Beijing. First, there is an ideological affinity between Ankara, the Kremlin and Beijing which is reflected in autocratic governance and a rejection of the rules-based order. Secondly, all three nations have an expansionist foreign policy marked by a manifest destiny of a unified China, greater Russia and new Ottoman Empire. Third, a loss in Ukraine will further signal the end of a US-led world order.

“The Turkish right dreams of a revitalised Turkish sphere of influence, projecting power across three continents. Twenty years at the head of government has allowed them to infuse the country with this vision,” Koru continued.

“Rather, Putin’s triumph would have very exciting implications for some of the people at the presidential palace in Ankara. It would tell the Turkish right that they are on the cusp of a new era in global politics, one that they themselves have sought to bring about.”

Already, there are glimpses of Turkish foreign policy to this effect. Koru illustrates that not only has Turkey continued to build their close relationship with Azerbaijan but has maintained their military presence in northern Syria and Iraq giving them a large regional footprint.

Further, recent belligerence in the Middle East and North Africa has sown deep divisions between Turkey and their NATO allies. Koru explains that Turkey’s recent posturing has even seen the country cut off from cutting-edge military capabilities such as the F-35 program as a result of Turkey's purchase of the S-400 defence system. Turkey has also been in discussions with Russia for the purchase of Sukhoi fighter jets.

However, the irony that Russia sold their prized S-400 defence system to Turkey, who sold their prized armed Bayraktar drones to Ukraine who are now using these to destroy Russian military capabilities is not lost on anyone.

Indeed, a poor outcome in the current Russia-Ukraine conflict may put the brakes on a departure of rogue states from the international rules-based order.

The Ukraine conflict has already taught the world many lessons.

One is that Russian military technology simply isn’t that good. Against Western technology – it’s downright terrible. Autocrats who have built their militaries with Russian technology may start to second guess their chances of winning in a conventional conflict. The second is that, like a schoolyard bully humbled by a smaller kid in a fight, Russia has lost face and thus its ability to coerce smaller countries and woo autocrats to join its gang.

The world’s autocrats – especially in Ankara – are watching the outcome of this conflict closely.

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia's political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch with This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..