Turkiye's delicate balancing act in the Black Sea
https://arab.news/ng8pq
The Black Sea has historically been a region of strategic value for Turkiye, Russia and the West. Russia's war on Ukraine has increased its importance as the region became the center of gravity for Western-Russian rivalry.
Turkiye's navy is the strongest in the Black Sea, which is also bordered by Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, and Georgia. Western allies in the Black Sea, vulnerable to Russia's policies, are seeking a stronger Turkish presence to enhance NATO's deterrence and defense capabilities on its southeastern flank. However, the Black Sea is a 'gray zone' for Ankara: it cannot fully commit to one side or the other.
This was evident when Turkiye did not join the Western-led sanctions against Russia, and invoked the Montreux Convention to close the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits to the warships of 'belligerent powers.' The 1936 agreement gives Turkiye the authority to regulate naval access between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean via those straits. The decision left Moscow unable to reinforce its Black Sea Fleet against Ukrainian attacks, although it also prevented NATO warships from entering the Black Sea to help Ukraine.
This is an excellent example of how Turkiye's position, as the gatekeeper of the Black Sea, is crucial for the balance of power between Russia and the West in this region. It has the ability to shape events while watching from the sidelines. For this reason, both the West and Russia have accelerated efforts to integrate Turkiye into their Black Sea policies, which will be crucial when the war finally ends. Concerned about its inability to contain a postwar Russia without US support, NATO is establishing a cooperation initiative with Turkiye through Romania and Bulgaria, both NATO members.
Turkiye is also wary of antagonizing Russia, a dominant power in the Black Sea and viewed as a threat by the West — although not by Ankara
Sinem Cengiz
One form this takes is a proposed new NATO command HQ that will be responsible for improving operational coordination among NATO allies in the Black Sea. Last year, Turkiye, Romania and Bulgaria also established a mine countermeasures task force in the Black Sea, reflecting Turkiye's commitment to maritime safety. NATO aims to extend this cooperation.
Turkiye's openness to regional cooperation with coastal states in the Black Sea and its efforts to support Ukraine's navy are crucial for postwar security.
However, Turkiye is also wary of antagonizing Russia, a dominant power in the Black Sea and viewed as a threat by the West — although not by Ankara, because its perception of threats is different. For example, the eastern Mediterranean holds greater strategic significance for Turkiye than the Black Sea. Turkiye prioritizes positioning its powerful navy in the eastern Mediterranean to protect its interests, which clash with several actors. The increase in Turkiye's naval capacity in the eastern Mediterranean is not welcomed by NATO allies, while at the same time they seek Turkiye's support in the Black Sea against Russian dominance. European states have often excluded Ankara from discussions on the eastern Mediterranean.
This European policy has played into the hands of Russia, which filled the void by deepening economic cooperation with Turkiye: for example, the TurkStream pipeline across the Black Sea. Russia also chose to go along with Turkiye's balancing act, for example accepting the Turkish role in negotiating the 2022-2023 Black Sea grain deal between Russia and Ukraine: this maintained communication between Moscow and Ankara, which is mostly personal rather than institutional — unlike the Turkish-European/NATO relationship.
Turkiye's approach to the Black Sea is not driven solely by the current leadership: it is rooted in a long-standing strategic policy
Sinem Cengiz
The seemingly cozy leadership ties between Turkiye and Russia are shaping their policies in the Black Sea and beyond. For example, in 2023, when Recep Tayyip Erdogan met Vladimir Putin, he referred to the Black Sea as 'our Black Sea' to indicate common interests and destiny. However, when relations were tense in 2016, Erdogan said the Black Sea had become a 'Russian lake' and advocated a greater NATO presence in the region. Russia will remain the most important factor in Turkiye's Black Sea policy, shaped by the cooperative and competitive nature of Turkish-Russian relations.
Turkiye's approach to the Black Sea is not driven solely by the current leadership: it is rooted in a long-standing strategic policy, similar to Russia's, which views the Black Sea as the gateway to warm waters and the Mediterranean. Navigational safety is therefore crucial for all. For Moscow, it would ease Russian agricultural exports; for the West, it would provide a lifeline for Ukraine's economic and military survival; for Ankara, it would increase its leverage with the other two.
Thus, Turkiye's position in the Black Sea will probably affect the balance of power in the eastern Mediterranean and the Caucasus. It is, after all, Turkiye's historical backyard. If it carefully reads the situation, Turkiye will stand to be the greatest beneficiary in shaping new dynamics in the Black Sea region.
• Dr. Sinem Cengiz is a Turkish political analyst who specializes in Turkiye's relations with the Middle East. X: @SinemCngz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leaders
2 hours ago
- Leaders
Middle East Erupts: Israel Strikes Iran
Israel launched strikes against Iran on Friday, targeting nuclear and military sites, following a warning from US President Donald Trump about potential massive conflict in the region. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the strikes targeted the core of Iran's nuclear enrichment program, including the Natanz facility and nuclear scientists. Netanyahu emphasized that the operation would persist for as many days as needed to achieve its objectives. Iranian state media reported that residential buildings in Tehran were also hit, resulting in civilian casualties including women and children. Fire and smoke were seen at a key site for Iran's Revolutionary Guards, and explosions were heard in Natanyeh city. Iranian media confirmed that the leader of the Guards, Hossein Salami, was killed in the strikes. Air traffic was halted at Tehran's Imam Khomeini International Airport, and neighboring Iraq also closed its airspace and suspended all flights at its airports. Responses and Reactions Israel declared a state of emergency and closed its airspace, with Defense Minister Israel Katz warning of possible retaliatory action from Tehran. Katz stated that following Israel's preemptive strike against Iran, a missile and drone attack against Israel and its civilian population was anticipated soon. An Israeli military official noted that the army believed Iran could strike Israel at any moment. US President Donald Trump indicated that a deal on Iran's nuclear program was close but warned that an Israeli attack could disrupt negotiations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Iran not to target US interests or personnel, stating that Washington was not involved in the strikes. The United States also announced it was reducing embassy staff in Iraq, a long-standing zone of proxy conflict with Iran. Oil prices surged by as much as 8%, while stocks plummeted following the Israeli strikes, which came after Trump's warning. Trump told reporters at the White House that while he did not want to say an attack was imminent, it looked like something that could very well happen. He also mentioned that a good deal on Iran's nuclear program was close but that an attack could jeopardize it. Historical Context and Ongoing Tensions Israel, which relies on US military and diplomatic support, views Iran as an existential threat and has targeted Iranian air defenses in the past. Netanyahu has vowed less restraint since the unprecedented October 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Tehran-backed Hamas, which triggered a massive Israeli offensive in Gaza. The United States and other Western countries, along with Israel, have repeatedly accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, which Iran has consistently denied. Iran's nuclear chief, Mohammad Eslami, criticized the resolution as extremist and blamed Israeli influence. In response, Iran announced it would launch a new enrichment center in a secure location and replace first-generation machines with advanced sixth-generation machines at the Fordo uranium enrichment plant. Iran currently enriches uranium to 60%, significantly above the 3.67% limit set in the 2015 deal and close to the 90 percent needed for a nuclear warhead. Short link : Post Views: 2
Arab News
6 hours ago
- Arab News
Pakistan, other nuclear states together spent $100 billion on weapons in 2024 — report
GENEVA: Nuclear-armed states spent more than $100 billion on their atomic arsenals last year, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons said Friday, lamenting the lack of democratic oversight of such spending. ICAN said Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the United States together spent nearly $10 billion more than in 2023. The United States spent $56.8 billion in 2024, followed by China at $12.5 billion and Britain at $10.4 billion, ICAN said in its flagship annual report. Geneva-based ICAN won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its key role in drafting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which took effect in 2021. Some 69 countries have ratified it to date, four more have directly acceded to the treaty and another 25 have signed it, although none of the nuclear weapons states have come on board. This year's report looked at the costs incurred by the countries that host other states' nuclear weapons. It said such costs are largely unknown to citizens and legislators alike, thereby avoiding democratic scrutiny. Although not officially confirmed, the report said Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkiye were hosting US nuclear weapons, citing experts. Meanwhile Russia claims it has nuclear weapons stationed in Belarus, but some experts are unsure, it added. The report said there was 'little public information' about the costs associated with hosting US nuclear weapons in NATO European countries, citing the cost of facility security, nuclear-capable aircraft and preparation to use such weapons. 'Each NATO nuclear-sharing arrangement is governed by secret agreements,' the report said. 'It's an affront to democracy that citizens and lawmakers are not allowed to know that nuclear weapons from other countries are based on their soil or how much of their taxes is being spent on them,' said the report's co-author Alicia Sanders-Zakre. Eight countries openly possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Israel is widely assumed to have nuclear weapons, although it has never officially acknowledged this. ICAN said the level of nuclear weapons spending in 2024 by these nine nations could have paid the UN budget almost 28 times over. 'The problem of nuclear weapons is one that can be solved, and doing so means understanding the vested interests fiercely defending the option for nine countries to indiscriminately murder civilians,' said ICAN's program coordinator Susi Snyder. The private sector earned at least $42.5 billion from their nuclear weapons contracts in 2024 alone, the report said. There are at least $463 billion in ongoing nuclear weapons contracts, some of which do not expire for decades, and last year, at least $20 billion in new nuclear weapon contracts were awarded, it added. 'Many of the companies that benefited from this largesse invested heavily in lobbying governments, spending $128 million on those efforts in the United States and France, the two countries for which data is available,' ICAN said. Standard nuclear doctrine — developed during the Cold War between superpowers the United States and the Soviet Union — is based on the assumption that such weapons will never have to be used because their impact is so devastating, and because nuclear retaliation would probably bring similar destruction on the original attacker.
Asharq Al-Awsat
7 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Trump: On the Way to Crucial Summits
While President Donald Trump prepares for G-7 and NATO summits later this month political circles and media in Europe are busy trying to cut him down to size before the two events. 'Trump will come empty-handed,' says one commentator. 'None of the things he announced with fanfare has been achieved.' Other commentators use such phrases as 'deflated balloon' and 'bogged down in the mess he created.' At first sight it looks certain that he has not scored big on any of the dramatic goals he announced. His tariff campaign is stalled in a maze of zigzags. His peace-making gambit in Ukraine has led to him humiliating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and labelling Russian President Vladimir Putin as 'quite mad'. He has not secured the accord with Iran which he had boasted would be done and dusted in an afternoon. Worse still, scores of US judges have lined up to block some of his dramatic measures including the crackdown on illegal immigration. His purge of bureaucracy has also been stalled and the federal government is desperately rehiring many of the staff that Elon Musk fired as 'do-nothing parasites.' In another register, the Gaza tragedy continues and the ceasefire promised seems as remote as ever. The cherry on the top of all that is the riot triggered by illegal immigrants in Los-Angeles leading to the deployment of the National Guard and the Marines, a rare move in American history. Even on the personal side of things his success in securing business contracts for Trump holdings plus a Jumbo Jet is counter-balanced by the acrimonious split with his most ardent backer Elon Musk. With such a tableau, Trump's favorite words 'amazing' and 'wonderful' used to describe his first 100 days in office sound hollow. Well, what can one make of all that? At the start of Trump's second term I suggested that the sky hasn't fallen and advised those who saw the events as an end-of-time catastrophe to take a deep breath and not judge Trump by what he says he might do but wait and see what he does. At the time many Trump critics overestimated his power, indeed the power of any president of the United States and assumed he could do what he likes by fiat or ukase. This time they may be underestimating the United States as the indispensable world power. That misunderstanding is due to the fact that the American model doesn't easily fit into concepts such as democracy and republic. What became the United States was the fruit of a rebellion against a system in which concentration of power contained the threat of tyranny. For the Founding Fathers, therefore, the priority was to prevent any one person or institution of state to monopolize power with a system of checks and balances learned from Xenophon in his 'Cyropaedia' and Montesquieu in 'The Spirit of Laws'. Thus the US couldn't become a state modeled on Athenian democracy in which the 'people', which in fact meant a small minority of free male citizens could do whatever they liked with the power won through elections. Nor could the US become a republic modeled on the Roman republic or the more recent Venetian version where power was wielded by narrow patrician elites. To complicate matters further the system the founding fathers designed included elements both of democracy and republic. It is a democracy because almost all public positions are filled through elections. However, those elected face a series of constraints both in having their election confirmed and when exercising the power delegated to them. Worse still the art of winning an election isn't the same as the craft of governing. In other words a genius in winning elections may turn out to be a dunce in governing. In that system the Leviathan, Hobbes' symbol of state power, is heavily chained down. The aim of those who designed it was to make sure it did as little as possible. In what could be a constitutional republic democracy is more of a point of moral reference than a blank cheque to exercise power. This is why President Barack Obama, a closet collectivist, was unable to implement his agenda and inject a heavy dose of socialism into the American economy and foreign policy. George Shultz, one of the wisest American politicians of the last century, noted that no political battle in the US is ever won or lost forever. The US is a giant cruiser set on its course by mystical elements and couldn't be suddenly put on another course wished by the captain of the moment and his crew. Politicians, therefore, are either swimming with the tide or as L.H Mencken charged 'brothers in pillage.' According to Shultz, the American system doesn't allow radical changes; in its reform, could only be incremental. A passing revolutionary mood may help you win an election. Soon, however, you shall find out that you are in office but not in power to implement your promised revolutionary agenda. The American system is designed to slow down decision making to avoid both tyranny and anarchy. The ideal government in that model is one that doesn't do anything, thus allowing individuals who make up the society to shape their lives in a framework of laws that guarantees freedom. The key concept in the American system is consent which, if and when achieved, could allow changes of course, innovations and what is branded as reform. The political set-up against which Trump led his 'revolution' was the fruit of a consent that started with President Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' reforms and took almost half a century to shape the status quo that Trump challenged. The Trump 'revolution' was also the fruit of a new consent that took decades to shape as a challenge the status quo created by the previous consent in its many forms including positive discrimination, political correctness, globalism and more recently wokism. But, once the revolutionary mood ebbs reality strikes back with people who wish to light the chimney without setting their home on fire. Though the fruit of a rebellion dressed as a revolution American society has always been deeply conservative in politics. In some cases political power comes with a heavy dose of personal attributes. Nero wasn't satisfied with just being emperor and fancied himself as a great musician and poet. Although he had a squeaking voice he was convinced he was the best singer in the empire. Commodus believed he was a descendant of Hercules and showed his strength by strangling savage beasts in the forum. More recently, Obama saw himself as a magician to conjure a new American rabbit out of his cylinder hat while reforming the Islamic world. The Caesar may be able to tame the whole world but is unable to rule his own inner self. That task is always performed by reality which obeys no Caesar. Thus the best option is to wait until that golden rule of history is applied to Trump who continues to represent a desire by many Americans, perhaps still a majority, to put the giant cruiser on a new course. Reality will teach them that the American system allows only incremental changes of course. The Trump-Musk fall-off may not be a mere lovers' tiff but is also unlikely to be as final as it seems. Love cools, friends fall off, brothers divide belongs to theatre. In politics a Cato cannot re-script his role as a Brutus. The Trump-Musk duel may turn out to be a palatial version of catch wrestling popular in the US in which adversaries seem to be killing each other with incredibly violent attacks which turn out to be harmless show-off gestures. These are known as kayfabe in wrestling circles and regarded as an art form. Let us return to George Shultz. He believed that a US president could regard himself as immensely successful if he manages to implement 10 per cent of his agenda. Mencken, for his part, noted that all US presidential terms end either with a scandal or a sense of dissatisfaction. Well, who knows, maybe the system is so designed to produce only such outcomes.
