TEHRAN – A Turkish political pundit argues that Russia will take measures against NATO expansion once Sweden and Finland fully join the military alliance.  

“The most fundamental impact for Russia will be the necessity of taking measures against the expanding and increasing NATO threat and the economic and social costs it will create,” Tahsin Yamak comments.

Talking to the Tehran Times, Yamak says, “These memberships will of course have various effects for Russia, Sweden, Finland and Turkey.” 

The Turkish analyst also questions the effectiveness of the Russian energy embargo against Sweden and Finland, saying Sweden and Finland are two European countries that are less dependent on natural gas and oil due to their energy diversity.
Following is the text of the interview:

Q: Turkey agreed to drop opposition to Sweden and Finland joining NATO. How do you see such a move?

A: Turkey, which has increasing importance in the global system due to its geopolitical position, has a leader who likes to push the limits in international politics and does not hesitate to take risks. The membership of Finland and Sweden in NATO was seen as an important area for Turkey to test its influence in the international system. Turkey also wanted to measure the limits of its sphere of influence in the global system by making the issue a crisis agenda among NATO. Surely, there is also a pragmatist side of the issue, aimed at achieving concrete gains on issues such as the fight against terrorism and the arms embargo.

 “It will not be a surprise development that the Swedish island of Gotland, which is an important strategic point for the control of the Baltic Sea, turn into a crisis and struggle area.” We know that one of the most important features of the states (superpowers) with a high influence in the global system is their ability to create a crisis and their ability to end it in their favor. In this matter, Turkey has tested the limits of this capability. Ankara has made its first wish come true by making the membership of the two countries controversial by arguing that they support terrorism and turning the issue into a crisis agenda at NATO.

Turkey's claim that Finland and Sweden support terrorist organizations was not subject to criticism from NATO members. In fact, almost all of the dominant forces of the organization, especially the NATO Secretary-General, shared their concerns about the terrorist threats. Ensuring the superiority of discourse on the subject can also be considered a success for Turkey.

The tangible gain/benefit Ankara gained from all these events was the memorandum dated 28.06.2022 signed by Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto, and Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Linde. The memorandum contains ten articles that will largely alleviate Turkey's concerns about terrorism and includes binding commitments for Sweden and Finland.

Although there is a signed agreement, it is clear that time is needed to see the outputs of the assurances/commitments that Turkey received in return for supporting Finland-Sweden's entry into NATO. However, President Erdogan stated that they will act according to the steps to be taken by Sweden and Finland, and stated that the agreement will not be submitted to the Assembly for approval if the necessary arrangements are not made and the commitments are not made. In other words, Erdogan stated that if the commitments are not fulfilled, the agreement will not be binding on them.

If we evaluate the issues we have discussed from the beginning together, it would not be wrong to say that Turkey's geopolitical weight in the global economic system has increased since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine.

Q: What will be the implications of Ankara's decision to accept Sweden and Finland as new NATO members for Russia?

A: I would like to give an answer to this question based on the statements made by the leaders of the two countries. Commenting on this issue, Putin stated that Russia does not have problems with Sweden and Finland, "We have neither a land problem nor disagreements. There is nothing to worry us about Finland and Sweden's NATO membership."

 On the other hand, Putin warned that it is dangerous for the two countries to join NATO, adding, "In the past, there was no threat to them. Now, if troops and infrastructure are deployed there, we will have to respond and create a similar threat to their lands. This is obvious. something and they need to understand it clearly." Putin emphasized.

“Turkey's geopolitical weight in the global economic system has increased since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine.”Also, President Erdogan said, "We have bilateral relations with Russia, but we also have bilateral relations with Ukraine. Therefore, we want to conduct politics through balance policies, not through policies of fighting. "Pointing out that more than 40 percent of Turkey's natural gas is supplied from Russia and that the nuclear power plant in Akkuyu was built with Russia, President Erdogan underlined that these are of great importance and cannot be put aside. Erdogan added, "Therefore, we will follow the process and when we consider that politics is shaped on the basis of 'win-win' in this process, there will be no issue."

We see that Putin did not use an accusatory expression toward Turkey regarding the NATO membership of the two countries and preferred to look at the event from the perspective of his country's security concerns. Therewithal, we see that President Erdogan continues his balance policy at the level of discourse, emphasizing the importance of Russia to Turkey. If we consider only the statements of the two leaders, it is difficult to expect a major breakdown in the relations between the two countries due to the said decision.

Whereas these memberships will of course have various effects on Russia, Sweden, Finland, and Turkey. The most fundamental impact for Russia will be the necessity of taking measures against the expanding and increasing NATO threat and the economic and social costs it will create. I do not expect Russia's energy embargo to be effective, as Sweden and Finland are two of the European countries least dependent on natural gas and oil due to their energy diversity. Herein, it will not be a surprise development that the Swedish island of Gotland, which is an important strategic point for the control of the Baltic Sea, turns into a crisis and struggle area.

Q: How do you see Turkey-Europe ties? Is Ankara still trying to be a member of the EU?

A:  It’s known that the relations between Turkey and the European Union started with the partnership application made to the European Economic Community on July 31, 1959. EU-Turkey relations, which have always been of strategic importance, can become a popular agenda item or fall out of favor within the framework of cyclical developments and/or governments' approaches to membership. After the AK Party came to power in 2002, EU membership was considered a strategic agenda. In fact, as a result of the moves taken under the leadership of the AK party for the purpose of EU membership, Turkey started full membership negotiations on October 3, 2005. However, after this date, we see that relations have eroded to a great extent due to both the cyclical developments and the constitutional transformation in Turkey. At this point, we can say that the EU membership issue is a discredited agenda item, especially for the government.

In this respect, EU membership has become a tool for a stronger, prosperous, respectable and democratic Turkey rather than a final goal for it. However, if we consider the latest data, we know that Turkey's most important export and import (foreign trade) partner is the European Union (EU-27) countries. Furthermore, Turkey is a “key country” in terms of Europe's security, defense, economy, energy and border security and migration management. These issues cause both sides to have an important motivation on issues such as working in harmony, strategic cooperation, constructive competition and winning together. At the same time, recognizing the importance of Turkey in the conditions of the Ukraine crisis, the EU had to turn a blind eye to the past problems with Ankara on many issues, from the entry of Turkish troops into northern Syria to the purchase of the Russian S-400 missile defense system. 

Turkey-EU relations continue in a controlled and pragmatic manner due to the intense mutual economic dependency and forced cooperation due to migration. And as such, I consider EU-Turkey relations as a geostrategic economic cooperation model. However, in the midst of the conflict between the West and the East, Turkey, which is trying to be a self-sufficient and independent power center, will always continue to establish long-term strategic relations with the EU based on a win-win game.

Q: What is the position of Turkey in the Ukraine war. Apparently, Turkish drones are used by Ukraine against Russia.

A: A type of Turkish drone -Bayraktar TB2- that the Ukrainian military has increasingly deployed against Russian forces in the Ukraine war, had destroyed a lot of tanks and surface-to-air missile systems and blew up Russian fuel convoys and supply trucks. This situation gives the Russian side reason to fear their enemies and provides a vital boost to Ukraine's people's morale.  On the other hand, images from Ukraine have become very useful for the PR and psychological warfare of Turkish drones.

Previously, in the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia in 2020, Turkish drones were also decisive in the victory of the Azeris over a Russian ally, Armenia. At this juncture, Turkey's growing drone industry facilitates the struggle of both itself and its allies and gives Turkey a geopolitical edge. These all developments, which are in line with its military interests and help maintain the balance of power in the Black Sea region, are positive/critical for Turkey.

Developments since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, with its key role in the Black Sea region and its attempts to maintain relations with both Moscow and Kyiv, are causing Turkey to increase its geopolitical weight in the region. We can easily say that the drones that led to this situation will continue to be widely seen and used as a branch of Turkish foreign policy.

Q: Isn't that a contradiction that an Islamic country like Turkey serve a Western alliance like NATO that can harm Islamic nations?

A: First of all, Turkey became a member of NATO in order to protect the integrity and independence of the country. Nevertheless, in addition to security concerns, Turkey's modernization and westernization thought also had a significant impact on its membership in NATO. These issues may be the subject of criticism because it is possible to come across many opinions against NATO membership in the Turkish public opinion.

Turkey is a democratic and secular country with a predominantly Muslim population but without a constitution that references Islamic principles, it has been a NATO member for 70 years. In this sense, it should be stated that the definition of an Islamic country will be far from expressing all the past experiences and political dynamics of the country. For this reason, explaining Turkey's foreign policy preferences with only an Islamic reference will cause us to make an incomplete assessment.

On the other side, it would be unfair for Turkey to be expressed in a position in NATO that serves the West. Because Turkey is one of the countries that contribute most to global peace and integration among NATO allies. And under the NATO alliance, it had the opportunity to help many Islamic countries and/or Muslim minorities.

Turkey has been a part of many active peacekeeping missions under the leadership of NATO, such as the Bosnia, Kosovo, (Persian) Gulf/Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, and the coalition against ISIS. And, he was in command of many forces within NATO. It also hosts the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, which it launched in 2004 to expand NATO's borders and cooperate with more Muslim states under the name of the Mediterranean Dialogue.

I would like to express that, of course, it is a fact that there are country leaders who have an opposite attitude towards Islamic values in NATO. However, it would not be correct to code NATO and/or the West as totally anti-Islamic -and bad - based on the presence of these people alone. In addition, it is clear that the Eastern Bloc, which is against the Western Bloc, is not composed of states with high Islamic sensitivities. In the midst of the war between the West and the East, Turkey, trying to become a self-sufficient and independent power center, found it appropriate to be close to the Western alliance and to become a NATO member, within the conditions of the period.

With NATO membership, it was aimed for Turkey to be included in the Western Bloc and thus to get rid of loneliness in the face of the Soviets and continue the democratic process. If we take a historical perspective, being a NATO member made Turkey feel safe and Turkey's NATO presence has often led to beneficial results for other Muslim countries. As a final word, I would like to indicate that NATO member Turkey has an important position for regional and world peace.