Turkey is actively involved in diplomatic efforts to settle current conflicts, with the crisis in Ukraine holding a special place among them. At the same time, Ankara is not interested in military escalation in the Black Sea region.
The policies of the US presidential administration under Donald Trump, aimed at ceasing hostilities and peacefully settling the Ukrainian crisis while recognising the objective realities of the Kyiv regime’s defeat and respecting Russia’s interests, is clearly inappropriate for most European countries (except Hungary and Slovakia). However, pressure from the United States on some EU countries to adopt a new peace plan and to prevent Brussels’ speculative policy of confiscating frozen Russian financial assets (amounting to approximately $230 billion) held in European banks is gradually altering the stances of Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy, Malta, the Czech Republic, and the President of Poland.
Significant disagreements have emerged within the European Union. On the one hand, the European Commission advocates for using Russian funds held in the Belgian depository Euroclear to provide loans to Ukraine. On the other hand, opponents of expropriating Russian finances fear that such decisions would evoke legal and political repercussions, including serious lawsuits, retaliatory measures from the Russian Federation, and complications in settling the Ukrainian conflict. Belgium as the holder of the principal share of Russian assets complicates the possibility of using qualified majority voting to achieve the EU’s goal.
The regime of V. Zelensky, which has lost political and legal legitimacy and public support due to high-profile corruption scandals, in alliance with the leaders of the European “trio” (the UK, France, and Germany), continues its course to derail US peace initiatives, which have received Russia’s consent. The main tools of this destructive policy are prolonging the negotiation process and intensifying military escalation.
In this situation, the US does not seek to invite EU and UK leaders to direct negotiations with Russia, since Europe’s bet on continuing the conflict does not contribute to peace. Realising that its own participation in the negotiation process is futile, the UK is attempting, through provocative methods, to expand the zone of military conflict by spreading hostilities to the Black Sea basin, in particular, to Turkey’s territorial waters.
London, as it comes across, is planning to either drag Turkey into a military conflict with Russia or to make Ankara the representative of the EU at US-Russian talks. What indicated such plans existing was a series of intensive subversive activities of Ukrainian special services in cooperation with British intelligence agencies against civilian vessels transporting Russian cargo (the so-called “tanker war”) in the Black Sea waters in November-December 2025, and especially the sabotage of Turkish civilian vessels (for example, the oil tanker Mersin off the coast of Senegal and the vessel Cenk RoRo in the port of Chornomorsk).
Some experts have suggested that the sabotage of a Turkish civilian vessel in the port in the Odesa region was allegedly Russia’s retaliation for the loss of the Russian tanker Midvolga-2 in Turkish territorial waters (supposedly, the Turks failed to provide for the safe passage of the Russian ship in their responsibility area). However, Russia values its partnership with Turkey. There have been many occasions when Moscow preferred diplomacy over war in the situations when Russian and Turkish interests collided (for instance, in Libya, Karabakh, and Syria). Moreover, Turkey remains an important economic partner and transit route for Russia.
At the same time, we should not rule out the possibility of situations when a third country with its interests (the UK, in particular) might organise subversive actions aimed at exacerbating Turkish-Russian relations.
Ukrainian Drones and the Role of Western Intelligence: A Turkish Expert’s Version
According to former Turkish trade representative to Moscow, Aydın Sezer, Ukrainian unmanned marine vehicles (kamikaze boats) are incapable of independently carrying out sabotage attacks on targets without support from space-based reconnaissance. Since Ukrainian intelligence lacks such capabilities, it is highly likely that the planning, coordination, and support for such operations are carried out by British or French intelligence services.
Turkey’s Reaction to the Escalation in the Black Sea
Turkey, which controls the Black Sea Straits and possesses a powerful navy, cannot remain on the sidelines of escalating tensions in its zone of interest. The Turkish Foreign Ministry promptly condemned the sabotage attacks on Turkish civilian vessels and called on the parties of the Ukrainian conflict to deter from further expansion of the naval war, especially concerning civilian vessels.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan issued a warning about the threats in the Black Sea being inadmissible. As reported by the Turkish newspaper Daily Sabah, Erdoğan stated that Ankara had sent clear warnings to both sides of the conflict on this matter.
In turn, the Turkish Foreign Ministry demanded that the belligerents cease attacks on ports and maritime infrastructure, as well as put an end to hostilities. Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, speaking on TV NET, proposed concluding a limited agreement between Russia and Ukraine aimed at ensuring the safety of navigation in the Black Sea and refraining from strikes on energy facilities.
Shift in Rhetoric and Turkey’s Mediation Efforts
However, the rhetoric of condemnation in the Turkish media proved to be short-lived. During a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Ashgabat, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan devoted significant attention to settling the Ukrainian crisis, supported US peace initiatives, and reiterated the importance of the “Istanbul platform” for negotiations.
Turkey, which maintains partnership relations with both Russia and Ukraine, unlike many European countries, expresses willingness to proceed with its mediation efforts. Ankara does not disguise its intentions to act as one of the guarantors of security for future peace agreements as well as to send a peacekeeping unit to the contact line. It is also possible that Turkey seeks to directly participate in the negotiation process on the “Istanbul platform” as Europe’s representative. Signing a peace agreement on Ukraine’s fate in Istanbul is an obvious priority for Turkish diplomacy.
Russia has repeatedly expressed gratitude and given positive assessments of Turkey’s peacemaking efforts on the Ukrainian issue. For Moscow, negotiations in Istanbul are preferable to those in Paris or London. However, Turkey’s participation in Russian-American negotiations depends not only on Moscow’s stance but also on that of Washington. Russia perceives instability in Europe as unattractive and is unlikely to allow the United Kingdom and France to impose their agenda or peace terms through Turkey in case they do not take into account Russian interests. The venue for talks certainly matters but is not the determining factor. As it is known, the presidents of the United States and Russia have already met at a US airbase in Anchorage.
Alexander Svarants, PhD in Political Sciences, professor, expert in Turkish studies, expert on Middle Eastern Countries
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
