Reading Summary
q345653
BezenCokunTurkeysRelationswithRussiaaftertheFailedCoupAFriendinNeedofaFriend.pdf
ISSN: 2051-0861
Publication details, including guidelines for submissions:
https://journals.le.ac.uk/ojs1/index.php/nmes
Turkey’s Relations with Russia after the Failed Coup: A Friend in Need of a Friend
Indeed?
Author(s): Bezen Balamir Coşkun
To cite this article: Coşkun, Bezen Balamir (2019) “Turkey‟s Relations with Russia after the Failed Coup: A Friend in Need of a Friend Indeed?”, New Middle Eastern Studies 9 (1), pp. 36-52.
Online Publication Date: 18 March 2019
Disclaimer and Copyright
The NMES editors make every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information contained in the journal.
However, the Editors and the University of Leicester make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the
accuracy, completeness or suitability for any purpose of the content and disclaim all such representations and
warranties whether express or implied to the maximum extent permitted by law. Any views expressed in this
publication are the views of the authors and not the views of the Editors or the University of Leicester.
Copyright New Middle Eastern Studies, 2019. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored, transmitted or disseminated, in any form, or by any means, without prior written permission
from New Middle Eastern Studies, to whom all requests to reproduce copyright material should be directed, in
writing.
Terms and Conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will
be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
New Middle Eastern Studies, 9 (1)
36
Turkey’s Relations with Russia after the Failed Coup: A Friend
in Need of a Friend Indeed?
Bezen Balamir Coşkun *
Abstract
The aim of this article is to analyse the resolution of the crisis between Turkey and
Russia. The diplomatic crisis erupted when Turkey shot down a Russian warplane on
its border with Syria on 24 November 2015. The diplomatic crisis went hand in hand
with an extensive economic embargo. Russia suspended the reciprocal visa-free regime
with Turkey, as well as banning charter flights to and from Turkey. Russian travel firms
were told by Moscow to stop marketing Turkish holiday programs. Moreover, Putin
signed a decree calling for a ban on imports of certain goods from Turkey. After a
period of intensity, however, the leaders of the two countries (President Putin and
President Erdoğan) decided to reset the relations. The failed coup attempt in Turkey in
2016 provided a window of opportunity for the resolution of the crisis. In light of this
background, the article puts forward an analysis of both the system level factors
(international conjecture) and domestic factors (military capabilities, economic capacity
and government type). The article puts a special emphasis on how the failed military
coup in Turkey constituted a decisive turning point for Turkey-Russia relations in
recent years.
Keywords: Turkey-Russia Relations; Turkish Foreign Policy; Russian Jet Crisis; Process
Tracing; Two-Level Games
Introduction
On 24 November 2015, a Turkish F-16 jet shot down a Russian warplane near the Syrian–
Turkish border. The event caused the deterioration of the relations between Turkey and
Russia. As argued by Çelikpala (2017: 1), the downing of the Russian jet “had direct negative
consequences on the almost two-decade-old Turkish-Russian modus vivendi”. The
diplomatic crisis was accompanied by a Russian economic embargo. Moreover, Russia
suspended the reciprocal visa-free regime with Turkey. However, the tension only lasted
about seven months. In this context, the aim of this article is to analyse the resolution of the
crisis between Turkey and Russia. Throughout the article, the state of Turkey-Russia relations
before and after the jet crisis will be traced. The path tracing will involve both the system
level factors and domestic factors in analysing Turkish foreign policy towards Russia. It is
argued that such an analysis will allow us to discuss the foreign policy decisions of the
* Bezen Balamir Coşkun; Department of Political Science and International Relations, Baskent University,
Eskişehir Yolu 18.km, Etimesgut, Ankara 06790, Turkey. Email: [email protected].
New Middle Eastern Studies, 9 (1)
37
leaders as a “two-level game” to maintain their domestic influence and power in promoting a
desirable foreign policy.
For this analysis, the process tracing method (Bennett 2008; Checkel 2008; George and
Bennett 2005) will be used. Process tracing helps us “to identify the intervening causal
process between an independent variable (or variables) and the outcome of the dependent
variable” (George and Bennet 2005: 206-207). In order to make causal inferences in single
case analyses, process tracing allows the researcher to study causal mechanisms. Here, it is
argued that process tracing will contribute to describing political, economic and social
aspects of the Russia-Turkey dispute and its subsequent resolution. The method will also
allow us to evaluate the causal claims of both sides. The purpose of the analysis is to explain
the resolution of the crisis between Turkey and Russia through building a sufficient
explanation by conducting a case study analysis.
For a minimally sufficient explanation, the researcher starts with tracing the process
backward from a known outcome. Then, the empirical process that led to this particular
outcome is traced (Beach and Pederson 2013). Working backwards from the outcome by
analysing empirical evidence to explore the causal mechanism that produced the outcome
requires an inductive path. By following an inductive path in process tracing, the researcher
uses empirical material to explain a causal mechanism, whereby X(s) produced Y (Beach and
Pederson 2013). In this context, this article aims to explain the causal mechanism, whereby
Russian and Turkish leaders resolved the tension after the jet crisis. To do this, both sequence
evidence, which is a temporal and spatial chronology of events, and account evidence, which
is the content of empirical material, will be analysed. The following events are chosen as
events for sequential evidence:
Event 1 - Russian air campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL)
and other anti-government forces (30 September 2015),
Event 2 - The Russian jet crisis (24 November 2015),
Event 3 - The failed coup attempt in Turkey (15 July 2016).
The article places a particular emphasis on how the 2016 failed military coup in Turkey
constituted a decisive factor in the outcome of the Turkey-Russia thaw. Official documents
and statements and both sides‟ policy actions after each sequential event will be analysed as
account evidence. The analysis involves both the system level factors and domestic factors to
allow for a discussion of the two-level game that leaders played to maintain their domestic
influence. Particularly, in the areas regarding environmental, economic and trade-related
issues in international relations, domestic politics has a considerable impact on foreign
policy. Thus, in multilateral or bilateral negotiations, foreign policy executives often engage
in a “two-level game”. Putnam (1988) argued that during international negotiations, foreign
policy executives played both at the domestic and international levels. Leaders as “chief
negotiators” need domestic approval for the execution of the foreign policy. As stated by da
Conceição-Heldt and Mello (2017: 15), “whereas at the international level, the challenge
consists in finding a compromise agreement that is acceptable to all negotiating parties, at the
domestic level the main challenge is to find a deal that is acceptable to domestic constituents
and legislators so that it can be ratified”. Governments‟ need for ratification or legislative
New Middle Eastern Studies, 9 (1)
38
approval for foreign policy issues is regarded as the crucial theoretical link between the
domestic and international level (da Conceição-Heldt and Mello 2017). Besides the formal
approval mechanism, there exist informal ways of domestic approval, such as public opinion
and public approval ratings (da Conceição-Heldt and Mello 2017). According to Putnam
(1988), leaders‟ win-set should include domestic approval too. In this regard, the range of the
domestic level win-set of the leader is also crucial. At the international level, national leaders
engage in bargaining with different interests and preferences, while at the domestic level, a
variety of actors with different interests attempt to influence the governments‟ foreign policy
decisions (da Conceição-Heldt and Mello 2017).
In order to trace Turkish-Russian relations before and after the jet crisis, the article
begins with a brief review of Turkish - Russian rapprochement starting with the 1990s. The
period is called by Çelikpala (2017) as the modus vivendi period. Then, both the sequence
evidence and account evidence will be analysed throughout three significant events: 1)
Russian air campaign against the ISIL and other anti-government forces, 2) Russian jet crisis
and 3) failed coup attempt in Turkey. The concluding discussion will put forward a brief
analysis of the two-level game of the period.
Modus Vivendi: Turkey - Russia Rapprochement (1990 - 2015)
Turkey and Russia had grown apart during the Cold War after Turkey decided to join NATO
1952; however, the end of the Cold War in 1991 marked a new period in Turkish – Russian
relations. During the 1990s, relations were deepened albeit mutual fear and mistrust
remained. In this period, the differences and hostility between the two states were replaced
with cooperation in many fields. Rubin and Kirişçi (2001: 155) identified this period with the
term “virtual rapprochement”, which was underpinned by two main dynamics: “managed
geopolitical rivalry” and “unique economic cooperation verging on interdependence”.
Geopolitical rivalry between Turkey and Russia manifested itself in their relations vis-à-vis
the newly independent states of Eurasia such as Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Russian policy
of Eurasianism and Ankara‟s Pan-Turkism emerged as competitors for establishing
ideological hegemony over the post-Soviet republics of the Caucasus and Central Asia.
Despite the occasional tensions, Turkish and Russian officials managed to keep diplomatic
channels open and gradually improved the cooperation between two states. Furthermore,
cooperation over economic and trade issues accelerated after the signing of the Treaty of
Friendship and Cooperation in 1992. Later in 1997, Russia also appeared as a convenient
alternative to Ankara‟s deteriorating relations with the EU, when Turkey‟s candidacy was
rejected at the Luxembourg Summit (Rubin and Kirişçi 2001).
According to Aktürk (2013), during the late 1990s and early 2000s, both Russia and
Turkey worked around the complementarities regarding their bilateral relationships, in
contrast to their confrontational stands of early 1990s. Within this context, in 2002, Russia
and Turkey even planned to form a political and military alliance. However, plans for the
alliance failed as a result of divergences of political interests in several occasions including
the five-day war between Georgia and Russia in 2008, the Syrian Civil War, the Russian
invasion of Ukraine and Russia‟s annexation of Crimea in 2015.
New Middle Eastern Studies, 9 (1)
39
As opposed to the aforementioned political tensions, Turkey and Russia have
developed strong economic relations in the areas of trade and tourism over the years.
Following the signing of the Joint Economic Commission in 1992, the 1990s‟ unofficial
“shuttle trade” was gradually replaced with official trade relations, mainly in the area of
energy trade. The Blue Stream pipeline has made Russia the primary source of natural gas for
Turkey. Hence, economic interests have become the lynchpin of relations. The trade volume
between Turkey and Russia has dramatically increased between 2000 and 2014 (see Table 1).
Besides the energy imports and agricultural exports, Turkish construction companies have
obtained massive construction projects across Russia. Before the jet crisis, Turkish
construction companies had reached over $30 billion in investments and around 10 thousand
Turkish employers in Russia (“Rusya Türk şantiyelerini bastı” 2015). Tourism, particularly
from Russia to Turkey, has become another backbone of Turkish Russian economic relations.
Between 2000 and 2015, the number of Russian tourists visiting Turkey rose from 677
thousand to 4.5 million (see Table 2).
To sum up, by 2015, Turkey and Russia were just so near and yet so far. Throughout
the period, for rapprochement with Russia, Ankara had several motivations including its
desire to have better relations with its neighbours and foreign policy portfolio diversification
(Çagaptay and Gencay 2005). In the political realm, relations were overwhelmed with
tensions as a result of conflicting national interests, while in the economic realm the relations
were defined by pragmatism. Despite the constant ups and downs in the political realm, trade
relations and tourism steadily flourished. However, Russia‟s active military intervention in
the Syrian Civil War brought bilateral relations to the verge of collapse. In the forthcoming
sections, three case-specific events will be traced as empirical evidence to explore the causal
mechanisms that shape the outcome of the relations between Turkey and Russia.
Event 1: Russian Air Campaign against the ISIL and Other Anti-Government Forces
(September 30, 2015)
Following a formal approval by the upper house of the parliament, on 30 September 2015,
the Russian military started an air campaign in Syria. It was the first military operation of the
Russian Federation outside the former Soviet Union territories (The Guardian 2016). Russian
officials insisted that Syrian President Assad requested them to launch the military
intervention. President Putin declared that Russia was acting “preventatively, to fight and
destroy militants and terrorists on the territories that they already occupy, not wait for them to
come to our house” (“Russia joins the war in Syria” 2015). While the Russian Defence
Ministry argued that airstrikes just targeted ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant),
the Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov insisted that the campaign targeted “all terrorists” in
Syria, not just ISIL. Russian officials denied the accusations about civilian deaths and
underlined that targets were chosen together with Syrian military forces (“Russia joins the
war in Syria” 2015). Almost one month after the Russian airstrikes, Assad visited Moscow to
thank President Putin for Russia‟s efforts to save the country (“Assad shows up to thank
Putin for the save” 2015). According to the records of the meeting, Putin told Assad that:
New Middle Eastern Studies, 9 (1)
40
[W]e took the decision upon your request to provide effective aid to the Syrian people in
fighting the international terrorists who have unleashed a genuine war against Syria…
The Syrian people has been practically alone in putting up resistance and fighting these
international terrorists for several years now, and has suffered great losses (Official
Transcript as quoted by Calamur 2015: 1).
Only two months prior to Russian military intervention in Syria, on 29 August, Turkey
actively participated in the air campaign that was led by the US. Thus, Ankara became part of
the military intervention in the Syrian Civil War before the intervention of Russia. As stated
by Erkmen and Yüksel (2015), the main reason behind Turkey‟s direct but limited
intervention was the failure of Ankara‟s attempts to establish a secure zone between Northern
Syria and Turkey. The Al-Nusra Front‟s separation from the coalition against ISIL,
Democratic Union Party (PYD) / People's Protection Units (YPG)‟s plans to move through
the west of the Euphrates and the failure of the US-led air operations to stop ISIL‟s move
through the Turkish border also led to Ankara‟s decision to join the American military
intervention.
Furthermore, during the summer of 2015, the Turkish Armed Forces, particularly the
land forces, were making preparations for a unilateral intervention in Northern Syria to push
PYD/YPG back to the east of the Euphrates. Turkey‟s military deployment next to the Syrian
border coincided with Russian military deployment inside Syria to support the Assad regime.
Thus, both Ankara and Moscow had already decided to commence an active military
intervention in Syria. However, tensions in domestic politics between June and November
2015 general elections and the rise of terror attacks during the summer of 2015 caused the
Turkish government to concentrate its energy into internal affairs. Thus, Ankara‟s operation
plans were defied by Russia‟s military intervention that started on 30 September.
Ankara‟s initial reaction to Russian military intervention was very negative. In an
interview with Al Jazeera, President Erdoğan openly expressed his disappointment with
Russian intervention:
I would like to express my disappointment with this. They need to reconsider this
decision. As the leader of a country that has friendly ties with Russia, I will ask this to
President Putin. Because, we are (the Turkish people) the ones who is suffering most in
the region. Russia does not have a border with Syria. Why do they intervene in this
affair? (President Erdoğan as quoted by Arslan 2015).
Besides the initial unofficial reactions, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced a
joint warning statement signed by Turkey, US, Germany, UK, France, Qatar, and Saudi
Arabia to “immediately cease its attacks on the Syrian opposition and civilians and to focus
its efforts on fighting ISIL” (MFA 2015a).
While Russia was extending its airstrikes during the first weeks of October 2015, it
became a routine of Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to share statements regarding
Russians‟ violations of Turkish airspace. Airspace violations were officially protested by
Turkish officials. The Russian Ambassador to Turkey was invited several times by the
Turkish Foreign Minister to pass Ankara‟s warning messages to Moscow. Following one
notable incident, the Acting Undersecretary of the Ministry summoned the Ambassador of
the Russian Federation in Ankara to the Ministry and strongly protested a violation,
New Middle Eastern Studies, 9 (1)
41
demanded that any such violation not be repeated and affirmed that, otherwise, the Russian
Federation will be responsible for any undesired incident that may occur.
The Foreign Minister called the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey
Lavrov to reiterate the views stated above and express our reaction. The Foreign Minister
also held telephone calls with his US, French, Italian and UK counterparts to evaluate the
situation. The Foreign Minister will also consult with the NATO Secretary General and
his German counterpart (MFA 2015b).
Despite tensions over Russia‟s violation of Turkish airspace, on 15 November 2015,
President Putin and President Erdoğan met at the G-20 meeting. As the meeting took place
only a couple of days after the ISIL attack in Paris, the main theme of the meeting was the
global fight against terror. Throughout the meeting, both President Erdoğan and President
Putin stressed the importance of fighting against terrorism as an international front. As
Turkey was a staunch ally of the US in their coalition against ISIL in Syria, during the
meeting, President Erdoğan complimented President Obama:
I've also had an opportunity to discuss with Barack the fight that we are conducting against
Daesh in Syria. And we had an opportunity to assess the steps that we will continue to take
with respect to our efforts within the coalition in this respect. As model and strategic
partners, we will continue to show solidarity with each other with an understanding to work
for global peace (Remarks by President Erdoğan at G20 Leaders Meeting 2015).
President Putin, on the other hand, supported his statement regarding “the finance of
terrorism by individual businessmen from 40 countries, including from member states of
G20” with presenting satellite images and aerial photos showing illegal trade of oil and
petroleum by ISIL (“ISIL Financed by 40 Countries” 2015). During the G-20 meeting, Putin
did not mention the names of the individual businessmen from the G-20 states whom he
accused of engaging in oil trade with ISIL. In return, President Erdoğan did not reply to this
remark at all. However, this particular issue became one of the major controversies between
the two leaders after the jet crisis.
Event 2: The Russian Jet Crisis (24 November 2015)
On 24 November 2015, a Turkish F-16 shot down a Russian SU24 near the Turkish-Syrian
border. Both pilots ejected themselves from the jet. However, one of them was killed within
Syrian borders. Initially, Turkish officials stated that the jet was shot down as a result of its
violation of Turkish airspace for 17 seconds despite warnings. On the other hand, Moscow
insisted that the plane remained within the Syrian airspace. Both sides shared their evidence
to justify their contradictory claims. Previously, a Syrian Mi-17 helicopter in 2013 and a
MiG-23 warplane in 2014 were downed by Turkish air forces following the rules of
engagement. In this context, on 19 November, Russia was warned via Ambassador Karlov
regarding their operations around the Turkmen region. As the region is inhabited by the
Turkmen – a kin people to the Turks – Turkish officials were particularly sensitive about the
violent clashes in this particular region (Zeyrek 2015).
New Middle Eastern Studies, 9 (1)
42
While President Putin condemned the Turkish act as a “stab in the back by terrorist
accomplices” (“Turkey downing of Russia jet 'stab in the back‟” 2015), President Erdoğan
insisted that it was Turkey‟s sovereignty right to defend its airspace (“Turkey's downing of
Russian warplane” 2015). President Putin declined to talk with President Erdoğan since he
was waiting for Turkey to apologise. In response, the then Turkish Prime Minister Davutoğlu
stated that they would not apologise because it was their duty to protect their borders
(“Turkey's downing of Russian warplane” 2015). The tension escalated rapidly. Within a
couple of days, Russia suspended its visa-free regime with Turkey, banned charter flights to
and from Turkey. Russian travel firms stopped selling Turkish holidays.
Furthermore, President Putin signed a decree to ban/limit imports from Turkey,
including all fruit and vegetable imports. Escalation of tensions reflected itself in physical
attacks on Turkish diplomatic missions and businesses in Russia. The Turkish Ministry of
Foreign Affairs condemned the attacks and accused Russian officials of not providing
security for Turkish diplomatic missions across Russia:
We sadly observe that Turkish diplomatic missions and businesses in the Russian
Federation are recently exposed to physical attacks under the guise of demonstrations. …
In fact, the host country is legally obliged to ensure the security of foreign missions under
all circumstances pursuant to international law (MFA 2015c).
While economic, political and diplomatic retaliation continued, the leaders of Turkey and
Russia also started “a war of words”. During the UN Climate Change Conference, President
Putin accused Turkey of downing the Russian jet to protect supplies of oil from ISIL, thus
refused to meet with President Erdoğan during the summit. In response to this accusation,
President Erdoğan highlighted Turkey‟s commitment to fighting with ISIL. He said that
Putin‟s claim was immoral (Gotev 2015). In his speech at Bayburt province of Turkey,
President Erdoğan warned Putin as “supporting [Assad's] regime that claims 380,000 lives in
Syria and implements state terrorism, is also playing with fire” (“Erdoğan says Putin 'playing
with fire‟” 2015). PM Davutoğlu also accused Russia of conducting ethnic cleansing in
Latakia and of strengthening ISIL (“Davutoğlu: Rusya, Suriye'de etnik temizlik yapmaya
çalışıyor” 2015).
Following the terrorist attack on Istanbul Ataturk Airport which claimed 41 civilian
lives on June 29, Kremlin found an opportunity to retaliate to the Turkish critique over
Russia‟s war on terror in Syria. In this context, a spokesperson of Kremlin, Dmitry Peskov,
stated that:
[O]ver the past years, Russia has informed our Turkish and European colleagues that
people suspected of having links to terrorism, people who are suspected of planning to
join terrorist groups, find shelter both in Turkey and in a number of European countries…
To our regret, terror attack on Istanbul Ataturk airport may be a consequence of such
disregard” (“Russia warnings to Turkey and EU” 2016).
As developments of the period show, “terror” appeared as a common ground for the revival
of Turkish-Russian rapprochement. Tension over the jet crisis remained unchanged until June
2016. On 28 June, President Erdoğan sent a message to President Putin to express his
“sympathy and deep condolences” to the family of the pilot, and “asked to be forgiven”
New Middle Eastern Studies, 9 (1)
43
(“Erdoğan „sorry‟ for the downing of Russian jet” 2016). However, official sources added
that “the sorrow expressed in the letter was addressed not to the Russian state, but the pilot‟s
family”, thus Turkey‟s position on Syria, Ukraine and Crimea did not change (“Kremlin
replaces „apology‟ with 'excuse us'” 2016). Even though Turkish officials insisted that the
letter did not aim at Russian state, it was a window of opportunity for reconciliation.
Event 3: The Failed Coup Attempt in Turkey (July 15, 2016)
On 15 July, a rogue faction within the Turkish Armed Forces attempted a coup. Troops and
tanks blocked the Bosphorus Bridge in Istanbul and government buildings including the
Parliament, and the Presidential Palace was bombarded. The Turkish Radio Television was
seized, and an anchor-woman was forced to read a statement prepared by the coup plotters.
The then Chief of the General Staff Hulusi Akar was held hostage by the junta. Following
President Erdoğan‟s appearance on a TV channel, thousands of people went out streets and
resisted the soldiers who were part of the coup attempt. Within less than 24 hours, the coup
attempt was defeated by the protestors and the pro-government security forces (Mert 2016).
Initially, both the Europeans and Americans behaved hesitantly to congratulate
President Erdoğan and the Turkish people for defeating the coup plotters. Instead, they called
for the preservation of Turkish democracy. Then, the US Secretary of State, John Kerry,
explicitly warned the Turkish leadership to refrain from mass purges of its military officers
that might weaken the fight against the ISIL. In response to the US critique of mass purges,
President Erdoğan accused the US of being partially involved in the coup, since Fetullah
Gülen, the leading figure of the coup, resides in Pennsylvania with a Green card (Lakstygal
2016). In contrast to the cold reception of the European leaders, President Putin was very
sympathetic to Turkey. In his first statement that condemned the coup, President Putin
highlighted his support: “We categorically reject the use of unconstitutional and violent
methods against states. We offer our condolences for the losses and the wish for the
restoration of constitutional order and stability in Turkey as soon as possible” (Department of
Corporate Communication of the Presidency 2016: 29).
In response to President Putin‟s supportive words, in a television program, Minister
Cavusoğlu thanked President Putin for his unconditional support which was Turks‟
expectation from the allies of Turkey (“Turkey thanks Putin” 2016). President Erdoğan, on
the other hand, accused the coup plotters of also staging a plot to hurt Russian-Turkish
relations by downing the Russian warplane in November 2015. Finally, on 9 August,
President Putin met with President Erdoğan. The meeting marked the end of months of
hostility between the two states. The trip was also President Erdoğan‟s first trip abroad after
the failed coup attempt. In St. Petersburg, President Erdoğan said that President Putin‟s call
immediately after the coup attempt “meant a lot psychologically”, and the friendship between
the two states would be restored very soon (“Putin mends broken relations” 2016).
Last but not the least, failed coup attempt constituted an opportunity for President
Erdoğan to create a new national myth. As stated by President Erdoğan in his message on the
occasion of the 93rd anniversary of the signing of the Lausanne Peace Treaty, the heroic
struggle of Turkish people to defend their constitution and democracy has become the core
story of the myth of new Turkey:
New Middle Eastern Studies, 9 (1)
44
The fact that our nation took a noble and determined stand against treacherous attempts
by different circles is the clearest proof that our country will, in the upcoming period,
advance on the path of democracy, freedom and development. No power or circle will be
able to deter the Republic of Turkey, which has become the 6th biggest economy in
Europe and 17th in the world in the 93 years that passed since then, from achieving its
goals for 2023 and advancing towards its visions for 2053 and 2071.
This myth has become popular among the Turkish public. Yet, it still needed an external
legitimacy. Thus, finding influential international actors that acknowledge the Turkish
people‟s salvation from the ills of FETÖ (Fethullah Gülen Terror Organisation) was
significant. In this regard, mending the relations with Russia means more than just tourism
and trade but also a means for legitimising post-coup policies of Turkish leadership.
Concluding Discussion: The Two-Level Games Behind the Turkish - Russian Thaw
June 2015 marked the beginning of a period of instability in Turkish politics. The results of
elections, which took place on 7 June, caused the governing party to lose its parliamentary
majority. As the Justice and Development Party (AKP) could neither form a majority
government nor a coalition within six weeks, President Erdoğan called for the renewal of
elections in November 2015. Competition and polarisation in the realm of domestic politics
reflected in the economy and society. The escalation of terror and violence claimed around
200 lives between the two elections. Within this context, foreign policy actions of the period
provided a solid base for the AKP in its consolidation of the constituency to gain a majority
in elections in November 2015.
The Syria policy of the government was blamed for the escalation of terror in Turkey.
ISIL was seen as a significant threat by the majority of the Turkish public. This situation
provided a ground of legitimacy for Ankara‟s decision to join the US military intervention in
Syria despite the existence of an anti-American public opinion. Furthermore, Russia‟s
military intervention also provided a pretext for Ankara‟s military involvement in Syria. As
highlighted by President Erdoğan following Russian air campaign in September 2015, it was
Turkey who suffered the most, not Russia. Thus, it was Turkey‟s right to defend its country
against ISIL and the other terrorist groups coming from Syria. President Erdoğan‟s
securitisation of ISIL coincided with the macro securitisation of ISIL by other leaders
including the American and Russian ones, which strengthened President Erdoğan‟s hand to
persuade his constituency for the necessity of immediate military intervention. In his speech
at the Turkish Grand National Parliament‟s Legislative Year Opening in October 2015,
President Erdoğan pointed out the role Turkey plays for regional peace and stability, which
are seen as one of the main conditions of internal security and stability:
Incidents taking place right next to us in Iraq and Syria have intensified and had different
reflections on our country… What we call Syria and Iraq at present, were geographies no
different to us than Mardin, Diyarbakır, Gaziantep, and Hatay just a century ago. Despite
everything, Turkey stands as an island of confidence and stability in a region where
instability, clashes, and chaos is ever-increasing. Turkey has never looked at its
neighbours and regional countries solely from the window of interests… We have never
preferred short-term interests to values that make us who we are and we never will. We
New Middle Eastern Studies, 9 (1)
45
are not in an effort to save the day, but we are in an effort to build a common future
together with our brothers in the region (President Erdoğan‟s Speech at the Turkish Grand
National Parliament‟s Legislative Year Opening, 2015).
Until the general elections of November 1, the necessity of fighting against terror both
internally and externally was the main theme of the official election propaganda of the ruling
party. In this regard, both the growing tension with Russia and failing coalition partnership
with the US in Syria was described as external obstacles in front of the Turkish nation‟s
security and stability. Since the summer of 2015, the Turkish public has felt the spillover
effect of the war in Syria through terror attacks and firing of missiles to border provinces
such as Kilis and Gaziantep. Besides that, Turkish airspace was often being violated by
Syrian and Russian forces. The government needed to take action to ease public frustration
regarding Syria originated security threats to their everyday lives.
Given the plethora of concerns, both internal and external, a Turkish F-16 shot down a
Russian SU24 after its violation of Turkish airspace. During the period following the
downing of SU24, Turkish economy, particularly the tourism sector was negatively affected
by the Russian embargo. According to the findings of Social, Economic and Political
Research Foundation of Turkey‟s (TUSEM) report, the jet crisis with Russia cost Turkey
around USD 11 billion in one year (“Rusya krizinin ekonomik maliyeti” 2015). As the
promise of economic stability constitutes the backbone of the AKP rule, the Turkish
government soon realised that the tension with Russia was not sustainable. The
uncompromising discourse targeting Russia was gradually softened. Two unfortunate events
throw two states to the path of reconciliation: the failed coup attempt in Turkey and the
assassination of Russian Ambassador to Ankara.
The assassination of Ambassador Karlov was a reminder of terrorism as a common
threat to both sides as stated in the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs‟ statement: “… This
attack has displayed the most disgusting and barbarous face of terrorism. Turkey will
resolutely continue by exerting every effort to struggle against terrorism together with Russia
and all other partners” (MFA 2016). As opposed to the expectations, the assassination did not
further complicate the relations between Ankara and Moscow, since the attack pointed out a
common enemy for both: terror. In this occasion, both Russia and Turkey placed the blame
for assassination on terrorists (Moore 2016). The assassination of the Ambassador Karlov
meant to disturb normalisation process. However, both Ankara and Moscow prevented this
attempt to be successful.
The failure of the US-led operations in deterring terrorist activities in Syria also made
Ankara and Moscow find common ground to be involved in Syria. In this context, Russian
and Turkish leaders left their grudge over the jet crisis and brokered an evacuation deal for
Aleppo, and then they proposed initiating regional peace talks in Astana, Kazakhstan without
the involvement of the US and the UN. Initiation of Astana process brought the two sides one
step closer to reconciliation, but the real ground-breaking event was the failed military coup
in Turkey. By being one of the first leaders that visited President Erdoğan after the coup
attempt and by unconditionally supporting Turkish government‟s actions following the failed
coup attempt, President Putin gained President Erdoğan‟s trust, as compared with the
New Middle Eastern Studies, 9 (1)
46
European and American leaders who condemned the coup attempt but also raised concerns
about the democratic future of Turkey.
Terror attacks that threatened internal security and stability on the one hand and the
pressure of economic stability despite the challenges of global economic conjecture on the
other put pressure on the Turkish government to mend ties with Russia. Externally,
particularly after the failed military coup, Turkey was losing ground with its Western allies
including NATO. The EU institutions and leaders of the EU member states were harshly
criticising President Erdoğan‟s way of dealing with post-coup affairs in Turkey. The EU‟s
accusations of President Erdoğan‟s authoritarian tendencies coincided with President
Trump‟s indifference to Turkey‟s internal affairs. In such an international conjecture Turkey
was alienated from its Western partners. Feeling of isolation both from the West and from the
Middle East as well as the political conjecture of international community pushed Ankara to
reconsider its relations with Russia as a balancing act.
Even though the thaw with Russia does not require a formal ratification procedure,
President Erdoğan‟s preoccupation with not losing ground among his constituency reflected
his discourse and actions throughout the crisis with Russia. In this regard, for President
Erdoğan, making the reconciliation with Russia credible in the eyes of the public was
essential too. Thus, as evidence from the selected events reveals the path that followed the
handshake between President Erdoğan and President Putin was a well-played two-level game
on behalf of President Erdoğan. As a well-played two-level game, President Erdoğan not just
persuaded his constituency for the necessity to reconcile with Russia, but also legitimised the
signing of S-400 missiles deal, the signing of gas pipeline deal and the finalisation of the
Akkuyu nuclear plant deal.
New Middle Eastern Studies, 9 (1)
47
Table 1. Turkey’s Exports to Russia & Imports from Russia to Turkey (2017 - 1996)
Year Export Total Import Total
2017 1 796 728 13 930 534
2016 1 732 954 15 162 386
2015 3 588 331 20 401 757
2014 5 943 014 25 288 597
2013 6 964 209 25 064 214
2012 6 680 777 26 625 286
2011 5 992 633 23 952 914
2010 4 628 153 21 600 641
2009 3 189 607 19 450 086
2008 6 483 004 31 364 477
2007 4 726 853 23 508 494
2006 3 237 611 17 806 239
2005 2 377 050 12 905 620
2004 1 859 187 9 033 138
2003 1 367 591 5 451 315
2002 1 172 039 3 891 721
2001 924 107 3 435 673
2000 643 903 3 886 583
1999 588 664 2 374 133
1998 1 348 002 2 155 006
1997 2 056 547 2 174 258
1996 1 510 005 1 921 139
Source: Turkish Statistics Institute, Foreign Trade Statistics,
http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1046
New Middle Eastern Studies, 9 (1)
48
Table 2. The Number of Russian Tourists (2000 - 2016)
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
947
ths 1.25
mio 1.6
mio 1.86
mio 1.84
mio 2.46
mio 2.88
mio 2.7
mio 3.1
mio 3.47
mio 3.6
mio 4.27
mio 4.48
mio 3.65
mio 866
ths
Source: http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1072
References
Akturk, Şener (2013) A Realist Reassessment of Turkish-Russian Relations, 2002-2012:
From the Peak to the Dip? (Istanbul: Caspian Strategy Institute Centre for Politics and
International Relations Studies).
Arslan, Rengin (2015) “Rusya'nın Suriye sahasına girişi Türkiye için ne anlama
geliyor?” [Russian violation of airspace: What does it mean for Turkey], BBC News, October
3. http://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler/2015/10/151003_rengin_rusya_turkiye_analiz
(Access Date: March 25, 2018).
“Assad shows up to thank Putin for the save” (2015) CBS News, October 21,
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-bashar-assad-russia-vladimir-putin-war-on-terrorists/
(Access Date: March 27, 2018).
Beach, Derek and Rasmus Brun Pedersen, R. B. (2013) Process-Tracing Methods:
Foundations and Guidelines (Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press).
Bennett, Andrew (2008) “Process-Tracing: A Bayesian Perspective”, in Janet M. Box-
Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady and David Collier (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political
Methodology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 702-721.
Cağaptay, Soner and Gencay, Nazlı (2005) “Improving Turkish-Russian Relations:
Turkey‟s New Foreign Policy and Its Implications for the United States”, The Washington
Institute Policy Watch, No. 942 http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-
analysis/view/improving-turkish-russian-relations-turkeys-new-foreign-policy-and-its-impl
(Access Date: March 27, 2018).
Calamur, Krishnadev (2015) “A Strengthened Assad‟s Welcome at the Kremlin”, The
Atlantic, October 21, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/syria-russia-
assad-putin/411658/ (Access Date: March 27, 2018).
Çelikpala, Mithat (2017) “Russia‟s Policies in the Middle East and the Pendulum of
Turkish-Russian Relations”, The Jamestown Foundation Global Research and Analysis,
October 5, https://jamestown.org/program/russias-policies-middle-east-pendulum-turkish-
russian-relations/ (Access Date: March 25, 2018).
New Middle Eastern Studies, 9 (1)
49
Checkel, Jeffrey T. (2008) “Tracing Causal Mechanisms”, International Studies Review
8 (2), pp. 362-370.
da Conceição-Heldt, Eugénia and Patrick A. Mello (2017) “Two-Level Games in
Foreign Policy Analysis”, Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Politics (New York and
Oxford: Oxford University Press).
“Davutoğlu: Rusya, Suriye'de etnik temizlik yapmaya çalışıyor (2015) (Davutoğlu:
Russia is doing ethnic cleansing in Syria)”, BBC Turkish, December 9,
http://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler/2015/12/151209_davutoglu_rusya (Access Date: March
26, 2018).
“Economy in review 2015” (2016), Hurriyet Daily News, January 1,
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/economy-in-review-2015-93305 (Access Date: March 26,
2018).
“Erdogan says Putin 'playing with fire' as war of words continues” (2015), Middle East
Eye, December 7, http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/erdogan-says-putin-playing-fire-war-
words-escalates-104611406 (Access Date: March 25, 2018).
“Erdogan 'sorry' for downing of Russian jet” (2016), Al Jazeera, June 28
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/06/turkey-erdogan-russian-jet-160627131324044.html
Access Date: March 27, 2018).
Erkmen, Serhat and Yuksel, Bekir Ali (2015) “Erdogan Sah Putin Mat - Putin‟in Suriye
Hamlesi Turkiye‟nin Suriye‟ye Girisini Engelledi (Erdogan Check Putin Mate - Putin‟s
Syrian Act Prevent Turkey‟s Involvement in Syria)”, 21st Century Turkey Institute Working
Paper, September 23, http://www.21yyte.org/tr/arastirma/orta-dogu-ve-afrika-arastirmalari-
merkezi/2015/09/23/8304/erdogansah-putinmat-putinin-suriye-hamlesi-turkiyenin-suriyeye-
girisini-engelledi (Access Date: March 25, 2018).
Flanagan, S.J. and Brannen, S. (2009) Turkey’s Evolving Dynamics: Strategic Choices
for US-Turkey Relations (Washington, DC: Centre for Strategic and International Studies).
George, Alexander L. and Bennett A. (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in
the Social Sciences (Cambridge Massachusetts London: MIT Press).
Gotev, Georgi (2015) “Putin and Erdogan in war of words at Paris conference”,
Euroactiv, December 1, https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/putin-and-
erdogan-in-war-of-words-at-paris-conference/ (Access Date: March 26, 2018).
“ISIL Financed by 40 Countries, Including G20 Member States - Putin”, Sputnik News,
November 16, 2015 https://sputniknews.com/politics/201511161030199114-isil-financing-
g20-putin/ (Access Date: March 27, 2018).
Kadir Has Üniversitesi (2015) Türk Dış Politikası Kamuoyu Algıları Araştırması
Kantitatif Araştırma Raporu [Turkish Foreign Policy Public Perceptions Quantitative
Research Report], May 27, Istanbul.
“Kremlin replaces 'apology' with 'excuse us' on statement regarding Erdoğan's letter”
(2016), Daily Sabah. June 28, https://www.dailysabah.com/diplomacy/2016/06/28/kremlin-
New Middle Eastern Studies, 9 (1)
50
replaces-apology-with-excuse-us-on-statement-regarding-erdogans-letter (Access Date:
March 25, 2018).
Lakstygal, Ilya (2016) “The foreign policy dimensions of Turkey's coup”, Russia
Direct, July 19, http://www.russia-direct.org/analysis/foreign-policy-dimensions-turkeys-
failed-coup (Access Date: March 25, 2018).
Mert, Ali Osman (2016) 15 July Coup Attempt and the Parallel State Structure 2016,
(Ankara: Presidency of Turkish Republic Department of Corporate Communication).
MFA (The Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs) (2015) “On Recent
Military Actions of the Russian Federation on Syria”, Joint Declaration No. 267, October 1,
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/no_-267_-02-october-2015_-joint-declaration-on-recent-military-
actions-of-the-russian-federation-on-syria.en.mfa (Access Date: March 26, 2018).
MFA (The Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs) (2015) “Regarding the
Violation of Turkish Airspace by a Russian Federation Aircraft”, Press Release No: 269,
October 5, http://www.mfa.gov.tr/no_-269_-05-october-2015_-press-release-regarding-the-
violation-of-turkish-airspace-by-a-russian-federation-aircraft.en.mfa (Access Date: March 27,
2018).
MFA (The Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs) (2015) “Regarding the
Attacks against the Turkish Embassy in Moscow and other Missions in the RF”, Press
Release No: 297, 26 November, http://www.mfa.gov.tr/no_-297_-26-november-2015_-press-
release-regarding-the-attacks-against-the-turkish-embassy-in-moscow-and-other-missions-in-
the-rf.en.mfa (Access Date: March 27, 2018).
MFA (The Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs) (2015) “Regarding the
Terrorist Attack Against the Russian Ambassador in Ankara”, Press Release No: 327, 19
December.
Moore, Jack (2016) “Will the Assassination of Russia‟s Ambassador to Turkey Set
Back Im-proving Relations?” Newsweek US Edition, December 24,
http://www.newsweek.com/assassination-shooting-russia-ambassador-turkey-set-back-
improving-relations-533739 (Access Date: March 26, 2018).
Presidency of the Republic of Turkey (2015) President Erdoğan’s Turkish Grand
National Assembly 25th Term 2nd Legislative Year Opening Speech, October 1
https://www.tccb.gov.tr/en/speeches-statements/558/35495/turkish-grand-national-assembly-
25th-term-2nd-legislative-year-opening-speech.html (Access Date: March 26, 2018).
“Putin mends broken relations with Turkey‟s Erdogan (2016)”, BBC News, August 9.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37018562 (Access Date: March 25, 2018).
Putnam, Robert (1988) “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level
Games”, International Organization 42 (3), pp. 427–460.
Rubin, Barry and Kirişçi, Kemal (2001) Turkey in World Politics: An Emerging
Multiregional Power (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers).
New Middle Eastern Studies, 9 (1)
51
Quinn, Ben (2016) “Russia's military action in Syria – timeline”, The Guardian. March
14, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/14/russias-military-action-in-syria-
timeline (Access Date: March 25, 2018).
White House Office of the Press Secretary (2015) Remarks by President Obama and
President Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey after Bilateral Meeting. November 15,
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/15/remarks-president-obama-
and-president-tayyip-erdogan-turkey-after (Access Date: March 25, 2018).
“Russia joins war in Syria: Five key points” (2015) BBC News. October 1.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34416519 (Access Date: March 25, 2018).
“Russia warnings to Turkey and EU on suspected terrorists ignored – Kremlin (2016)”,
RT World News. July 6, https://www.rt.com/news/349679-suspected-terrorists-eu-turkey/
(Access Date: March 25, 2018).
“Rusya Türk şantiyelerini bastı yetmedi” (2015) [Russia raided in Turkish
constructions sites]. A Haber, November 28.
https://www.ahaber.com.tr/ekonomi/2015/11/28/rusya-turk-santiyelerini-basti-yetmedi
(Access Date: March 25, 2018).
“Rusya krizinin ekonomik maliyeti yılda 11 milyar doları geçecek” (2016) [The cost of
Russian Crisis will reach up to USD 11 billion]. Posta. January 25,
http://www.posta.com.tr/rusya-krizinin-ekonomik-maliyeti-yilda-11-milyar-dolari-gececek-
haberi-323768 (Access Date: March 25, 2018).
Secretariat General of the Presidency of the Republic of Turkey (2016) July 15 Coup
Attempt in Turkey and People’s Victory (Ankara: Department of Corporate Communication
of the Presidency).
The Presidency of the Republic of Turkey (2016) “The message by President Erdoğan
on occasion of the 93rd anniversary of signing of the Lausanne Peace Treaty.” July 24,
https://www.tccb.gov.tr/en/speeches-statements/558/49848/93rd-anniversary-of-lausanne-
peace-treaty.html (Access Date: March 25, 2018).
“Turkey downing of Russia jet 'stab in the back' – Putin (2015)”, BBC News, November
24. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34913173 (Access Date: March 25, 2018).
“Turkey's downing of Russian warplane – what we know (2015)”, BBC News,
December 1. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34912581 (Access Date: March
25, 2018).
“Turkey thanks Putin for unconditional support over coup attempt (2016)”, Hurriyet
Daily News, July 25. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-thanks-putin-for-
unconditional-support-over-coup-attempt---102062 (Access Date: March 25, 2018).
Turkish Statistics Institute (2016) Foreign Trade Statistics,
http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1046 (Access Date: March 26, 2018).
Turkish Statistics Institute (2016) Tourism Statistics,
http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1072 (Access Date: March 25, 2018).
New Middle Eastern Studies, 9 (1)
52
Zeyrek, Deniz (2015) “Turkey warns Russia over border security”, Hurriyet Daily
News, November 24, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-warns-russia-over-border-
security-91568 (Access Date: March 25, 2018).
About the Author
e en alamir Co kun, who is Associate Professor and an expert in International Relations,
received her Ph.D. degree in International Relations from Loughborough University, UK.
Previously, she has obtained her Master‟s degree from Aalborg University (Denmark)
Development and International Relations program. Between 2003 and 2016, Dr. Coskun had
worked in several higher education institutions and research centers both in Turkey and
abroad. Currently she works as an adjunct professor at Baskent University, Ankara. In 2016,
she has established a consultancy agency, Izmir Policy Centre, to support local civil society
organizations and small and medium size enterprises. Dr. Coskun‟s area of specialisation is
foreign policy and security policies of states with a particular emphasis on Turkey‟s
immediate neighbourhood. Recently, together with Dr. Selin Yildiz, she has published a book
entitled Encounters in the Turkey - Syria Borderland.
