Research studies

Turkey and Russia From conflict to cooperation

 

Prepared by the researcher  :  Prof. Ahmed Jassim Ibrahim – Babylon Center for Civilization and Historical Studies / University of Babylon

Democratic Arab Center

Journal of Political Trends : Seventeen Issue – December 2021

A Periodical International Journal published by the “Democratic Arab Center” Germany – Berlin.

Nationales ISSN-Zentrum für Deutschland
ISSN  2569-7382
Journal of Political Trends
:To download the pdf version of the research papers, please visit the following link

https://democraticac.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%84%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B9-%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1-%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%88%D9%84-%E2%80%93-%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A8%D8%B1-2021.pdf

Abstract

The importance of studying the relations between Russia and Turkey is extremely important from a political and geographical point of view, especially after the end of the Cold War, as several regional and international variables have occurred, especially in Europe, and this importance also occupies in discussing the issues, interests, and developments facing these relations. Research and studies on the issue of Russian-Turkish geopolitical relations, but there is an urgent need to deal with more study and research due to the historical depth that governs these relations, their complexity and the complexity of their problems, which requires that they be addressed in the language of political and strategic analysis rather than the language of historical narration if the researcher wants to reach conclusions Close to the reality in the past, present, or future, in addition to the tremendous internal changes that the countries have witnessed since the end of the Cold War and until now, as well as the international changes resulting from the end of that war, and the collapse of the Soviet Union touched the essence of international relations, whether between Turkey and Russia. Or the essence of each other’s relations with other countries, and the geopolitical and geostrategic facts surrounding them, especially the Balkans and Asia Central, the Caucasus, and the Middle East region, hence our interest in this issue and our choice for I

the importance of studying;

It is represented in the fact that the Russian Federation and Turkey are two large and important countries, not only in terms of power in their broad sense, but also in terms of capacity, in the sense of the mutual influence between them, and the influence on conflict and cooperation relations in the nearby surroundings. They are oceans full of conflicts and conflicts, some of which have their roots in the Cold War, and to the extent that Russia and Turkey have a direct and indirect presence in these conflicts and conflicts, they have an undeniable presence in their settlement, and it is sufficient to point out that this is the case that the Caucasus, Central Asia, and Middle East issues are At the heart of the two countries ’concerns after the Cold War. Indeed, the Iraqi issue after the year 2003 has inaugurated an agreement in their positions on some of the problems of this issue, even if it contradicts the US positions. Turkey and Russia after the Cold War, and from these common ones, each of them adopting a realistic and interest-based methodology in drawing up their international relations, as their interests may converge in one issue and may differ in another, although each of them may encapsulate that interest with ideological perspectives, especially when it comes to the competition of roles in regions of overly sensitive In the interest of any of them, such as the Caucasus region, the region of Central Asia, and the Balkans The other common denominator is that each of them suffers from the dilemma of defining their identity after the Cold War. Russia, after stripping away its Marxist ideological orientation, suffers from a struggle between being a nation-state or a polar state, between the European reluctance to accept it within the European family and the Asian fear of its colonial and communist past. This dilemma is more clear for Turkey, as its repeated failure to gain the identity of the European Union can create in it formal and informal perceptions of remorse for the great services it provided when it was one of the hotlines for defending Europe against the communist threat. Rather, the analysis does not exclude that this failure generates a nationalist tendency. Or Islamic forces pushing it towards its Arab and Islamic surroundings, in addition to that, there is a third commonality in Russian-Turkish relations, represented by the American-Israeli influence. In the regions of the Balkans, Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Middle East, Israel, as is well known, is trying to benefit from the changes that are taking place in The major Arabs and the Arab-Israeli conflict, therefore, was the first to take advantage of the shift that took place in Russia’s policy towards the Arabs after the collapse of the Soviet Union, just as it was a forerunner in linking Turkey to the 1996 agreement, in order not to be dragged into its Islamic surroundings .

The problematic of the study:

Every study is based on a specific problem represented in the idea of ​​the topic and its unity, and if the statement of the factors affecting the relations of the two countries after the Cold War represents one of the vocabulary of this problem, then the second item is the statement of aspects of convergence and divergence in Russian-Turkish relations, whether those aspects are political or economic The third and important vocabulary is to clarify the rules or rules of behavior that any of them can follow in relation to the other in the post-Cold War years, with the need to refer to the difference between these rules and the rules that characterized their relations in the Cold War                           .

The first topi.

Historical roots of the two-state relations:

The Turkish-Soviet relations were affected in their historical course, by the characteristics of the strategic location of the two countries, the historical legacy of the conflict between the Ottoman Empire and Tsarist Russia, the developments of the Soviet perception of the geographical position of Turkey in the Soviet national security and the effects of the military, economic and political variable on those relations. From the time of the Ottoman Empire, a great role in the quality of the historical relationship with Tsarist Russia, as the Turks, during the Ottoman Empire and the contemporary era, bordered the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, as well as the narrow lands facing the Bosporus, the Dardanelles and Lake Marmara, which lie outside the entrance to the Black Sea, all matters are imperative. Choose from the control of the Turks over the waterway and reduce or restrict the penetration of the Russians to Europe. Therefore, since 1677 AD, Russia has fought many wars

with the Ottoman Empire, as a result of which it lost large parts of its lands.([1])

Many variables contributed to the creation of a friendly rapprochement between the Ottomans and the Russians, especially in the period between the first and second world wars. The defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War One and the loss of most of its lands and their division among the Allied countries. And the imposition of the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 on Turkey, in addition to not inviting the Soviet Union to the peace conference held in Paris after the First World War, the Soviets remained in opposition to the terms of the conference that had been reached with regard to Turke([2]), and in order to avoid the threat of Western threats, especially from Britain, it abandoned The Soviets expressed their territorial demands for the Turkish straits, and worked on the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Turkish lands, as well as their relinquishment of the privileges that were established for them in the secret agreement concluded with Britain and France during the war, as the Soviet leader Lenin in 1917 stated, In general, and Turkey’s secret treaties in particular,([3]) ” the matter that prompted Turkey to establish new relations with the Soviet Union that were marked by mutual friendship and cooperation.

However, the path of the relationship between the two countries was tense, especially after the end of World War II, as regional problems began to appear between the two countries. Especially after Joseph Stalin (1879-1953) declared)([4]) ( The system established by the Montreux Charter no longer fits into the new status of the Soviet Union))([5]). Accordingly, the issue of the Turkish Straits was included in the agenda of the Yalta Conference ([6]), which took place between 4-11 February 1945 AD, through which it was suggested that amendments should be made to the articles of the charter in a way that allows Soviet warships to pass at all times in the straits as long as it is It is no longer possible to accept a situation for Turkey to have the upper hand in tightening the screws on the Soviets. The issue of inconveniences was also raised again at the Potsdam Agreements ([7]), and Stalin emphasized the return of both the “Kars and Wardhan” regions to the Soviets. Turkey refused. This prompted it to cooperate with the West, especially the United States, to obtain more economic and military aid and political suppor([8]).

There was a slight improvement in the Turkish-Soviet relations after the death of President Joseph Stalin in 1953. As the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs “Moltov” presented on May 30, 1953 a memorandum to the Turkish government in which he explained the beginning of the reform campaign to the harm caused by Stalin, and to restore the understanding that prevailed in the twenties of the last century, as well as its confirmation of Moscow’s abandonment of its territorial claims in Turkey, justified These demands came in circumstances that imposed the elimination of a potential threat that might threaten the security of the Soviets because of the straits ([9])Only that reaction Al-Turki was lethargic because the Turkish government was running within the sphere of Western influence, its projects and alliances in the Middle East region. Turkey became a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).                                     .

On the other hand, the Soviet Union supported Turkey and stood by its side in the Cyprus issue in 1964, which created great satisfaction on the part of the Turkish circles, in contrast to the American position in support of Greece in its vital demands on that island, which prompted the exchange of visits between Ankara and Moscow at its highest levels to remove barrierSuspicion, mistrust, and the creation of the appropriate atmosphere to develop relations between him.([10])

Based on that, “Podgorny”, Secretary General of the Central Committee of the Sovie Communist Party, visited Ankara at the beginning of 1965 AD, when he publicly admitted his country’s mistakes in the deterioration of Turkish-Soviet relations since the end of World War II, and at the same time the Soviet Foreign Minister, Andrei Gromyko. He has stated that he does not rule out reaching a federal solution to the Cyprus problem, and it was not until a few months passed since this statement that the Turkish Prime Minister, “Agd Polo”, visited Moscow to lay with the Soviet officials the basis for Soviet-Turkish cooperation([11]).The nature and objectives of these mutual visits were mostly economic in order to strengthen economic cooperation. In 1965, the Soviet Union provided a loan to Turkey in the amount of one million dollars to finance industrial projects, especially after Suleiman Demirel came to power in the October 12, 1965 elections to poweKosygin “Prime Minister of the Soviet Union in Turkey in December 1966, and on March 25, 1967, an economic agreement was concluded that stipulated the commitment of the Soviet Union to help Turkey build aluminum and iron projects, chemical projects and oil refineriesr([12]).

Demerl responded in December 1967 AD the visit and during it the signing of an agreement between the two countries to build a steel plant in the port of Iskenderun “Hatay”([13]). On November 21, 1969, the President of the Turkish Republic, “Jawdat Sunay”, visited Moscow and held talks with Soviet officials that dealt with issues. One of them is the strengthening of European security and another of interest to the two countries.([14]) The impact of this rapprochement on Moscow’s role in the Middle East and increased the importance of the Soviet Union in the Middle East region, which made Turkey in the period from 1964-1969 the Soviet Union’s fourth trade partner In the Middle East, especially after the deterioration of Turkish-American relations in the seventies of the last century, as a result of the Cyprus issue and the US embargo on Turke.

Turkish-Soviet relations witnessed a great rapprochement in the beginning of the seventies of the twentieth century, which was reflected in Turkey’s role in the Middle East region, as the West considered this rapprochement against them. Among its results was the signing of the Turkish and Soviet parties in 1972 a document stipulating the principle of good neighborliness, and the Soviet Union provided long-term loans to Turkey more than those provided to any other country in the third world, and despite that the Turks feared that relations would reach the political sphere for this.  They refused Kosijin’s offer to conclude a non-aggression pact in 1975.([15]) In 1975, the Soviets renewed the technical cooperation agreement signed in 1967.([16]) In 1976, Turkey authorized the Soviet aircraft carrier (Kiev) to pass through the straits, ignoring the protest made by NATO, which saw in this matter a violation of the provisions of the Montreux Charter([17]). In June 1978 AD, during his visit to Moscow, Turkish Prime Minister “Poland Ecevit” held extensive discussions with Soviet leaders that led to the signing of a political document on cooperation based on good neighborliness and friendship. The Soviets also worked to improve Turkey’s economic relations with the “Comecon” countrie The invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, revived fears of Soviet expansion, as Turkey condemned the invasion and refused to participate in the Moscow Olympics.([18]) Until the military coup on September 12, 1980 AD in Turkey to rearrange its internal conditions and to make fundamental changes in its foreign policy, relations returned to their previous pace and officials in the two countries exchanged official visits.([19]) In this context, the visit of Soviet Prime Minister “Nikolai Tikhonov” to Ankara in December 1985, and the discussions between the two sides focused on a report on long-term economic cooperation extending from 1986-1990, and a document was signed that provided for closer cooperation in the economic, commercial, scientific and technical fields.([20])

However, the most important development in Soviet-Turkish relations came after Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in March 1985. When he came to power, the Soviet Union was suffering from internal and external problems that called him to present his well-known policy (Balbir Westroika and Glasnut) and the essence of this policy is (political thinkin  New) in order to get out of these problems and restore life to the Soviet Union, in other words that international relations have become driven by considerations of national interests and the need for cooperation to overcome common threats to human well-being and from On this basis, the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs (Advardchevardnadze) visited Ankara in December 1990, followed by a visit in March 1991 by Turgut Ozal, the former Turkish president of the Soviet Union, during which he signed an agreement of friendship, good neighborliness and cooperation. This treaty placed bilateral relations on a legal basis new([21]).

Political relations between the two countries witnessed some tension, especially in February 1992, due to the Turkish position in support of the Republic of Azerbaijan in its conflict with Armenia over the Karabag Nagor no region on the one hand, as well as allowing the Kurdistan Workers Party in Turkey (KKP) to hold conferences on Russian lands, which The number of conferences was three between 1991-995, as well as the establishment of a Kurdish cultural center in 1994 there.([22])

The visits between the two countries also developed, especially a visit by Turkish Foreign Minister Tansu Ciller to Moscow in 1996, during which she met with Viktor Chernomyrdin, Prime Minister of Russia, and Yevgeny Ber Yamakov,                            Minister of Foreign Affairs, in December of the same year, with the aim of restoring the normal relations that prevailed betwee The two countries have been for more than thirty years. She emphasized the mutual respect between them in protecting their regional borders, as well as the emphasis on increasing investment and trade exchange.([23])

Through the foregoing, we noticed that the Russian-Turkish relations have undergone many developments that affected geographical, religious and national factors in their nature. These relations were characterized by the nature of hostility in the period before World War I between Tsarist Russia and the Ottoman Empire, and one of the results of the First World War was the occurrence o Political changes that prompted cooperation and coordination between the two parties, this cooperation was justified for both parties, but these relations soon returned to the nature of tension in the period following World War II (the Cold War).

Based on the foregoing, it can be said that the indicator of Soviet-Turkish relations was not the result of reactions to the state of coldness or retreat in relations with Western European countries and the United States of America, although he understood this view sometimes, but rather the balance between the two sides of the equation for Turkey’s security and self-interests in terms of its interest The West and the United States from another side. Any breach between the two scales of the balance between Turkey’s interests and the West is quick to correct it by building approaches with the Soviet Union.

The second topic

Factors influencing Turkish-Russian relations.

The elements of power possessed by states and the ability to influence the behavior of each other, either towards achieving common goals and interests or employing them to serve the purposes of conflicts and crises existing between them, and with regard to Russia and Turkey, these factors have played a historical role in making conflict and crisis the predominant character of the two countries’ relations. The concept of power and its components and influence in it have changed after the end of the Cold War, whether in terms of the diminution of the role of some in influencing international relations or in terms of the rise of the influence of new factors, such as the fourth dimension of power represented by information and communication technology, but the influence of traditional factors such as geographical location and military potential, as well as Economic power has the biggest impact on convergence or divergence in the relationship between the two countries.

. Geographical effect (geopolitical)-

As for the geographical factor, the area of Russia is estimated at (17,075,200 km2), and thus it is the largest country in the world, in terms of area, an area that is almost twice the size of the United States, and represents seven times the size of the      European Union, as it extends from the Baltic Sea and the oceaNorth in the north to the territory of China and Mongolia in the south, and even the Pacific Ocean to the east .([24]) As it is bordered on the east (the Bering Sea, Bahrachotsk, and the Sea of Japan), and these three seas branch out from the Pacific Ocean, and on the west are bordered by (Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, the Gulf of Finland, and Norway), and the Russian (Kalingrad) region is located between (Lithuania and Poland). While it is bordered from the north (the Barentser Sea, the Kara Sea, the Laptev Sea, the East Siberian Sea and the Choconka Sea), all of these seas branch out from the Arctic Ocean. As for the south, (it is bordered by China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and the Black Sea) While adjacent to i The far southeast of North Koreat([25]). And since Russia covers more than nine almost the area of the world, it can be divided into three broad geographical regions, namely :

-European Russia, located to the west of the Ural Mountains

-Siberia, which extends eastward to the Ural Mountains

-The Russian Far East, including the far southeast, and the Pacific coas

Thus, Russia is a bridge between the continents of Europe and Asia, as Russia is characterized historically and geographically by mixing Europe and Asia, “Eurasia”, as 75% of its territory is located in Asia and 25% in Europe, and from here the strategic location of Russia becomes clear.([26]) Through its control of the Eurasian “Heart of the World” region, we can imagine the tremendous potential inherent in that superpower. The American strategist, “Nicholas Speakman,” divided the Eurasian geography into: the heart of a continental (Heart Land), which is Russia, which has a land extension of (17) million km2, and to a large crescent of coastal countries he called (the edge land) “Rim Land” and it includes all (Europe, the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, Central Asia, Iran, Afghanistan, India, Southeast Asia, China, and Korea), which are countries characterized by the importance of their locations and economic resources. Speakman believed that World War II took place with the aim of controlling the coastal zone, and then It is the “Crush Zone”That is, the region that will witness the struggle for control of its resources and waterways, and since Russia is the rear back of the area of ​​impact and is the heart, it will seek to reach the seas and oceans by incursion into this region, so the policy of containment must be adopted for the sake of Containing the Russian Slavic tide in Eurasia, it is the only effective way to confront the fortified site of Russia([27])Nevertheless, Russia lacks major sea lanes, as it overlooks a group of seas, some of which are of little importance because it is frozen for a period of time during the year, such as, the Arctic Ocean, and the sea The Baltic and even its northeastern coasts overlooking the Pacific Ocean are witnessing freezing for a period of time during the year, and the only warm sea that the Russian Federation overlooks is the Black Sea in the south, which is a semi-inland sea due to Turkey’s control of its entrances, and this is what made the former Soviet Union Russia set its basic goals Going out to the warm waters of the Mediterranean, where Turkey controls the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles straits([28]).

The geographical factor between Russia and Turkey has a great role in determining many matters, because Turkey since ancient times borders the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean and the narrow lands facing the straits of the Bosporus, the Dernel and its Marmara, which lie outside the entrance to the Black Sea, which leads to Turkey having strong influence and overall influence in the waterway, And thus lead to determining Russia’s penetration into the center of Europ.([29]) Where Turkey is unique in a very important location, it can only be described as a link between the continents of Asia and Europe on the one hand, and between Asia, Africa and Europe on the other hand through the (Arab Bridge), which is the huge land mass that forms the Arab East (Iraq and countries Sham). It is also a mass link between five regional environments, which are respectively: Arab, Caucasian, Slavic (Russia and Ukraine across the Black Sea), Balkan, Iranian and Central Asia. Turkey has always played a game of owning this privileged location, which increases the importance of its possession of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles straits. And in the Sea of ​​Marmara, this site has given Turkey a significance that has made the major powers in the world take an account for it and try to reach some kind of understanding on goals, interests and intentions .([30])

While the total area of Turkey is estimated at about 779,500 km2, and a small part of this area, about 3% of the total area, is located in the European continent, and it is known as “Eastern Thrace”, and extends west to the (Maritza) River, while the largest part is located in the Asian continen It is known as (Asia Minor) or the Anatolian plateau, and separates the European and Asian sections of the Bosphorus Strait, the Sea of Marmara and the Dardanelles, and they all form an important waterway between the Black Sea and the countries bordering on it (Russian Federation, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia) and the Mediterranean Sea([31])The geographical location of Turkey on the outskirts of the Asian continent made it an inter-land confined between the forces of the Asian mainland and the forces of the surrounding sea and confrontation, so it formed a section of the front of collision between land pressures from the north, the east, and the sea from the south, and the main danger to which Turkey was exposed was the power of land. The Russian Federation, which snatched the northern shores of the Black Sea, then the eighteenth century witnessed several Russian thrusts to storm the Turkish straits, and until the end of the nineteenth century there had been at least seven wars between Russia and Turkey, and in all of them one of the two sea powers, France or Britain, or both were advancing To stand with Turkey([32]) . That is why Turkey became the alliance’s southeastern defense line against Soviet threats throughout the Cold War. Turkey, since its accession to NATO inFebruary 18, 1952 was one of the US containment episodes that targeted the Soviet Union’s surrounding of a series of military bases and alliances.([33]) Turkey’s geographical location to the south of the Russian Federation has given it great importance to meet Russian aspirations to warm waters in the Mediterranean and the Arabian Gulf, as its supervision of the Black Sea and the straits of the Bosphorus and the Dernel also has its strategic importance in the European and Russian orientation towards the Asian continent and the Middle East region, especially the oil fields.([34]) Moreover, this important location of Turkey made it a country in control of most of the direct air and land routes between Russia and its allied countries – the former Soviet Union countries – and the Middle East and Africa region.

It is worth noting that Ankara did not hide its desire to use the Turkish Straits card in its pursuit of securing its oil interests, at the level of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, despite the fact that the 1936 Montreux Agreement stipulates Turkey’s commitment to ensuring free passage in the straits. At any time, except in times of war, Turkey has expressed its unwillingness to allow the expected increase in the passage of giant oil tankers as a result of the shipment of larger quantities of crude oil, which will arrive in the future from the Caspian Sea to the Russian port (Novorsisk) through the straits, justifying this with the environmental danger that will be exposed to it. Residents of Istanbul in the event of a maritime accident, which prompted it to adopt a new maritime traffic law, according to which restrictions were imposed on the movement of sea tankers, which made Russia object to such a measure by Turkey. Therefore, the geographical position still influences the relations of the two countries.

In addition to the fact that the main differences between Turkey and the Russian Federation are geopolitical in nature, as many Russian politicians see that Turkey is the main beneficiary of the collapse of the Soviet Union, as it is seeking all new means for the purpose of reaching the southern borders of neighboring countries([35]).

In fact, it confirms that there is a Russian-Turkish geopolitical competition over the Caucasus region. Armenia, which owes gratitude to Moscow for its support in the Karabakh war, signed an agreement in August 1992, in which it allowed the establishment of Russian military bases on its territory, and Georgia did the same in September 1995 in the wake of   Its defeats in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as for Azerbaijan, continued to stand still, but internal, external and especially Russian pressures led to the overthrow of the pro-Turkey government of President (Abul Fadl al-Chebbi) in June 1993, and the rise of the more neutral President (Heydar Aliyev) Azerbaijan, with rhetorical support, has any benefit when Moscow intervened, calling on them to implement their threats and bear their consequences, after President Ozal threatened in mid-May 1992 to send troops to Nakhchivan([36]).

The continued Russian interference in violent conflicts and conflicts in the Caucasus, and beyond the Caucasus, warns of the possibility of Russian-Turkish conflicts due to the ties that tie Turkey to many countries in the region, and the history of the Chechen uprising in 1994, witnesses that such a possibility is possible, just as the forces are still The Russian Federation is spread along Turkey’s borders with Georgia and Armenia, and Turkey is concerned about what it considers Russia’s unilateral position on the conflict over Nagorno Karabakh, this conflict that has important political and security implications and repercussions for Turkey, given its tense relations with Armenia on the one hand, and its relations Enhanced friendly (ethnically) with Azerbaijan from the other sid.([37]) Russia and Turkey are competing for dominance in the Black Sea. If Turkey takes advantage of the differences on borders and minorities between Russia and Ukraine, to strengthen its relations with Ukraine, which seeks to permanently exit from the sphere of Russian influence, it is strongly supported by the United States, which believes that without Ukraine, Russia cannot return to an empireA large portion of the Turks who live in the lands that Khrushchev gave in 1954 to Ukraine, and Russia claimed it again after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, where Turkey stands with the Turks and keeps the lands in which they are in the hands of Ukrana  ([38])

In fact, Turkey’s orientation towards the Caucasus and Central Asia was not only motivated by the dream of being led by an international Turkish group, but also by the desire to contain the awakening of Russian influence, so it used cultural kinship ties to expand its economic and political ties([39]) As there is a Russian-Turkish competition over determining a map of the oil and gas pipelines in the Caspian Sea basin and Turkmenistan, and the issue of drawing this map is of great strategic importance, with regard to the development of the region and whether the Turkish straits will be open to the passage of the expected quantities of oil if the pipelines are poured Its cargo is from the Russian port of Novorasisk([40]).

 -The political factor and its impact on the rapprochement of the two countries.    

The beginning of the twenty-first century marked a major breakthrough for the two countries with regard to political advancement. The two countries, Russia and Turkey, worked to overcome all obstacles that prevent their political cooperation from reaching the required level, and as a step to activate that cooperation and to give a clear picture to the media and the world about the seriousness of the development of relations between them. In 1997, Turkish Foreign Minister Tansu Ciller visited Moscow and met her Russian counterpart Primakov The two sides agreed to create conditions to work gradually to dissolve the obstacles that hinder the development of relations, especially in cases where the views of both countries coincide.([41]) The launch of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s project since 2000 to restore Russia’s economic power and external influence coincided with the AKP’s project in 2002 to revive Turkey’s regional and international standing.

As for Russia, it emerged from the post-Soviet era in a new form, even though it lost control of many lands and resources, but it has strongly preserved its strategic independence and regional influence and its neighborhood, especially the Middle East, as well as preserving its influential international position thanks to the presence of a permanent sea In the UN Security Council, its nuclear and missile forces are among the pillars of the strategic balance.([42]) However, restoring its international status required more than preserving the status quo, especially as it watches the West as it expands its influence in its direction until it reaches its direct borders through Ukraine and Georgia As a result of the expansion of NATO and the European Union towards the east, Russia concluded that “while the ideological rivalry that prevailed during the Cold War has been ruled out, the struggle to achieve geopolitical goals still exists.([43]).

As for Turkey, it shares with Russia its aspiration to revive its regional and international position that befits its historical legacy, its geographical location, and its inherent strategic potential. It considers that it was and still is an effective central state; Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu says, “Central states like Turkey, which occupies a central position in the mother African continent – or a plumb, do not accept to remain confined to a specific region and are known to it, and have the ability to access multiple other regions at once. Therefore, he believes that this geopolitical situation must be viewed as a tool to open up to the world within interim steps in order to convert the regional influence into an international influence and in a way that allows Turkey to make international policie([44]) Hence, Turkey is working to revive its political and economic presence in many regions in the East and West, and to conclude agreements and partnerships with regional and international powers, especially its opponent, Russia, yesterday.

Based on these visions, Russia sought to ensure that it had a special position that would enable it to participate in any role to formulate European security, as it is a vital matter for it And a culture and civilization striking at the roots of world history, Russia is a country of enormous geopolitical depth, as its lands extend from the middle of the European continent and end with the borders of Western Asia.([45])

the trend was towards Europe, as it is a basic economic and security partner, and all European countries are located deep in the European geo-political side of Russia, and from here their orientation was an attempt to participate in the formulation of European security on bases different from the Soviet era, in other words from the ideological confrontation policy to the policy of openness and participation Up to cooperation, if not the alliance, and the fact of the matter confirms that Russia’s allowing the former Soviet republics to join NATO did not give Russia the desired results, and instead of erasing the line between East and West in its previous concept, this division was consecrated in the interest of Europe, and it seemed as if the matter came on Russia’s expense, neither the countries organizing to NATO fulfilled Russia’s ambitions, nor did the United States give the way to Russia for a security participation according to the Russian visio.([46])

Based on these facts, new priorities for Russia’s foreign policy were formulated, and Russia proceeded on the path of diversifying its foreign policy, which led to its association with strategic partnership relations with many countries on the basis of the congruence of many of its national interests with it([47]).

In the same context, the Russian option appears clear regarding strengthening relations with Turkey, and this agreement coincided with Turkish dissatisfaction with the Europeans, due to the failure of its accession to the European Union, which prompted (Tuncer Klinc – former Secretary General of the Turkish National Security Council) to declare ((thatTurkey should abandon its efforts to guarantee membership of the European Union and search for alternative alliances with Russia or Iran as an alternative to the European Union))([48]). Ankara wants to show the European Union that it has an alternative, which is Russia, while Moscow is taking advantage of that to show Washington and the European Union that it can attract the Turks who have played the role of a buffer between Russia and NATO for half a century, and an appropriate response to Western moves to control UkraineAnd the Caucasus([49]).Turkey seeks to strengthen security cooperation with Russia in the Black Sea basin in order not to give this role to Romania, Bulgaria, which joined NATO in 2004, and Ukraine in the future, which will be at the expense of the Turkish role in NATO for this region, therefore it called on Turkey to wait in the matter of joining Georgia and Ukraine to the alliance. Turkey also believes that there is no need for an American military presence in the region, and the expansion of NATO’s operations in the Black Sea to combat terrorism, Turkey confirms that the security initiative that it is implementing jointly with Russia in the Black Sea is in fact complementary to the process of (active endeavors) carried out by the alliance at sea. Turkey does not rule out that the increased military activity in the Black Sea will lead to the reopening of the debate over the re-examination of the 1936 Montreux Agreement, which governs the passage of ships in the Turkish straits.([50])

Therefore, it opposes any penetration into the region, stressing that, there is no need for NATO to enter the region, as the current regional structures are sufficient and linked to NATO operationsIn addition to that any regional initiative must include Russia, so as not to provoke hostility to Russia and thus destabilize the region. This trend enjoys the support of Germany and France as they oppose any move to isolate Russia in the region and this position is evident in NATO discussions towards Georgia and Ukraine([51]).Within the framework of Russian-Turkish security cooperation in the Black Sea Basin, Russia and Turkey are making continuous efforts to implement the initiative to protect regional security in the Black Sea Basin, as the military group under the name (Black C4) is currently working in the Black Sea to combat terrorism and repel attempts to spread weapons of destruction.                         Comprehensive and its components, and in the same context the initiative called (Harmony of the Black Sea), which Russia and Ukraine joined.([52])

-The economic and commercial factor and its impact on the cooperation relations between the two countries

Turkey is pursuing a new strategy based on removing Turkey from a country (party), a member of axes and enmities to a country (center), at a distance from everyone, a country with an active and proactive role in all regional and international issues, which explains the great development in Russian-Turkish relations.([53]) Russia, from the Turkish point of view, which is the most hostile candidate in traditional terms, seems at this stage and perhaps for years to come completely preoccupied with internal problems, and these problems have culminated in economic backwardness and Chechen separatism, in addition to that Ukraine has identified Moscow in the Black Sea region.([54])

Based on this, Russia and Turkey stressed on giving priority to the horizons of cooperation and marginalizing the concept of traditional competition in order to extend influence, so the two countries sought to strengthen relations on the basis of mutual trust and good neighborliness, and to deepen and diversify areas of cooperation, especially in the economic field([55]). Russia is showing interest in opening new horizons for economic cooperation with Turkey. There are about (60) bilateral agreements currently between Russia and Turkey, covering scientific, cultural, commercial, and energy cooperation([56]).

It is noticed that the figures of the volume of bilateral trade exchange moved quickly from 1.4 billion dollars in 1992 to 4.2 billion dollars in 1997. (See Table 11), and after the agreement on canceling double taxation between them concluded on December 15, 1997, the volume of trade exchange between them increased to reach In The year 2004 amounted to about 8,445.1 million dollars.([57]) The volume of bilateral trade exchange reached 15 billion dollars in 2005, and the rapid economic growth witnessed by the two countries increased the volume of trade exchange between them to reach 34 billion dollars in 2008([58]).

During his visit to Moscow on July 2, 2009, and his meeting with his Russian counterpart Lavrov, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu announced that relations with Russia are characterized by trust and partnership. Thus, Russia has become Turkey’s first economic partner, and Turkey ranks fifth in the system of trade relations between Russia’s trading partners, in addition to increasing the volume of investments between them, as Russia’s investments in Turkey amounted to nearly 4 billion dollars, while Turkey invested in Russia about 7 billion dollars.([59])

Table No. (1) The volume of bilateral Russian-Turkish trade exchange (Billion dollar)

Volume, r / and imports for exports for the yea

1,482.7 598.5- 0.42 1,040.8 441.9 1992
2,047.0 1,037.6- 0.33 1,452.3 504.7 1993
1,866.2 225.8- 0.78 1,046.0 820.2 1994
3,320.5 844.3- 0.60 2,082.4 1,238.1 1995
3,328.0 364.0- 0.80 1,846,0 1,4820 1996
4,097.7 0.9 1.00 2,048,4 2,049.3 1997
3,502.4 807.5- 0.63 2,154,9 1,347.5 1998
2,958.5 1,785.3- 0.25 2,371,9 586.6 1999
4,529.9 3,242.1- 0.16 3,886.0 643.9 2000
4,359.7 2,511.5- 0.26 3,435.6 924.1 2001
5,018.0 2,692.0 0.30 3,855,0 1,163.0 2002

Source: Cihangir Gurkan, Turkish – Russian Federation Economic and Trade Relations report, Confederation of Russia –Turkish Businessmen Publications, No. 8, May 2003,p.132.

In fact, cooperation in the field of energy takes strategic dimensions, especially since Turkey imports from Russia 65% of the gas (see Table2) and 25% of the oil it imports from abroad([60]).

Table No. (2)

Russian gas exported to Turke Period – year date of signature quantity billion year m3 / current contracts

February 14, 1986 6 Russia (west)

April 14, 1988 4 Algeria (LNG)20

November 9, 1995 1.2 Nigeria (LNG)22

August 25, 1996 10 Iran

December 15, 1997 16 Russia (blue stream)25

February 18, 1998 8 Russia (west)23

May 21, 1999 16 Turkmenista 30

March 2001 6.6 Azerbaija 15 12

Source: Russia Federation report, export development research center, Ankara, December, 2000, p.11.

Russian and Turkish companies have also succeeded in extending a pipeline (the Blue Stream) at the bottom of the Black Sea, to transport Russian gas to the Turkish and European markets, which authorized Russia to own the keys to supplying Europe with gas through all pipelines, especially when it was able to persuade Turkmenistan to export part of its gas through (Blue Stream) Russia has also deliberately repaired the current gas pipeline from (Russia to Ukraine – Moldova – Bulgaria – Turkey) which allows to supply 14 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year.([61]) In fact, Turkey is one of the main markets for Russian gas, as Russia’s exports of gas to Turkey are clearly increasing, as it increased from 14.5 billion cubic meters in 2004 to 18 billion in 2005, and the percentage increased from 25-30% in 2006, where the transfer is carried out. Russian gas to Turkey via the (Blue Stream) pipeline and a project to extend another pipeline at the bottom of the Black Sea by the year 2015 is being discussed, in order to meet Turkey’s growing demand for oil, as well as to transport it to Europe via Turkey, and this was discussed during a president’s visit The Russian company (Gazprom) to Turkey in February 2006.([62]) On the other hand, Turkish construction companies own the largest percentage in Russian construction projects, as more than 100 Turkish construction companies worked in Russia in 1997, and more than 15 thousand worker.([63])

The (Russian Federal Agency for Construction, Housing and Municipal Services) announced that Turkish companies obtained more than other foreign companies licenses to work in the construction market in Russia in 2007, as Turkish companies obtained 21.3% of work permits, and obtained the amount of deal A work value of 4.3 billion dollars. The total of what these companies accomplished until the year 2009 amounted to 800 projects with a total value of 26 billion dollars. Many Turkish companies also show great interest in contributing to the construction of sports complexes and facilities for the Winter Olympic Games in (Sochi) in 2014.([64]) For its part, Russian construction companies are also undertaking various projects on Turkish territory, the most important of which is the iron and steel project signed by the Russian “Magneto Gorsky” and the major Turkish company specialized in importing coal “Akash Group”. The deal value was estimated at 1.1 billion dollars, whose production capacity is estimated at 2 6 million tons of iron.([65]) In addition to the construction of two hydroelectric stations in Derner and Tulum, a gas distribution station in the city of Sivas, and the tunnel under the Bosphorus Strait.([66]) Turkish companies invest about 1.5 billion dollars in Russia in various industrial and service sectors, while the volume of Russian investments in Turkey is 200-300 million dollars, and it may seem that there is an imbalance, but the Russian (Al-Fagroup) company alone intends to invest more thanOver $ 3 billion in the telecom sector in Turkey.([67])

The tourism sector and its impact on the rapprochement of the two countries.-

The tourism sector occupies great importance in the relations of Russia and Turkey, especially the tourism cooperation agreement signed in 1995 between Russia and Turkey. The tourism sector gave an indication of the development of Russian-Turkish relations, as the tourism sector with Russia is important to Turkey due to the importance of its contribution to the national income.

It is considered one of the most promising sectors in economic relations between Russia and Turkey, and Turkey is the first favorite tourist country for the Russians due to its geographical proximity, ease of obtaining entry visas to it and the quality of services it provides to tourists in comparison to their reasonable prices. The number of Russian tourists in 2002 reached less than 500 thousand and increased in the year that It was followed by 1,2 tourists, and thus the number of Russian tourists to Turkey increased, reaching 2.7 million tourists in 2008.([68])

Conclusion and conclusions.

It became clear from this study that the Russian-Turkish relations after the year 1991 and their future are a set of facts and results. On the level of facts, the study revealed to us that geographical, political and national factors were among the factors affecting Russian-Turkish relations, as geographical considerations were represented in Russia’s continuous attempts to reach warm waters, and on Despite the decline in religious and national calls during the era of the Soviet Union, the geographical and ideological factor remained influential in relations until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

In addition to the internal, regional and international environment factors among the most prominent influences in Russian-Turkish relations after the end of the Cold War, geographical considerations dictated that Russia and Turkey made changes in their foreign policies, as it led the openness of both countries to new regions in Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Balkans, and the Middle East. To formulate a new strategy through which it can preserve its economic and political interests in those regions, so the Russian-Turkish competition appeared in these areas, which was evident in 1994, when Turkey put in place a new regulation. To regulate passage in the straits, which angered the Russian Federation because it saw this as an attempt to prevent it from competing with Turkey in transporting Caspian oil. Besides, the military and economic factors showed the great difference in the capabilities between the two countries, which indicates the state of imbalance in the economic and military power between the two countries. In that, the impact of the human factor, as Russia began sympathizing with the Kurdish rebellion, while Turkey began sympathizing with the rebellion in Chechnya, especially in the nineties of the twentieth century.

On the other hand, the Russian Federation developed a new regional policy called (near abroad) in order to establish a security belt for Russia in the former Soviet republics, and in order to confront the aspirations of other regional powers, especially Turkey, which sought to play an influential regional role, and quickly established the Economic Cooperation Organization for the Sea Countries the black. Turkey was also able to regain its position in the US strategy for the post-Cold War period, especially after the United States went to control Eurasia and besiege Russia, and that the United States had counted on the Turkish role there, despite the Russian-Turkish competition to get closer to the European Union and the negative repercussions of Russia’s security role in Europe. After the Cold War on the Turkish role, Turkey was able to compensate for this through its active role in NATO, which plans to expand to the east and the former Soviet republics.

While the study revealed that there is a competition of roles in three strategic regions, the Turkish role in the Balkans was at the expense of the Russian role, and with the emergence of the Central Asia and Caucasus regions after the collapse of the Soviet Union until both countries declared that it was a vital interest area for them, especially after the opening of the Baku – Tbilisi – Jabhan line Oil, the Chechnya and Karabakh issues have become among the regional problems affecting Russia and Turkey. Therefore, the two parties sought to find peaceful settlement solutions that would help achieve stability..

The Middle East region is one of the regions of strategic importance, so the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 had a direct impact on Russia and Turkey. Russia faced the fact that it lost its most important allies in the Middle East region and lost its economic interests with it, while Turkey began to face the dangers of the Kurdish revival, but thi. The consensus in Russian-Turkish interests did not continue with the rest of the Middle East issues, especially with regard to the issue of the Iranian nuclear program and the new Russian alliances with Iran and Syria.

The study showed that the future of Russian-Turkish relations may take the scene of competition between the two countries, as there is a Russian-Turkish competition in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Black Sea region, and there is also economic competition over determining a map of oil and gas pipelines in the Caspian Sea basin, and therefore Russia remains an obstacle to movement Turkey is in the Caucasus and Central Asia, so Turkey seeks to benefit from the American role and the role of NATO in these vital areas, and accordingly, the competition scene is a logical one, but that does not mean that this will lead to a war between them. Given the development of economic cooperation between the two countries in the post-Cold War era, this contributed to pushing relations to advanced levels, especially since Russia is Turkey’s second economic partner. The most important sectors affecting the Russian market, in addition to that, there has become a Russian-Turkish consensus towards issues of the Middle East, especially Iraq, but this does not eliminate competition between them on certain issues, which means that Russian-Turkish relations will be governed in the framework of competition, cooperation, tension and attraction.

As for the results of the study, they are as follows:                                                    

-Russia and Turkey have become pivotal countries in the process of geostrategic development in Eurasia. However, matching US interests with Turkey’s special interest in the desire to play a stronger regional role in its relations with newly independent countries may necessitate reducing Russian influence, which will be reflected in the relations between them.

-It is certain that Moscow and Ankara are unwilling to create permanent tensions in their relations, but this does not mean that they will not compete in the pursuit of their interests.

Margins

([1]) Ahmed Nuri Al-Nuaimi, Turkey and NATO, The National Press, Amman, 1981, pp. 48-50.

([2]) Kamal Al-Menoufi, “The Evolution of Soviet-Turkish Relations,” Journal of International Politics, No. 24, Cairo, April 1971, p. 115.

([3]) Turkish Daily News, Ankara, 14.9.1987,p.2

([4]) Joseph Vissario Novi was born on December 21, 1879 in Georgia, who later became known by his name Joseph Stalin, which means the man of steel in the city of Gori, Republic of Georgia. Because of his revolutionary views and activities, he fled to the Caucasus region to join the Socialist Revolutionary Movement until he met (Lenin) to become a member of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party that led the socialist revolution in October 1917. On April 23, 1922, he was appointed General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party. He ruled the Soviet Union completely from 1928-1953 and grew up under Lenin and took over the leadership of the party after him, killing his opponents and supporting the foundations of the Soviet state. According to the theory of (socialism in one country) and led his country towards victory in the Second World War and the sharing of spheres of influence in the world with the United States through the Yalta conference, transforming the Soviet Union into one of the two most powerful countries in the world, and he remained in his position until his death in 1953. Seen: Ahmed Jasim Ibrahim, Turkey’s Position on the Issues and Problems of the Arab Mashreq 1967-1979, Unpublished PhD thesis, Faculty of Arts, Basra University, 2011, p.7.

([5]) Bulent Ecevit,op.cit,p.200             .

([6]) The “Yata Conference” was held between the US President Roosevelt, the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and the Soviet President, Marshal Joseph Stalin, for the period from February 4-11, 1945 AD, as final plans were agreed to defeat Germany, and its unconditional surrender was decided, and each of the three powers would control a separate region. In it, on the condition that the settlement takes place through a committee composed of the highest commanders of the occupation forces, whose headquarters will be in Berlin, and France is invited to take a region and participate as a fourth member in the settlement committee, and the invitation to join the United Nations was also made before February 8, 1945 AD, for more see: ArtherM.Schlesinger, J.R.The Dynamics of World  POWER, A Documentary History of United States Foreign Policy 1945-1973,Chelsea House,Mcgraw-Hill,U.S.A.1973,PP.48-67

([7]) The “Potsdam Conference” was held between Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union for the period from July 17 to August 1, in which the three powers confirmed their policy towards Germany, which was previously agreed upon in the “Yalta Conference”, and it was also agreed not to establish a central government at this time Germany exercises supreme power in it with its duties according to the instructions of the governments of the four countries, complete disarming of Germany, get rid or control of German industries that can be used for purposes of military production, dissolve all military and security organizations, destroy the National Socialist Party and dissolve all its organizations … etc. From the details see Ibid,pp.146-165.

([8]) Khalil Ibrahim Mahmoud, Turkish Foreign Policy towards the Middle East from 1945-1991, Unpublished PhD thesis, Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Baghdad, 1995, p. 31

([9])Art. ZK Rubinstein, The Emergence and Development of Soviet Strategy in the Middle East, Arab Research Foundation, Beirut, 1980, p. 4

([10])Peace Attempts in Cyprus, The Journal of International Politics, Issue 14, (Cairo: Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies), 1968, p. 132

([11]) Khalil Ibrahim Mahmoud, the previous source, p. 32; Nabih Al-Isfahani, Turkey: Between National Demands and International Reality, The Journal of International Politics, Issue 52, (Cairo: Center for    Political and Strategic Studies), p. 1978, p. 96.

([12]) Hajir Adnan, Soviet-Turkish economic relations, stages and tendencies, Series of Translated Studies, Issue 9, (Al-Mustansiriya University: Institute for Asian and African Studies), 1985, p. 1.

([13])   Kamal Al-Menoufi, “New Developments in Turkish Foreign Policy,” The Journal of International Politics, Issue 44, Cairo, April 1976, p. 147.

([14]) Khalil Ibrahim Mahmoud, the previous source, p. 33.

([15]) Art.Z.K. Rubinstein, ibid., P. 4

([16]) Turkish Foreign Policy Report, Ministry of Foreign Affairs , Ankara, no.7,1 october 1975,p.17 .

([17])Survey on Turkey, Financial Times,nov.23,1977.

([18])Charles Mclane ,soviet Middle East Relations ,Caspian Crossrods Magazine , Vol.1,No.1,Winter 1995,p.104

([19]) Khalil Ibrahim Mahmoud, the previous source, p. 34.

([20]) Same source, p. 22.

([21])Ahmed Hussein Shehail, Russian Foreign Policy towards the Middle East, Master Thesi (unpublished), University of Baghdad, College of Political Sciences, 2000, pp. 26-34.

([22]) Babel Newspaper, Baghdad, on November 20, 1995.

([23])Anil Gurtuna, Turkish – Russian Relations in the Post Soviet Era: From Conflict to Cooperation, A Thesis For the degree of Master of Science in International Relations, Submitted to the Graduate of Social Science of Middle East Technical University, January 2006, P.35

([24]) Ibrahim Abu Khuzam, The Arabs and the Balance of Power in the Twenty-first Century A study of the reality of the great powers and the implications of this reality on the Arab world and the world, PhD thesis (published), Qarinos University, Tripoli, 1995, p. 380.

([25])  Riyad Muhammad, General Principles in Geopolitics and Geopolitics, 4th Edition, (Beirut: Arab Renaissance House), 1997, p.105.

([26]) Same source, p. 105

([27]) Ahmed Allou, Russia: The Heart of the World is Beating Again, Al-Jaish Magazine, Issue 104, (Beirut: Lebanese Ministry of Defense), March 2004, p. 32.

([28]) Osama Farouk Mukhaimer, Defining the Mediterranean State: A Study of Social and Economic Characteristics, Al Siyasa Al Dawliya, Issue 129, (Cairo: Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies), July 1997, p. 45.

([29]) Ahmed Nuri Al-Nuaimi, Turkey and NATO, the previous source, p. 48.

([30])   Abd al-Wahhab Abd al-Sattar al-Qassab, Threats to Arab National Security in the Regional Neighboring Countries, Turkey – Case Study, Arab Papers Bulletin, No. 28, (Al-Mustansiriya University: Center for Studies and Research in the Arab World), February 2000, p.5.

([31]) Judah Hassanein Judeh and Dr. Ali Ahmed Haroun, Geography of Islamic Countries, (Alexandria: Al Maaref Establishment), 1999, p. 667.

([32])  Sabah Mahmoud Muhammad, Turkey between the Ottoman Fez and European Pants, (Beirut: Research and Studies Center), 1996, p. 16.

([33]) Nizar Ismail Al-Hayali, The New Turkish Role in NATO, Strategic Papers Bulletin, No. 15, (University of Baghdad: Center for International Studies), 1997, p.11.

([34]) Sabah Mahmoud Muhammad, the previous source, page 5.

([35]) Dmitri Trenin, Russia and Turkey Acure for schizophrenia, Perceptions,Journal of International Affairs,Vol .2, No.2,Ankara,June-August1997,p.1.internet.

([36]) Malik Mufti, Audacity and Caution in Turkey’s Foreign Policy, Global Studies, No. 27, (Abu Dhabi: Th  Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research), 1998, p. 14.

([37]) Heinz Kramer, A Changing Turkey Is Looking For A New Dress The Challenge Before Both Europe And The United States, translated by Fadel Junker, 1st Edition, (Riyadh: Obeikan Library), 2001, p. 354..

([38]) Muhammad Nuruddin, Confused Republic Turkey, pp. 239-240.

([39]) Same source, p. 24.

([40]) Haynes Kramer, Previous source, p. 355.

([41]) Hanna Izzo Behnan, “Turkish-Russian Relations 1997-2009”, Journal of Education and Science, Vol. 18, Issue 1, Mosul, 2011, p. 39.

([42])Dmitry Trenin, “From Istanbul to Kabul: Is there a common ground between Turkey and Russia?”, Turkish Vision (Summer 2103), see: http://bit.ly/1BIvtq

([43]) John Berryman, “Geopolitics and Russian Foreign Policy,” International Politics (July 2012), pp. 539-540.

([44]) Ahmed Davutoglu, Strategic Depth: Turkey’s Position and Role in the International Arena, translated by  Muhammad Jaber Thalji and Tariq Abdul Jalil (Peer Wat and Doha: The Arab Science House and Al Jazeera Center for Studies, 2101), pp. 023 and 116-106

([45]) Talaat Rumaih, Putin’s Russian strategy from a superpower to a regional state, on the following link- http://www.islamtoday.net

([46]) Raed Jabr, a previously mentioned source, pp. 120-122.

([47]) Evgeny Primakov, The World After 9/11 and the Invasion of Iraq, Previously Cited Source, p. 174.

([48]) – Fiona Hill,seismic shifts in Eurasia The Changing Relationship between Turkey and Russia and its implications for The South Caucasus, Brookings Institution ,Washington,October,2002,p.6

([49])   Ghassan Makhal, Russia and Turkey head to the coalition against the Christian club, Al Arabiya channel website, December 9, 2004, at the following link: http://www.alarabiya.tv/article.aspx

([50]) Suat Kinklioglu , Turkey and Russia Partnership by Exclusion, Turkish policy Quarterly,Vol.5, NO.2 ,Ankara,Summer2006,pp.9-11. Internet

([51]) Suat kinikl Ioglu, op.cit.,p.11.

([52]) Russia and Turkey embody the initiative to protect security in the Black Sea Basin, Russian Novosti News Agency, 2008-2020 at the following link: http://www.ar.rain.ru.co.

([53]) Abdullah Turkmani, Turkey and its regional surroundings, in a symposium: Turkey and the Arabs    and the       strategic stakes, (Ankara: Justice Center for Strategic Studies and Planning), 2006, p. 19. Also see: – Muhammad Nur al-Din, the view of the new Turkish strategy Ahmet Davutoglu Turkey from a country partyTo Country Center, As-Safir Lebanese newspaper, 21-8-2004, p. 5

([54]) Muhammad Javad Ali, Turkey, a geostrategic fortress, a series of strategic stations, No. 54, (University of Baghdad: Center for International Studies), 2001, p. 4.

([55]) Quotlay Dugan, previously cited source, p. 233.

Vladlen Martynov,Russia and Turkey horizons of developing policy, Foreign Policy,VOL.XXV,No.3-4,2000,p.28

([57]) Hanna Izzo Behnan, the previous source, p. 51

([58]) Same source, p.52.

([59]) Same source, p.52.

([60])  Putin begins an official visit to Turkey, the first of its kind in more than 30 years, Russian news agency RIA Novosti, 5-12-2006. At the following link: – http://www.ar.rain.ru.com

([61]) Nataliya Ulchenko, Geostragic aspects of Gas export frome Russia and Turkmenistan to Turkey, Foreign Policy, Vol.XXIX, No.3-4, Ankara, 2002, pp.54-57.

([62]) Nourhan Al-Sheikh, Russia and the European Union, the energy and status struggle, Journal of International Politics, Issue 164, (Cairo: Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies), April 2006, p. 66.

([63])  Orhan Morgil ,the Turkish – Russia bilateral economic relations, Foreign Policy, Vol .XXIX,No.3-4,Ankara,2002,p.44.

([64]) Turkish companies top the list of foreign companies interested in the construction market in Russia, Russian   news agency Novosti, 29-2-2008 at the following link: http //: www.ar.rian.ru.com

([65]) Hanna Izzo Behnan, the previous source, p. 49.

([66])Hanna Izzo Behnan, the previous source, p. 49                                                  .

([67])Mariana Nabenikaya, Russia, Turkey Double the Volume of Commercial Exchange, Russian News Agency Novosti, 25-11-2007, at the following link: http://www.ar.rian.ru.co

([68]) Hanna Izzo Behnan, the previous source, p. 50.

List of sources and references

  1. Ahmed Nuri Al-Nuaimi, Turkey and NATO, The National Press, Amman, 1981.-1
  2. Kamal Al-Menoufi, “The Evolution of Soviet-Turkish Relations,” Journal of International Politics, No. 24, Cairo, April 1971.
  3. Turkish Daily News, Ankara, 14.9.1987.-3
  4. Joseph Vissario Novi 4- Ahmed Jasim Ibrahim, Turkey’s Position on the Issues and Problems of the Arab Mashreq 1967-1979, Unpublished PhD thesis, Faculty of Arts, Basra University, 2011,.
  5. Schlesinger, J.R.The Dynamics of World POWER, A Documentary History of United States Foreign Policy 1945-1973,Chelsea House,Mcgraw Hill,U.S.A.1973.
  6. Khalil Ibrahim Mahmoud, Turkish Foreign Policy towards the Middle East from 1945-1991, Unpublished PhD thesis, Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Baghdad, 1995.
  7. ZK Rubinstein, The Emergence and Development of Soviet Strategy in the Middle East, Arab Research Foundation, Beirut, 1980.
  8. Peace Attempts in Cyprus, The Journal of International Politics, Issue 14, (Cairo: Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies), 1968, p. 132.
  9. Khalil Ibrahim Mahmoud, the previous source, p. 32; Nabih Al-Isfahani, Turkey: Between National Demands and International Reality, The Journal of International Politics, Issue 52, (Cairo: Center for Political and Strategic Studies),
  10. Hajir Adnan, Soviet-Turkish economic relations, stages and tendencies, Series of Translated Studies, Issue 9, (Al-Mustansiriya University: Institute for Asian and African Studies), 1985.
  11. Kamal Al-Menoufi, “New Developments in Turkish Foreign Policy,” The Journal of International Politics, Issue 44, Cairo, April 1976.
  12. Turkish Foreign Policy Report, Ministry of Foreign Affairs , Ankara, no.7,1 october 1975 .
  13. Survey on Turkey, Financial Times,nov.23,1977.
  14. Charles Mclane ,soviet Middle East Relations ,Caspian Crossrods Magazine , Vol.1,No.1,Winter 1995.
  15. Ahmed Hussein Shehail, Russian Foreign Policy towards the Middle East, Master Thesi (unpublished), University of Baghdad, College of Political Sciences, 2000.
  16. Babel Newspaper, Baghdad, on November 20, 1995.
  17. Anil Gurtuna, Turkish – Russian Relations in the Post Soviet Era: From Conflict to Cooperation, A Thesis For the degree of Master of Science in International Relations, Submitted to the Graduate of Social Science of Middle East Technical University, January 2006.
  18. Ibrahim Abu Khuzam, The Arabs and the Balance of Power in the Twenty-first Century A study of the reality of the great powers and the implications of this reality on the Arab world and the world, PhD thesis (published), Qarinos University, Tripoli, 1995.
  19. Riyad Muhammad, General Principles in Geopolitics and Geopolitics, 4th Edition, (Beirut: Arab Renaissance House), 1997.
  20. 19-Ahmed Allou, Russia: The Heart of the World is Beating Again, Al-Jaish Magazine, Issue 104, (Beirut: Lebanese Ministry of Defense), March 2004.
  21. Osama Farouk Mukhaimer, Defining the Mediterranean State: A Study of Social and Economic Characteristics, Al Siyasa Al Dawliya, Issue 129, (Cairo: Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies), July 1997..
  22. Ahmed Nuri Al-Nuaimi, Turkey and NATO, the previous source.
  23. Abd al-Wahhab Abd al-Sattar al-Qassab, Threats to Arab National Security in the Regional Neighboring Countries, Turkey – Case Study, Arab Papers Bulletin, No. 28, (Al-Mustansiriya University: Center for Studies and Research in the Arab World), February 2000.
  24. Judah Hassanein Judeh and Dr. Ali Ahmed Haroun, Geography of Islamic Countries, (Alexandria: Al Maaref Establishment), 1999.
  25. 24-Sabah Mahmoud Muhammad, Turkey between the Ottoman Fez and European Pants, (Beirut: Research and Studies Center), 1996.
  26. 25-Nizar Ismail Al-Hayali, The New Turkish Role in NATO, Strategic Papers Bulletin, No. 15, (University of Baghdad: Center for International Studies), 1997.
  27. Sabah Mahmoud Muhammad, the previous source, page 5.
  28. Dmitri Trenin, Russia and Turkey Acure for schizophrenia, Perceptions,Journal of International Affairs,Vol .2, No.2,Ankara,June-August1997,p.1.internet.
  29. Malik Mufti, Audacity and Caution in Turkey’s Foreign Policy, Global Studies, No. 27, (Abu Dhabi: The Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research), 1998.
  30. Heinz Kramer, A Changing Turkey Is Looking For A New Dress The Challenge Before Both Europe And The United States, translated by Fadel Junker, 1st Edition, (Riyadh: Obeikan Library), 2001..
  31. 30-Muhammad Nuruddin, Confused Republic Turkey, pp. 239-240.
  32. 31-Hanna Izzo Behnan, “Turkish-Russian Relations 1997-2009”, Journal of Education and Science, Vol. 18, Issue 1, Mosul, 2011.
  33. Dmitry Trenin, “From Istanbul to Kabul: Is there a common ground between Turkey and Russia?”, Turkish Vision (Summer 2103), see: http://bit.ly/1BIvtq
  34. John Berryman, “Geopolitics and Russian Foreign Policy,” International Politics (July 2012).
  35. Ahmed Davutoglu, Strategic Depth: Turkey’s Position and Role in the International Arena, translated by Muhammad Jaber Thalji and Tariq Abdul Jalil (Peer Wat and Doha: The Arab Science House and Al Jazeera Center for Studies, 2101).
  36. Talaat Rumaih, Putin’s Russian strategy from a superpower to a regional state, on the following link.- http://www.islamtoday.net
  37. Raed Jabr, a previously mentioned source.
  38. Evgeny Primakov, The World After 9/11 and the Invasion of Iraq, Previously Cited Source.
  39. Fiona Hill,seismic shifts in Eurasia The Changing Relationship between Turkey and Russia and its implications for The South Caucasus, Brookings Institution ,Washington,October,2002. .
  40. Ghassan Makhal, Russia and Turkey head to the coalition against the Christian club, Al Arabiya channel website, December 9, 2004, at the following link: http://www.alarabiya.tv/article.aspx
  41. Suat Kinklioglu , Turkey and Russia Partnership by Exclusion, Turkish policy Quarterly,Vol.5, NO.2 ,Ankara,Summer2006,pp.9-11. Internet
  42. Russia and Turkey embody the initiative to protect security in the Black Sea Basin, Russian Novosti News Agency, 2008-2020 at the following link: http://www.ar.rain.ru.co.
  43. Abdullah Turkmani, Turkey and its regional surroundings, in a symposium: Turkey and the Arabs and the strategic stakes, (Ankara: Justice Center for Strategic Studies and Planning), 2006.
  44. Muhammad Nur al-Din, the view of the new Turkish strategy Ahmet Davutoglu Turkey from a country partyTo Country Center, As-Safir Lebanese newspaper, 21-8-2004.
  45. Muhammad Javad Ali, Turkey, a geostrategic fortress, a series of strategic stations, No. 54, (University of Baghdad: Center for International Studies), 2001..
  46. Vladlen Martynov,Russia and Turkey horizons of developing policy, Foreign Policy,VOL.XXV,No.3-4,2000.
  47. 46-Putin begins an official visit to Turkey, the first of its kind in more than 30 years, Russian news agency RIA Novosti, 5-12-2006. At the following link: – http://www.ar.rain.ru.com
  48. Nataliya Ulchenko, Geostragic aspects of Gas export frome Russia and Turkmenistan to Turkey, Foreign Policy, Vol.XXIX, No.3-4, Ankara, 2002.
  49. Nourhan Al-Sheikh, Russia and the European Union, the energy and status struggle, Journal of International Politics, Issue 164, (Cairo: Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies), April 2006..
  50. Orhan Morgil ,the Turkish – Russia bilateral economic relations, Foreign Policy, Vol .XXIX,No.3-4,Ankara,2002,p.44.
  51. Turkish companies top the list of foreign companies interested in the construction market in Russia, Russian news agency Novosti, 29-2-2008 at the following link: http //: www.ar.rian.ru.com
  52. Mariana Nabenikaya, Russia, Turkey Double the Volume of Commercial Exchange, Russian News Agency Novosti, 25-11-2007, at the following link: http://www.ar.rian.ru.co
5/5 - (1 صوت واحد)

المركز الديمقراطى العربى

المركز الديمقراطي العربي مؤسسة مستقلة تعمل فى اطار البحث العلمى والتحليلى فى القضايا الاستراتيجية والسياسية والاقتصادية، ويهدف بشكل اساسى الى دراسة القضايا العربية وانماط التفاعل بين الدول العربية حكومات وشعوبا ومنظمات غير حكومية.

مقالات ذات صلة

اترك تعليقاً

لن يتم نشر عنوان بريدك الإلكتروني.

زر الذهاب إلى الأعلى