Interview with Süheyla Demir

Süheyla Demir – Haber Global Foreign News Director

Mina Merve Selvi – Damla Kalafat – Yaren Birben

Figure 1: Süheyla Demir, Yaren Birben

Süheyla Demir

Süheyla Demir completed her undergraduate studies in Political Science and International Relations at Yıldız Technical University. Afterward, she received a master's degree in international relations from the Russian Friendship and Peace University (RUDN) in Moscow with a Russian State Scholarship. She completed her dissertation on Av Eurasian Policies of the Russian Federation in the Putin Period. She is currently a foreign news director at Haber Global.

Y: First of all, thank you for your time. Our first question is on the topic of S400s. What kind of significance do the S400s bought from Russia have on the relationship between Turkey and Russia and what are your opinions on this matter?
S: Of course, Russia and Turkey are two sides of separate blocks. Turkey, a member of NATO and Russia, heir of the Soviet Union, a country that NATO sees as a threat and still ranks them as a country of their top threats. When we look at Turkey's foreign policy in recent years it has managed to set policies on a multilateral line hence relations with Russia did not develop only in the political and commercial sense, but also in the field of defense. We see that this volume of defense cooperation with Russia has increased even though there are no strategic weapons being bought. S400s are a complete conjuncture. Especially when we look at the beginning of the civil war in Syria with NATO, in this air tender, we came across a situation which Russia came to the forefront after China. What happened was that there was a war that occurred at Turkey’s borders and a serious perception of a threat, especially at the southern borders. Turkey was seeking to strengthen its air defense systems. But American and European countries’ offers are either too expensive or the date for delivery was too late. When we look at all this, the S400s are actually seen as a compulsory formula and collaboration.

Y: What is the main purpose of the US to try to stop and prolong the S-400 intake?

S: Trump is quieter about this. There are two sides explaining the US view, one of which is the Pentagon defense wing and the other is the diplomatic wing of foreign affairs. Why are they opposed? Because, like the F35, the US's most expensive defense strategy, these planes are still in the production process and although two planes have been added to Turkey’s inventory but have not yet been shipped to Turkey. If the S-400 is taken, it came to a point of “it could not happen”, because the F-35s are air defense systems that directly target and destroy American aircraft missiles. So, they are saying, why do I have to keep the F35s and S-400s competing with each other in my NATO territory and why I should enter a system where I spend a lot of money and even put my national security in this framework, and why I should risk giving Russia the secrets of an airplane.

Y: Our second topic is about the nuclear disarmament issue, which is more so related to the USA, Russia and North Korea. My first question is what is the negative effect of the failed negotiation of the American leader's meeting with the North Korean leader on nuclear disarmament?

S: We are talking about the meeting in Vietnam that the negotiation table was overthrown, so the process is at a standstill. In the early days of 2018, we woke up to see if there was a serious danger of nuclear war because of N. Korea threatened the US again by saying that their nuclear button was on the table at all times and Trump used a strange explanation of nuclear restraint, war restraint saying that his nuclear button is bigger. With Trump's meeting with Kim Jong-Un in June, and signing a secret treaty, we thought we'd left it behind. In other words, there was such a fear in the USA at that time that there were briefings in the newspapers on how you could protect yourself if there was a nuclear attack. We had a negotiation process which helped leave behind such a real perception of threat, but again the investments that the US have used as a very effective diplomacy tool came back into play. The reason is because in his own country, the Trump administration was facing serious criticism, he had sat at the same table as a dictator which especially drew a reaction from the Democrats, but on the one hand, a serious threat was eliminated with the start of the long-standing negotiation process. Therefore, the Trump administration went on to pursue negotiations with N. Korea, while also continuing sanctions and even renewal to soothe the reactions within the country, what did this do? Negotiations will continue when N. Korea presents a condition in Vietnam, I will forward the process, but you will remove these, these, these parts of the sanctions, when the sanctions were lifted, the two sides left the table without signing any agreements but also threatening the future of the negotiations, and in the present case opposes on Pompeo's participation in the negotiations, in other words even the continuation of the negotiations are stipulated.

Y: My second question is, after the negative meeting with the US, how was Putin’s meeting with Kim Jong-Un interpreted by other countries? What was the reaction of America in particular to this meeting?

S: The American press sees this as follows; I have allies in N. Korea, China is not the only one behind me, Russia is also behind me meaning that they have a strong hand in the negotiations, all-wise. But the US’s approach is that Trump declared a very early victory, after the Singapore meeting with Kim Jong-Un, he signed an agreement which was doubtful of success and details were kept secret, yes, and after the negotiating table was set up, S. Korea took a number of good steps but destroyed their nuclear facility and hasn't tried ballistic nuclear missiles for a long time, but there has been no trust between the parties, and the two countries where such serious value judgments differ, especially in North Korea, who sees the US presence and the EU's nuclear capacity as a threat to its regime. In such a situation, North Korea once again saw that Trump's declaration of early victory was unjustified and that Putin was trying to create new achievements, especially in the face of the weakening of the EU's foreign policies. The following comment was very striking; In the International Edition of the Financial Times, they were comments that Putin used Kim Jung-Un's visit to increase Russian influence in the North Korean issue in the region. So, the criticism of Trump was hasty, firstly the background of the process was not very full, secondly, there is a comment that Russia used the visit to increase its power.

Y: Can Russia being on North Korea’s side change the political balances? What is the main purpose of Russia having this meeting?

S: Russia has always been by the North Korea side economically, and its economic relations with North Korea during the Soviet Union period were very good. After China, North Korea's second largest import partner is again, Russia. So, there’s not a huge change in that matter. In the previous process, yes, Russia was opposing North Korea's nuclear missile trials. Although if a solution was to be found, not only South Korea or the United States would be solicited by observing these allies but also having North Korea sit at the table and meeting the demands of North Korea. So, this meeting will not change anything, the only change was before the meeting, which was that for the first time an incumbent American leader was seated at the same table with an incumbent North Korean leader, but besides that the economic and political relations between North Korea and Russia have always been in this dimension.

Y: How was America's failed meeting interpreted amongst world leaders? What are your comments on this matter?

S: Of course, before the meeting in Singapore, there was a lot of excitement and the expectation in the world because it was going to be a first, they would sit at the table for the first time and the frame was more or less obvious, the goal of normalizing relations and concrete results like South Korea finally accepting to have its signature on a document on nuclear disarmament were achieved even though the details were kept confidential. Since the expectations were low there were no sensational remarks or comments that they were disappointed.

Y: Moving on to the Syria topic. How did Russia's presence with Assad have an impact on world politics?

S: Let say that Russia has had good relations with Syria since the Soviet period because, the only military base that Russia has in The Mediterranean is in Syria so, having good relations with the administration has significant impact on national interests and strengthening its position in world politics. What happened? Until the year 2015, the Syrian army experienced a serious loss of land, and while a terrorist organization such as DAESH emerged suddenly, Russia read the situation well and created a good scenario. Now Russia has shown how they became a playmaker country in the Middle East by knowing the opportunity of United States policy in the Roman period that was criticized by weakness. So, balances with Syria completely changed with Russia entering the Syria territory. Also, while Russia strengthens its own position in the Middle East, maintaining its interests and thus increasing its weight in world politics, the US failed policy emerged. Trump administration's discourses even before Donald Trump came in power. In terms of moderating the conflict in Syria, the cooperation carried out with Turkey and with Turkey’s aircraft crises with Russia and Syria involved in the negotiation process with the inclusion of Iran as a country that declared a ceasefire throughout the country, a new form of cooperation was formed, and Russia became a quarterback and a game changer.

Y: A long-term civil war is taking place in Syria, what has been the impact on Russia-Turkey and Turkey-US relations?

S: We have seen that there is a new crisis of confidence for Russia-USA and a crisis that leads to the questioning of the NATO alliance. The biggest breaking point in Syria is YPG, the Syrian Kurds. The US is in an alliance with the Syrian Kurds and the YPG, YPG is a terrorist organization for Turkey, an extension of the PKK in Syria. In this sense, Turkey says it does not see the support it wants from NATO. In response, the United States says that it understands the threat of national security but will not give up co-operation with YPG. At present, the issue of the safe zone is in the foreground, which has information that the US has agreed to remove the YPG from the region within about 32 km but has not yet been concluded. This problem between Turkey and the US birthed a serious crisis over Syria. In terms of Russia-Turkey concluded in cooperation but Russia did not use the YPG and Syrian Kurds card yet and is using the wait and see policy for now.

Y: We have been reading a lot of news about Russia's involvement in the election of Trump for a long time. Recently, a Russian agent was sentenced to 18 years in prison for turning US politics in favor of Moscow. How did the news coverage in this way affect US-Russian relations which have already gone bad, and especially the credibility of the US? What's your opinion on this?

S: Since the relationship between America and Russia was the worst period in the Obama era, there was hope with Trump in the Russian administration. In fact, it was a more cautious approach, although he was a leader who sent moderate messages against Russia, the claim of interference in elections arose. There allegations that there is data on the US side, but the real question was the interventions made by agreeing with the Trump administration? They intervened, but Trump's electoral team is still investigating. As for the relationship, the bilateral relationship was already in the wreckage; economic sanctions, such as being on separate ranks in the Syrian war. The Trump administration is now a hostage for intervention. He could not make a move with Russia and even increased the sanctions against Russia in order to ease the internal reactions. Therefore, we cannot expect an improvement in the bilateral relationship until the allegations are fully concluded.

Y: Even though Turkey and Russia have a turbulent relationship (the crash of a Russian aircraft in Syria, the Russian ambassador being killed) we observe that at the end of each term, they establish good relationships, but we do not see the same course of events in terms of Turkey-US. What do you think the most important reason for this is?

S: We see it in America, but it takes time to solve. Russia and Turkey are not located in the same alliance point anyway. We are in a formation structure where we can draw our free borders ourselves because we are not in a formation like the Russian NATO. We had an aircraft crisis, yes, but Russia was in need of Turkey for cross-border operations. There are many points of interest that enable the crisis to be overcome quickly. Although the murder of the Russian ambassador was another conjuncture, it could have been a reason for war but because Russia could read the political turmoil within Turkey much better and much more cold-bloodedly, it did not turn into a crises headline. We do not have a cooperative structure with clearer obligations like NATO. The two countries, especially in Syria, are in need of each other because of economic sanctions. So, there is a mutual balance of interest.

Y: Do you think that the Ukraine-Russia relations, which have become a big problem, can return to their former state with the election of the new president in Ukraine? What do you think the most important reason for Russia's insistence on Ukraine is?

S: Someone like Vladimir Zelenskiy took power and did not offer a solution map for the Donbas problem. Zelenskiy is not a politician, he is an actor who plays a statesman, an avatar of Ukraine's fair-minded leader, but will now turn into a real actor. That is why we cannot make predictions because he did not hold rallies and press conferences but rather used a strategy to win the election. So, what will happen? He said he could sit down with Russia recently, that's a good step. Russia is now approaching cautiously and using a wait and see the policy. We are open to communication, but there are certain demands at the border of the bomb and now they see the federation as a solution. The main purpose of Russia's insistence is that Ukraine is actually the birthplace of Russian identity, more than a neighbor for Russia. They lived together during the Soviet period and Russia sees Ukraine as their backyard. Although Russia claims that they respect Ukraine’s sovereign rights when Ukraine signed a joint trade agreement with the European Union and did not participate in the Eurasian Economic Co-operation project, instead of choosing the European way, a serious crisis broke out as Russia claimed Crimea as its territory. Russia also defines EU relations over Ukraine. Forcing Ukraine to choose between the two sides have had these consequences for Brussels and Moscow because Russia says that "Steps should not be taken against me in regions where I have political and economic influence in the EU". It is considered a betrayal that Ukraine, which is at a very special point in terms of Russian identity, is on the side of the EU.

Y: I want to ask this because I am very curious about the matter. After the election of Trump, we observed that the US pursued new policies in international agreements. (Paris treaty, nuclear treaties) These developments were welcomed negatively in the field of world politics and many comments were made about the end of liberal democracy. In the light of recent developments in the world, what are your views on this issue? Do you think world politics is on the verge of serious change?

S: It could really be, because when we look at it, yes, they withdrew from a signed nuclear agreement with Iran, for example. In European countries, the US in Iran in Russia, it was a rare agreement that was potentially a victory for everyone, but Turkey withdrew from this by promising to sign a new agreement. It is still in force, but it is in danger because in the future elections in Iran, if a more clear-eyed person becomes president, he will probably withdraw from an agreement with Iran because the sanctions are continuing. The Iranian economy is adversely affected, which may end when a more populist, more right-wing government is on the agenda. There is a project to establish an Arab NATO in the Middle East and negotiations have already started. Thus, it could pose a military alliance against Iran and as the New York Times stated the sanctions and the withdrawal from the agreement could lead to a war threat. At the same time, Trump is an unpredictable leader, so his relations with even his closest allies can be broken. He uses menacing language at NATO summits, then meets with the North Korean leader a few weeks later as if creating an atmosphere of sincerity. In other words, even unpredictable and traditional alliances sometimes act as if they could draw a line over them. Customs war policy is the other part of the event, additionally applying customs duties, not only against China but also in Europe and Turkey that protects the interests of the United States. We have a leader who increases the uncertainties in a trade before us.