In the third and final part of the interview with Nikolai Sukhov, leading research fellow at the Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, we discussed Turkish policy vis-à-vis Syria, the role of the US and Israel, as well as the future of Syrian cinema.
– Some analysts claim that Türkiye is implementing a doctrine of ‘neo-Ottomanism’ in Syria. Within the framework of this neo-Ottoman project, the Turkish army has invaded Syria. You have a deep understanding of the region. What is your view on this matter? Could Türkiye’s aspiration to restore its Ottoman influence lead to a direct confrontation with Israel?
I shall leave that opinion to the conscience of those experts you mentioned. I believe ‘neo-Ottomanist policy’ and this narrative about Turkish politics are outdated. ‘Greater Turan’ and various ideas about uniting all Turkic peoples were promoted in the 1990s-2000s, but found no resonance.
For instance, in Central Asia, this actually caused concern among many newly independent states. As for Azerbaijan, such a notion is completely irrelevant; it is a sovereign state whose people have no intention of considering themselves part of the Ottoman Empire.
That being said, such sentiments might still exist among some segments of Turkish society. I cannot comment on that. However, I have spoken with Russian Turkologists who believe this ideology belongs to the past and is no longer part of official policy. Therefore, Türkiye’s current policy can be described as purely pragmatic and transactional. The fact that Syria was once part of the Ottoman Empire means nothing today. The same applies to the Balkans.
Türkiye has clear objectives: first and foremost this is to eliminate Kurdish organisations it designates as terrorist. These are armed groups fighting Turkish authorities while demanding autonomy and minority rights. After decades of conflict, the situation has reached a point where compromise seems impossible. The Kurds’ only remaining option is to blend in as part of Syria.
I maintain that ‘neo-Ottomanism’ is a mistaken perspective on Türkiye’s current policies. Türkiye is the sponsor and patron of Syria’s current government. While Qatar provided financing, Türkiye was the executor via its security services, business community and military. Türkiye has pragmatic interests: firstly, suppressing Kurdish resistance; secondly, expanding its economic sphere of influence. Türkiye has always viewed the Aleppo Governorate as being within its zone of influence, if not as its own territory. Syria is seen as a potential economic asset, though Türkiye’s own economic problems prevent it from dedicating the necessary resources to developing Syria.
We are now witnessing Turkish military expansion through establishing bases and not only. This could potentially result in conflict with Israel. On the one hand, Türkiye and Israel are partners and competitors. Trade between the two countries continues (though it has decreased) and intelligence services maintain cooperation.
Yet, Israel actively collaborates with Kurds, essentially holding a ‘knife at the back’ of its Turkish partners. Recently, Israel intensified cooperation with Druze communities, too. Israel also views Syria as its potential territory. Let us recall that some maps of ‘Greater Israel’ extend all the way to the Euphrates River. Now Turks have entered this territory. While Palestine was previously a neglected Ottoman province, today’s Israel has US backing – hence it being nicknamed “America’s unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East”.
It is unclear who controls whom, but Netanyahu’s April visit to Washington reinforced perceptions of Israeli dominance over US policy. Many asked: “Who really runs the White House?” as Netanyahu took centre stage while Trump remained in the background.
This reflects clashing interests. Israel’s ‘security doctrine’, justifying any action to push its borders outward, versus Turkish ambitions. By the way, Israeli tanks are currently situated 20 km from Damascus, and radical Zionists immediately started building settlements on the newly captured land. The conflict is escalating against the background of mutual accusations.
Erdoğan’s anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian rhetoric for domestic consumption, which has been going on for years, naturally angers Israel. Meanwhile, Israel will not tolerate Turkish military presence near its borders, which it defines much more expansively than others might.
How will this develop? Realistically, Türkiye can achieve little. Previous attempts to deploy equipment or establish footholds failed. As long as the US is arming Israel, Israelis will have munitions to bomb whomever they choose.
– The final question is about culture. Syrian cinema has long been popular across the Arab world and beyond. Can we expect new Syrian films or TV series? Does Damascus plan to impose restrictions on cinema, media and broadcasting to align with the new authorities’ conservative policies?
My brief answer is “yes”. I have many acquaintances in the Syrian media, and they reported that state television was initially completely shut down. Later, incompetent leadership was installed. Some staff members returned, but only after ideological and ethno-confessional purges. Current broadcasting (including via social media) mainly promotes the new authorities as being “correct, inclusive and democratic, while also being pious Muslims”.
Reviving pre-war Syrian cinema is impossible. Many cultural figures have left. My friend Al-Muhannad Qalthoum judged a Tunisian children’s film festival after having won awards in the UAE and Morocco. This outflux of creative talent to Gulf monarchies and North Africa is systemic.
If iconic Syrian series continue, they definitely will not be filmed in Damascus.
A telling anecdote: an episode of a popular Syrian serial was being filmed at my friend’s house; he was the owner of a restaurant. We were sitting at his house, and they were filming in another room. Then something typical happened. It was late at night and when the actress exited the house, a dark, narrow street awaited her – for there was no electricity. Suddenly, bandits on a motorcycle grabbed her purse, in which she had her phone and a hefty sum of dollars, and ran off. That was about five years ago. Nothing really changes!
– Mr Sukhov, we thank you for your time and for our most intriguing talk.
Interview by Vanessa SEVIDOVA, correspondent and author for New Eastern Outlook
