Over the previous two months, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan hosted a NATO summit in Ankara and attended the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Bishkek. On his way back, Erdoğan presented the latter as part of Turkey’s “commitment to diversifying its economic, political, and strategic options”. This is not far removed from the usual analytical vocabulary. Ankara’s ability to straddle East and West is variously described as balancing, hedging or seeking strategic autonomy.

There are important differences between these concepts. Yet they often direct attention towards the same question: Where does Turkey stand in relation to the great powers? Turkish practices become evidence of the country’s position. The risk is that position then becomes a shortcut for assessing agency.

This can distort assessments in both directions. A focus on positioning can overestimate agency when the practice, purpose and effects of balancing are collapsed into one another. Maintaining relationships with competing powers may be intended to preserve flexibility and may, in turn, expand Ankara’s diplomatic repertoire. But such effects do not by themselves establish what Turkey can achieve through the options that these relationships create. At the same time, viewing Turkish foreign policy primarily through alignment can underestimate agency when practices that do not alter Turkey’s geopolitical position are overlooked, despite altering what Ankara can do.

The appeal of a balancing lens is understandable. It makes seemingly contradictory practices intelligible as part of a broader strategy. But explaining their strategic logic is not the same as assessing their effects. 

What becomes visible if we set aside balancing as the primary lens?

The test in the Black Sea 

Turkey’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has commonly been read as a balancing act. Ankara has not joined Western sanctions against Russia and has maintained political and economic ties with Moscow. At the same time, it has provided military support to Ukraine and applied the Montreux Convention to the passage of warships through the Turkish Straits, with consequences for Black Sea and non-Black Sea states alike. Read in this way, these policies appear to place Ankara somewhere between Russia and its Western allies. But a practice can matter without moving Turkey anywhere geopolitically.

More than four years later, Turkey continues to regulate naval access to the Straits. Together with Romania and Bulgaria, it operates the Black Sea Mine Countermeasures Task Group, whose mandate has expanded from mine clearance to the protection of critical undersea infrastructure following the Ankara NATO summit in July. Amid renewed attacks on commercial shipping, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has announced a proposal for the safe passage of grain, which Turkey is discussing with both Russia and Ukraine.

The basis of Turkish capacity is different in each case. Montreux gives Ankara authority over naval access within rules that also limit its discretion. Mine countermeasures are conducted through operational cooperation with Romania and Bulgaria. Relations with both Moscow and Kyiv create an opportunity for Ankara to broker an arrangement over commercial navigation, but not the conditions for agreement. Ankara’s agency is thus more specific, conditional and relational than the balancing vocabulary allows us to see.

What follows from where Turkey stands?

Turkey may well balance. The problem begins when balancing becomes the primary lens through which everything else is seen. It places great-power relations at the centre of the analysis, even where the capacity in question is produced elsewhere. Shifting the focus away from position raises a different set of questions: What can Ankara do? What enables it to do so? And which other actors does it depend on?

A practice that barely registers on an East–West axis may nevertheless alter what Turkey is able to do. For policy analysis, the relevant question is therefore not only where Ankara stands but also what it can affect, through which relationships and under what conditions.

Dr Daria Isachenko is a Visiting Fellow in the Eastern Europe and Eurasia Research Division at SWP.

License

This work is licensed under CC BY 4.0