Turkey refuses to transport S-400s to Ukraine

By Costas Raptis

It was released as an idea that would satisfy all parties. The US proposal for the delivery of S-400 systems to Ukraine, which Turkey has procured from Russia, would remove a big thorn in the side of Turkish-American relations (which even led to the expulsion of the neighbor from the co-production of F fighters). -35), while at the same time it would strengthen in its military effort the country of Volodymyr Zelensky with a Russian-made weapon, crucial for its largely neutralized air defense.

The idea was discussed, according to Reuters, during contacts in Ankara earlier this month by US Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman.

Only Turkey does not agree.

According to an interview with the Russian newspaper “Izvestia” by Ismail Demir, head of the armaments department in the Turkish presidency, the possibility of transferring the S-400s to Ukraine is not being discussed. “We have discussed it in the past and now we are just continuing [όπως πριν]. “Turkey is able to determine its own policy and its own path, as always,” Demir was quoted as saying.

This attitude should not surprise us. Not only because the whole scenario betrayed a somewhat improvised study, but also because the Turkish refusal goes hand in hand with the whole of Ankara’s policy in the Ukrainian crisis.

“Instead of handing over such weapons systems to Ukraine, Turkey is doing everything to end the conflict,” Demir said, hinting at his country’s diplomatic initiatives, such as the Ukrainian foreign minister’s meeting with his Russian counterpart. on the sidelines of the Antalya Diplomatic Forum.

Much higher in the political hierarchy, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoλουlu told reporters on the sidelines of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) summit in Pakistan: “Everyone should aim for a ceasefire. “Everyone should act responsibly and constructively.”

On the eve of the NATO summit to be held on Thursday in Brussels, aimed at strengthening the transatlantic unity, Tsavousoglu sent a very different message: “Of course we need to show solidarity and unity of NATO and show willpower. “But who pays the price for the ongoing war?”

The Turkish Foreign Minister thus wanted to downplay the issue of arms shipments and to highlight mediation efforts similar to those undertaken by his country. In this way he appears as the most sincere friend of Ukraine from those who want to prolong the bleeding of this country indefinitely, in order to achieve the destruction of Russia, although the big picture of the military correlation can not be overturned.

Which leads us to the impressive ability of Tayyip Erdogan’s country to maintain degrees of autonomy and strategic “ambiguity” even at a time when the new “cold war” seemed to deprive it, placing Turkey firmly inside the Western camp.

But the acrobatics will continue for as long as Erdogan can. Combining the self-evident political condemnation of the Russian invasion, the special interest in the Crimean Tatars and the reception of 58,000 Ukrainian refugees with the avoidance of anti-Russian sanctions and diplomatic activism, the Turkish “Janos” reaps political and economic benefits without either with Russia or with Ukraine (or the West in general) He knows that this round of neo-Cold War confrontation will at some point lead to a pause and compromise – and he is well promoted as his “facilitator”.

It could be seen as a forced choice, to the extent that Putin has made Erdogan partly hostage because of Turkey’s dependence on Russian energy supplies, the flow of Russian tourists or the two sides’ cooperation in settling the Syrian conflict. crisis. But Putin seems to trust Putin’s “rival” more (with the comfort that NATO’s defense umbrella ultimately gives him) more than his “allies.” The 2016 coup attempt is certainly on his mind forever. Like the broader ambition to make Turkey more than a “given” executor of Western priorities.