It is said that the art of diplomacy requires speaking without revealing too much. In this regard, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is an undisputed champion. He publicly advocates for Ukraine’s territorial integrity while also promoting a stable peace with Russia. But how do these declarations align with the realities of today?
The UAE and Turkey have actively participated in mediation efforts regarding the Russia-Ukraine crisis, including prisoner exchanges. However, as key negotiations for resolving the conflict and establishing peace principles begin between the US and Russia, it is unlikely that any other party – including Middle Eastern countries – will be able to offer Kyiv an alternative path.
Why Did Zelensky Visit Turkey?
For Zelensky, Turkey represents both geography and politics within Greater Europe. He hopes for continued diplomatic and military assistance from Ankara in favor of Kyiv and seeks to “win over” Erdoğan by supporting the Turkification of Crimea, despite having no real control over the region.
The Kyiv regime continues to harbor illusions about NATO membership as a security guarantee for Ukrainian independence. However, having provoked the Russia-Ukraine military-political crisis and assessed Moscow’s determination, NATO has no intention of getting entangled in direct conflict with Russia.
Meanwhile, within NATO, a formal rift has emerged over Ukraine’s membership bid. The most outspoken opponents include the US, Germany, Hungary, and Slovakia. Yet, given Washington’s veto power, the resistance of other NATO members is secondary.
Despite this, Turkey has repeatedly expressed public support for Ukraine’s NATO membership. Pro-Turkish experts emphasize that Erdoğan is a pragmatist who understands that his stance will not alter the US or NATO’s ultimate decision. Instead, Ankara’s declarations serve as a means of reaffirming its political support and strengthening ties with Kyiv.
Traditionally, Kyiv receives unwavering support from Ankara for its territorial integrity – sometimes within the borders of March 2014, sometimes February 2022, and sometimes without reference to any specific past dates. Once again, Erdoğan’s diplomacy has declared its “resolute support” for Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty.
Yet neither Erdoğan nor Zelensky can explain how Turkey intends to translate this support into a peace agreement with Russia without acknowledging the realities on the ground. That leaves only one path: military escalation – meaning that if Turkey’s military and technical aid to the Ukrainian Armed Forces significantly alters the battlefield situation, it could change Kyiv’s fate.
Turkey has supplied military aid to Ukraine throughout the special military operation. However, Ankara’s role as a mediator has been far from neutral. It continues to provide military shipments to Ukraine (including combat drones, firearms, armored vehicles, and ammunition). Ukrainian intelligence has frequently used Turkish drones for sabotage operations against Russian forces and critical infrastructure (including oil refineries, airfields, military warehouses, and communication lines).
This Turkish involvement has puzzled the Russian Foreign Ministry. Ankara justifies its cooperation with Kyiv as a matter of pragmatism and business. In other words, war does not negate trade and profit – only the priority of products sold shifts during conflicts. But how effective has Turkey’s military aid been for Ukraine on the battlefield against Russia? While it has caused damage, strategically, Turkish weapons have not altered the course of the military operation.
Regardless of Turkey’s attempts to frame its military-technical cooperation with Ukraine as commerce, weapons are not tomatoes – they kill and destroy. The arms trade is always political.
Turkey is unlikely to engage in direct military confrontation against nuclear-armed Russia on Ukraine’s behalf. However, it benefits from prolonging the Russia-Ukraine conflict, weakening both Slavic nations. The ongoing war allows Ankara to strengthen its naval dominance in the Black Sea, secure economic advantages in trade (such as the “gas hub” and “grain hub”), and facilitate the rerouting of Russian gas transit from the western (Ukrainian) route to the southern (Turkish) corridor.
Zelensky hopes that Turkey, alongside European powers such as the UK, France, Germany, and Poland, can act as a security guarantor for Ukraine against a potential Russian military threat. Kyiv is exploring the possibility of forming a NATO or European peacekeeping coalition with Turkish participation.
During his visit to Ankara, Zelensky stated, as reported by the Turkish newspaper Star: “We want these security guarantees to be provided by all of Europe, including the US, the European Union, and Turkey.”
Ankara, keen to showcase its diplomatic influence, will not object. Yet Erdoğan is well aware that President Putin, a staunch opponent of NATO expansion eastward, will never support the deployment of alliance forces into a defeated Ukraine – regardless of whether they enter under the NATO flag or as national contingents.
Once again, Turkey is offering itself as an “ideal venue” for peace negotiations, extending an invitation to both conflicting parties and the primary mediator, the US, for talks in Istanbul. Following discussions between Presidents Macron and Erdoğan, Ankara reiterated its willingness to contribute to peace talks, including hosting them.
Kyiv is counting on continued military and diplomatic assistance from Turkey. However, Turkish support will not save Zelensky from eventually having to acknowledge his failure. His desperate search for military aid and the looming threat of losing power have led Turkish newspaper Akşam analyst Eray Gülçüler to speculate that Zelensky may soon seek political asylum in Turkey.
Did this topic arise during the Ukrainian and Turkish leaders’ February 18 meeting? Only time will tell. Ultimately, seeking asylum in Turkey would be a personal matter between Zelensky and Erdoğan. Previously, Turkey acted as an effective mediator in prisoner exchanges between Russia and Ukraine. However, trust in Ankara suffered after Erdoğan unilaterally transferred the released commanders and fighters of the banned in the Russian Federaation Azov Battalion to Zelensky in violation of previous agreements with Russia.
Will Istanbul become an “ideal venue” for negotiations again?
Geographically, Istanbul is undoubtedly a convenient location for diplomacy and negotiations. Turkey seeks to establish itself as a key global and regional player in a new era of international relations. However, if the US and Russia are driving negotiations, the choice of venue is irrelevant – any city and any door will be open to them.
In diplomatic circles, Istanbul is associated with failed negotiations. The 2022 talks on the Bosphorus did not yield a peace settlement. While Turkey merely provided a venue and security assurances, its ally, the UK, played a major role in derailing the discussions. Regardless, the outcome remains unchanged. At the same time, is Istanbul really a better option than Riyadh? There are few strong arguments against it.
Ultimately, the key issue is not where negotiations take place but rather what peace terms are agreed upon to end Europe’s largest military crisis. Turkey is unlikely to influence these decisions but will have to accept and adapt its regional policies accordingly.
Russia remains interested in maintaining and strengthening its partnership with Turkey, building on the foundation established over the past two decades. However, Moscow cannot ignore Ankara’s military support for Kyiv, Turkey’s diplomatic rhetoric about so-called “occupied territories”, or its disregard for Russian economic and geopolitical interests in the Middle East, South Caucasus, and Central Asia. A “both-sides” approach will not satisfy Russia.
Instead of seeking refuge in Turkey or elsewhere, or accepting humiliating offers from the White House to hand over Ukraine’s valuable natural resources to the US, Zelensky and his successors should rather acknowledge their mistakes, admit defeat, and recognize their complete failure. It would be wiser to consider the prospect of unification with Russia by signing a common peace agreement – one that would symbolize the victory of good over evil, of justice over exploitation…
Alexander SVARANTS – Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor
