As the war progresses, a growing list of countries are exploring the possibility of mediation, taking steps to prevent further bloodshed and the conflict spreading beyond Ukraine’s borders.
Almost all countries that have fought for a mediating role have also engaged in a strategic balancing act between the West and Russia for some time. Playing the role of a mediator is a way for them to prevent further devastation in the conflict and to project international stature. But it is also a way for them to avoid making difficult choices that war might impose on them, such as choosing a side more explicitly or bowing down.
But the list of fencers in the Russia-Ukraine conflict is not limited to mediators. Many more countries have chosen to remain “neutral”, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Morocco. The rationale for abstinence varies from country to country, but some of the reasons differ.
The international system is changing. And the idea that the world is no longer Western-centred, and increasingly multipolar, is pervasive in the non-Western world. It also informs his policies towards Russia and China.
As long as the dominant narrative of this war is kept in the West/NATO vs Russia duality, it will have little resonance in the non-Western world. Furthermore, the fence-sitting approach is also a way to signal dissatisfaction with US/Western policy.
But Turkey sitting on the fence and trying to mediate in all of these countries has a unique profile and position. It is a NATO member, an organization for which Russia and previously the Soviet Union served. Purpose or basic danger.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been critical of the Western-centred international system. But as a member of many Western institutions, Turkey is also a beneficiary, and in a sense, part of the geopolitical West.
Meanwhile, Turkey also has maritime borders with both Ukraine and Russia. Also, Turkey is Russia’s largest trading partner in the Middle East and North Africa region. And it has competed and cooperated with Russia in recent years through conflict zones in Syria, Libya and Nagorno-Karabakh.
Turkey has the highest stake in this conflict compared to other contenders for arbitration. The war is fundamentally changing geopolitics and the balance of power in the Black Sea region, and Turkey is a major Black Sea power.
In addition to Russia’s dominance of the Black Sea, it has a large Mediterranean presence where it is deeply involved in conflict sites in Syria and Libya. If the war goes on for a long time, Turkey’s maritime shutdown will put pressure on Russian policy in these conflict zones.
Yet unlike other NATO members, Turkey has neither joined Western sanctions against Moscow nor closed its airspace to Russia. Doing so would likely have triggered a Russian veto against Turkey’s quest to mediate the conflict. And numbers of anti-war Russian activists and pro-Kremlin people are moving to Turkey.
In any case, at this stage, there is as yet no sign of the West pushing Turkey more strongly to join the sanctions regime against Moscow. And despite Turkey’s efforts, the conflict is not yet ready for mediation, as Moscow is still hell-bent on the military option. This does not mean that efforts or negotiations in this conflict will stop; Conversely, we are likely to see more.
Russia wants to give the impression that it is interested in diplomacy to buy time and prevent further Western sanctions, but to no avail. Any success should not be expected soon. Yet it is still important to keep the idea of the diplomatic process alive. At the same time, mediation serves Turkey’s interests well. It enhances its international structure; Turns Turkey into one of the major centers of diplomacy in this conflict; and delays some difficult decisions he may have to face down the road.
That said, as the war progresses, Turkey’s previous strategic juggernaut may no longer be possible, especially with Russia now perceived more openly as an enemy of NATO and European security.