Siyaset Bilimi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Bölümü Koleksiyonu
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11779/1939
Browse
4 results
Search Results
Other War as the True Adversary and Türkiye’s Pivotal Role in Forging Peace(SETA Foundation, 2024) Çağlar, BarışThe central thesis of this article depends on deterrence theory and posits that nuclear war, rather than any specific nation or faction, constitutes the true adversary in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and that averting nuclear escalation must be prioritized above all else. After establishing the rationale for this position, the commentary offers a critical analysis of both Western and Russian policies, highlighting their role in intensifying the conflict without sufficiently accounting for the risks of nuclear confrontation. As an alternative peaceful path, the article examines the Turkish approach as a concise applied case study, emphasizing its balanced diplomatic and military engagement with both Ukraine and Russia. Through its promotion of dialogue and facilitation of peace negotiations, Türkiye exemplifies a strategic approach to conflict resolution that aims not only to prevent further escalation —especially the threat of nuclear conflict— but also to pave the way toward sustainable peace. © 2024, SETA Foundation. All rights reserved.Article Citation - WoS: 4Citation - Scopus: 3Between a Rock and a Hard Place: How To Make Sense of Turkey’s S-400 Choice(SETA Foundation, 2020) Kibaroğlu, MustafaWith the wrap-up of the S-400 deal with Russia in December 2017, critics argue that Turkey is caught between a rock and a hard place due to the adamant opposition of its NATO allies, the United States in particular, which has threatened Ankara with imposing severe sanctions. Would this be the correct representation of the situation at hand? Does it make any sense for Turkey to engage Russia, an archrival nation, to enhance the security of the country? Is the S-400 deal worth the risk of alienating the allied nations whose projected sanctions may have wide-ranging political, economic and military repercussions? With these questions in mind, this paper will try to shed light on the specifics of the S-400 deal that make one think that it may indeed make sense for Turkey to bear the brunt of engaging Russia. In the same vein, the paper will assess the impact of the S-400 deal on Turkey’s defense industries. The paper will also present the author’s conception of the current “international political non-order” as an underlying factor behind the deal. Finally, the paper will suggest that the S-400 deal must be approached from a wider perspective so as to grasp the extent of the service it has done in bolstering Turkey’s military-industrial complex. © 2020, SETA Foundation. All rights reserved.Review On Turkey's Missile Defense Strategy: the Four Faces of the S-400 Deal Between Turkey and Russia(Republic of Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2019) Kibaroğlu, MustafaThe S-400 deal signed between Turkey and Russia has sparked an intense debate in the international arena, where harsh criticisms have been leveled against Turkey, extending from whether Turkey needs to spend billions of dollars to buy an air defense system whose effectiveness has not yet been entirely proven across a spectrum of air-borne threats, to how Turkey's longstanding alliance relationship with the US and its status in NATO as a prominent Ally might be severely damaged due to the country's increasing degree of rapprochement with Russia. Hence, this paper will, first of all, explain the reasons behind Turkey's desire to build an elaborate air defense structure, and discuss how and why its successive attempts to reach this objective in collaboration with the allied countries have failed. Second, the paper will highlight the major arguments behind the severe criticisms in the West concerning Turkey's negotiations, first with a Chinese firm, and then with a Russian firm, and how this entire process has become a serious bone of contention between Turkey and the US, carrying a risk of a spill over into NATO. Third, the paper will discuss why and how the severe sanctions threatened to be imposed on Turkish defense industries by the Trump administration will indeed damage the security and the defensive capability not only of Turkey, but also the United States. Fourth, the paper will elaborate on how the intense debate on the S-400 deal with Russia has become a politically motivating factor for young Turks to join the defense industries sector, and for the government to further support and sponsor domestic research and development projects in this field. Finally, the paper will conclude with remarks and recommendations with a view to finding a breakthrough in the strained relations between Turkey and US stemming from its decision to buy the Russian S-400 air defense system.Editorial Ban the Bomb by ... Banning the Bomb? a Turkish Response(Taylor & Francis, 2017) Kibaroğlu, MustafaThe golden age of deterrence has reached its end. Nuclear weapons, once a star player on the international stage, no longer enjoy a place in the limelight. To be sure, some policymakers still ascribe to nuclear weapons the same prestige that, during the Cold War, they gained because of their unmatched destructive power and the leverage they provided nuclear weapon states in the international arena. But the Cold War environment, in which nuclear weapons in the hands of two superpowers played a vital role in maintaining strategic stability, does not exist anymore. Nor is it likely to be replicated in the future – despite certain parallels between US–Soviet relations during the Cold War and present-day US–Russia relations. Meanwhile, it is painfully obvious that nuclear deterrence is useless against apocalyptic terrorist organizations motivated by religious extremism. If such a group acquired and used a nuclear weapon, there would be no “return address” toward which retaliation could be directed. And apocalyptic terrorists probably do not fear destruction in the first place. Now that the golden age of deterrence has reached its end, banning nuclear weapons has become achievable – as long as the values that policymakers ascribe to them can be undermined. Now is the time to strip away the handsome mask that hid nuclear weapons’ ugly face throughout the Cold War. It is time for the world to treat nuclear weapons just like chemical and biological weapons – those other weapons of mass destruction – as mere slaughtering weapons, undeserving of prestige. It is time to ban nuclear weapons – just as biological and chemical weapons were banned through the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.