I. INTRODUCTION
The Daily Sabah newspaper published an interview with the representative of Turkish President Recep Erdogan, Ibrahim Kalyn. In the conversation, he said that the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh will be resolved only if the illegal occupation of Azerbaijani territories by Armenia ends. "Since Russia has a serious influence on Armenia and its armed forces are present there, we can discuss this issue with Russia. As a member of the Minsk group, Russia is also responsible. We shouldn't think just about today. We must take steps to end this occupation if we think of the future,” he said.
Azerbaijan declared "martial law" amid ongoing clashes on the border with Armenia, which began on September 27. This has led to an escalation of tension in the region. Turkey's reports of its support for Azerbaijan raise questions about what calculations Ankara is making about the region.
In this case, we may ask: taking into account that Azerbaijan may risk starting a war to change the status quo, what is the strategy or expectation that made Turkey rush at full speed with the slogan "one nation, two states"? Do they think they can bring this war to an end? Or is their goal to slightly oppress Russia in Libya and Syria with the fire kindled in the South Caucasus?
In Turkey, the AKP-MHP (The Justice and Development Party - The Nationalist Movement Party) nationalist coalition is no longer able to solve problems inside and outside the country in usual ways. The South Caucasus has been added to the mechanism of conflicts in Syria,Libya and the Eastern Mediterranean. In view of the scale of direct and indirect issues with Russia, this can also be depicted as a Syria-Libya-South Caucasus triangle.
Ankara took a step that drew sharp criticism. They sent militants to Azerbaijan. Unfortunately, the militants have become an instrument of Erdogan's foreign policy since the beginning of the Syrian crisis. Turkey has been turned into a jihadist support country.
Despite the fact that the transfer of militants between Syria and Libya made Turkey a member of the club of "abnormal countries", up to a certain point the situation developed in such a way that all sides were glad. Since 2012, Libyans have been fighting in Syria through the mobilization of jihadists, and now Syrians have been forced to fight in Libya as Turkey's reserve forces. 4 However, the problem of Nagorno Karabakh is fundamentally different. Sunni-jihadist militants were forced to fight on the side of Shiites, whom they considered 'enemies and kafirs (infidels)'. They confirmed this statement. One of the militants said: "We thought that we were going together with the Turks to the Turkish military bases on the border with Armenia. But the Turks are not with us, there is only the Azerbaijani army and they are all Shiites. This doesn't suit me. They are even greater enemies to us than the Jews and Christians. We will not fight with them or support them.". However, from now on, the militants are the elements of the interventionist foreign policy of the Erdogan regime.
I would like to remind you that Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan appealed to the international community to "use all your trump cards to prevent Turkey's intervention". This means that "if it is not stopped, the sides may be drawn into a war. If they do not return to diplomatic negotiations, then after a certain time we will talk about the danger of a clash between Turkey and Russia”.
The picture of the causes and consequences of the 30-year conflict keeps both sides one step away from war. While this reality is obvious, Turkey's harsh policy of brushing aside diplomacy is irresponsibly teasing the parties. Hostility towards Armenians is the easiest issue to provoke. This is exactly what is needed for nationalist-heroic flywheels.
II. ISOLATION LED ANKARA TO THE KARABAKH CRISIS
If my observations do not deceive me, this new opening curtain contains traces of Ankara's strategic thinking and scenario. As the unsuccessful leadership of the AKP (The Justice and Development Party) has brought economic difficulties, the problems in domestic politics have reached a serious level. In addition, the foreign policy of the last 5-6 years has been severely criticized.
In the following are some examples:
With the logistical support of the Turkish and the jihadist armies, in July, Ankara, stopped the advance of the forces of Tobruk/Benghazi government and allowed its allied forces of Tripoli government to capture some cities and military points, suspended its activities, destroying the Vatiye airbase by the forces of the opposing side. When Erdogan said: "It is impossible without taking Sirte/Jufra", the incident completely changed course, the operation was interrupted by all parties without exception. This was not enough, and the parties began to negotiate. The essence of the promise is that Ankara's political influence and oil prospects remain in the air. This wasteful operation, which lasted for several months and received the tacit support of the opposition, brought many losses to the AKP government. Currently, the people in Tripoli are seeking to restore the military and civilian contracts of the order of 30-35 billion dollars that they imposed on Sarac.
Let's look at the Mediterranean, the Aegean front. Although the front was not literally quieted, energy drilling activities and the warships accompanying the ships did not make any progress. On the contrary, the diplomatic efforts of two EU members, Cyprus and Greece, which Ankara took against itself, led to additional support from Germany. If the EU and Greece start negotiations with Ankara, they won’t do that the way Ankara wants. In addition to the EU, the US will also make things more difficult for Ankara in Alexandroupoli and Crete.
Search for fossil fuels in Cyprus, the nomination of Ankara's candidate Ersin Tatar in the TRNC presidential election, the opening of the Marash/Varosha coast – all these three steps not only strengthen the position of the Republic of southern Cyprus but also deepen Ankara's isolation in the international arena.
Let's look at the Northern Iraqi and Syrian fronts. Now it is even forbidden to publically discuss the problem-related issues in media. It is clear that, despite the worsening situation, the desired goals were not achieved, and the goal to "eradicate the PKK (The Kurdistan Workers' Party)" is one of those. Before the storm, silence has reigned in Idlib since early March. The parties are constantly tense. Ankara is said to have 25,000 soldiers in the Turkish Armed Forces, in addition to tens of thousands of jihadists. There is no explanation other than the security statement coming from the PKK. In other words, things are not going as well in the occupied regions. Terrible things are happening in Afrin, al-Bab, Azaz, Ras alAin, Tel Abyad. Ankara is wisely trying to colonize these places. All government bodies of Turkey have tried to put down roots in the area. But it seems that love cannot be forced. And so a lot of money is wasted.
In addition, the international press and reports of UN expert organizations track and record in detail huge violations of the human rights and laws of war on the occupied territories. All the secrets have been revealed, and one day the offenders will have to answer for everything. In addition to all these disappointments, Turkey's reputation in international organizations has been damaged as a result of aggressive foreign policy (UN, OSCE, NATO, EU, Arab League).
As soon as tension in Syria and Libya is increasing, and in addition to this Turkey had to yield to the requirements of the international community in Eastern Mediterranean, the crisis in the Caucasus may seem quite promising for Erdogan. What if Russia's patience comes to an end? What if Russia also interferes in the war? If the conflict escalates, Armenia and Azerbaijan will get unhealed wounds. This is a heavy burden. We must insist on peaceful ways of promoting peace.
III. THE ERDOGAN REGIME CONTINUES TO PLAY WITH FIRE AND TO SPREAD FIRE AROUND ITSELF
In the TV show Konuşa Konuşa (Speaking of), political scientist Yektan Türkyilmaz, who speculated about Turkey's attitude to the tension between Armenia and Azerbaijan, drew attention to the fact that Turkey's foreign policy generally gave preference to war. Focusing on such products of Turkish foreign policy as military operations in some countries of the region, Türkyilmaz, commented, "The regime continues to play with fire and spread the fire around itself”. He also added, "The regime is betting on the country's future."
Military policy is being implemented. The expression of Turkey's expansionist tendencies from the very top, including the President, coincides with the period after July 15, 2016. You have an absolutely weakened state mechanism in your hands, but you expect this state machine to perform actions that are impossible in the entire history of the Republic. The weaker you become, the more ambitious your goals become. As the regime weakens, it becomes aggressive in both domestic and foreign policy. It should be emphasized that Turkey is not able to resolve any issue. What can we say about achieving results when we see that the accumulated problems turn into gangrene".
Turkey adopted a military regime after the occupation in northern Syria in Rojava. The regime cannot stay afloat without this kind of tension. This is a narcissistic disorder. They think they are strong. But the truth is, whenever Turkey got involved in conflicts, it had to oppose the countries which possess nuclear weapons. The ruling political elite has shifted focus onto international affairs to distract from the domestic issues. Social networks broadcast photos of FSA fighters going to the Front. It is quite clear who had assembled FSA and who had directed it there. Turkey continues to play with fire and spread the fire around itself. This does not benefit the Turkish people or the state. Turkey is not able to solve the problems around it, and those who run the country are playing a game of chance, with the country's life and future at stake.
IV. “WE SENT MILITANTS TO AZERBAIJAN.”
As claims that Syrian jihadists are being transferred to the border with Armenia to support Azerbaijan gain strength, one of the commanders of the FSA, General Ziyad Haji Ubaid, reported sending militants to Azerbaijan. In an interview for Rudaw TV channel, he said that militants associated with the FSA went to fight in Azerbaijan.14 Also, he noted that: “Due to poor economic conditions, the militants are forced to go to clashes in Azerbaijan to feed their families. The economic situation in Afrin, Serekaniye (Ras al-Ain) and other regions is very bad, they cannot support their families.".
Noting that Turkey provides economic support to more than 70 thousand militants, Ubeid said: “We are ready to fight anywhere for the sake of Turkey's national interests and its security. We also protect our interests in order to achieve our goals. Militants are sent to fight in different places, based on common interests with Turkey, and in order to earn their living. We must repay our debt to Turkey for its support that it provides us.”.
V. MOST OF THE TIME IS WASTED
The author of the book “Armenia and Azerbaijan between Peace and the War in Karabakh” published in 2014 by the Hrant Dink Foundation, which tells about the conflict in NagornoKarabakh, journalist Thomas de Waal lists the mistakes made by the parties and proposals for their solution. “Neither side has a monopoly on justice. Both sides have historical claims to Karabakh. At this place, in the 12th century the medieval state of Great Armenia was located, and in the 18th century the Azerbaijani Khanate (Persian Shiite dynasties). Both peoples mostly lived here peacefully, together. There is too much propaganda around this topic. Neither side can be right or wrong, yet they often make similar claims. Azerbaijan, the loser of the conflict in the 1990s, is ready to use a military attack to change the facts about the site again. That is exactly what they did on Sunday. And yes, they were probably waiting for an opportunity that they thought the world was not paying attention to. However, this does not mean that the Armenian side is interested in peace. For a long time, they refused to engage in meaningful dialogue about the conflict. The fact that they call the region outside Nagorno-Karabakh, which they occupied in the 1990s, "liberated" makes them "passive aggressors" who support violence the most.".
De Waal says: “The mountainous terrain here, the ever-increasing number of deadly heavy weapons, and the proximity of villages and towns to the contact line mean that it is very difficult for one side to 'win' any military struggle. Greater conflicts will lead to massive bloodshed, suffering and hatred. The conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh differs significantly from other post-Soviet conflicts (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Ukraine) since, in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, Russia has interests regarding both sides. For this reason, Russia cannot take sides.
Most of the time is wasted. The last serious negotiations took place 20 years ago. Instead, there are scattered contacts and what one of the mediators calls "Kabuki negotiations." The last two Special Advisers to really make contact in the 1990s were Zhirayr Libaridian and Vafa Guluzade. In the international arena, states can help draft a peace agreement, offer financial assistance and (most importantly) peacekeepers. But only Armenians and Azerbaijanis can solve this problem.
In fact, the Armenians won the war in the 1990s, they own all the territory they wanted. They want to normalize the current situation. However, Azerbaijan, for various reasons, expects that it will benefit from military actions.
VI. RUSSIA AND TURKEY MAY HAVE STRONG DISAGREEMENT
Former Turkish Ambassador to Washington and Baku Faruk Logoglu said it would be right to take steps to resolve the conflict peacefully. According to the Cumhuriyet newspaper, Logoglu, who noted the possible consideration of the topic of Turkey's support for Azerbaijan in the UN Security Council, commented: "Of course, there is an option to conquer the territories occupied by Azerbaijan with weapons. But the preferred method should be diplomacy, no matter what."
As for the steps that Turkey should take, Logoglu said: "Azerbaijan is not only a fraternal country but also our neighbour. Power lines are of strategic importance in terms of transportation. Since mutual national interests are also at stake, Turkey must resort to the diplomatic path. Russian soldiers still guard Armenia's borders, and Armenia wants to maintain this confidence. One of Armenia's calculations is to push Turkey against Russia through a conflict with Azerbaijan. Turkey must not fall into this trap. I also don't think that Russia will follow this path. In my opinion, along with the fact that conflicts on the ground have the potential to escalate into war, international players, including Russia, will make every effort to stop these conflicts in a short time."
In connection with the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Erdogan said: "I once again condemn Armenia, which attacked Azerbaijani lands yesterday. After Armenia immediately leaves the occupied territories, peace and calm will be restored in the region."
Erdogan in his speech, noting that the Minsk group has not been able to solve the problem for 30 years, said the following: "They did almost everything in their power not to solve this problem. Now they teach and threaten. What is this threat? Those who claimed: "Is there any Turkey? Are there any Turkish soldiers here, transporting thousands of trucks with weapons in our South, especially in the North of Syria?" This is said by those who divided the North of Syria and established bases there. This is said by those who threw a spear into Syria by the coalition forces. And now they have come and say: "Are there any Turkish soldiers here? If Turkey is supplying weapons in here?". Where is the logic? As if our brother Ilham Aliyev should report to them. He has been reporting to you constantly for almost 30 years, they said: "Let's deal with this issue, stop procrastinating." Who owns the occupied land? This is the territory of Azerbaijan. You all agree with this. You recognize Nagorno-Karabakh. Local residents, more than 1 million people, now live far from their lands, in Azerbaijan. And the invaders are there now. No one wants to be held accountable for this. Azerbaijan, which declared that the time for settlement had already come, inevitably had to cut its umbilical cord."
VII. CONCLUSION: THE RISK OF CONFRONTATION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND TURKEY
The goal of Ankara's actions in Nagorno-Karabakh seems to be to refuse to work in the Minsk Group and to create a new negotiating table. It is the same ineffective strategy of Erdogan to build up power that he had in Libya, Syria and the Eastern Mediterranean. But there are some risks. If they go beyond the limits, the situation will change completely.
Moscow, which has used diplomatic means to warn against jihadists and against the support of one side through open intervention by Turkey, has not yet taken any action. But if their patience comes to an end? In addition, Erdogan is already in a much more fragile position than he should be, because he has problems with mutual trust with all his former allies. As a result, this may lead to the risk of a clash between Ankara and Moscow.
Now that hostilities have broken out, Erdogan supports the position of Azerbaijan, avoiding the role of a mediator between the warring parties. It is profitable to supply Azerbaijan with weapons. The US calls on the Minsk Group to act, while China calls on the parties to be held accountable. Russia wants a peaceful resolution of the conflict, and Iran offers mediation in the negotiations. But Turkey fully supports one side of the conflict. Erdogan is not interested in resolving the conflict, which does not increase his prestige in Azerbaijan and his political influence in the Caucasus region.
Armenia is known to have strong lobbies in Western countries. Also, do not forget that Erdogan will face Russia if Turkey's goal is to increase its influence in the Caucasus. Turkey's transfer of Syrian fighters to Azerbaijan, as before to Libya, is a border for Moscow that should not have been crossed. In this conflict, Russia is on the side of Armenia, Turkey is on the side of Azerbaijan, and uncontrolled events also pose the risk of possible major and longterm crises.
by ArifASALIOGLU
International Institute of the Development of Science Cooperation (MIRNAS)
