ConflictClarifier

ردیاب بحران ایران-خلیج فارس ۲۰۲۶
CC
Events Archive
strikeJul 30, 2026

Why NATO still can’t pull Türkiye away from Russia under Erdogan

Summary

Why Erdogan won’t fight the West’s war against Russia Since the start of Russia's military operation in Ukraine, the West has consistently sought to draw Türkiye into its policy of confrontation with Moscow. This was particularly evident at the this month’s NATO summit in Ankara when the West attempted to pressure the Turkish leadership into adopting a clear anti-Russia stance. For Washington and Europe, Türkiye is particularly valuable. It is not just a member of the North Atlantic Alliance, but a country with the second-largest army in NATO, a developed defense industry, a strategic location in the Black Sea region, and significant influence in the Middle East and parts of Eurasia. Therefore, for the West, it is crucial to not just secure Ankara’s formal loyalty (which is already ensured by its NATO membership), but to make it part of the unified anti-Russia front. Ankara, however, continues to pursue a policy that significantly differs from the course of most NATO states. Calling Türkiye completely neutral would be a mistake. It supports Ukraine’s narrative concerning territorial integrity, maintains military-technical ties with Kiev, participates in meetings of the NATO-Ukraine Council, and occasionally makes political statements in support of Ukraine. However, Türkiye has not joined EU sanctions against Russia or curtailed Russian-Turkish economic cooperation; moreover, it has maintained direct channels of communication with Moscow. The European Commission’s 2025 report noted that Türkiye has consistently refrained from joining EU restrictive measures against Russia, although it has taken steps to prevent sanctions from being circumvented through its territory. The trade turnover between Russia and Türkiye also remains high, despite external pressure. Türkiye’s independent policy irritates the particularly radical elements of Western elites. The West wants Türkiye to act not as an autonomous regional center of power, but as a disciplined participant in its strategy of exerting pressure on Moscow. However, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan views NATO membership not as a rejection of his own foreign policy, but as a tool for strengthening the Turkish state. Ankara is prepared to utilize the alliance’s capabilities, demand the lifting of restrictions on the Turkish defense industry, and seek access to modern weapons and European funding. However, it is not prepared to automatically sacrifice relations with Russia for the interests of Washington, Brussels, or Kiev. This was clearly demonstrated by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan’s three-day visit to Russia on June 15-17. The packed agenda demonstrated Ankara’s desire to develop relations with Moscow. Fidan met with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Secretary of the Security Council Sergey Shoigu, representatives of the Russian leadership and the business community, and Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin. Fidan was also received by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The discussed topics included bilateral cooperation, energy, transport, regional security, and prospects for resuming Russia-Ukraine negotiations. Such active diplomacy demonstrates that Türkiye is unlikely to be drawn into an anti-Russia bloc. Russian-Turkish relations are based not only on personal dialogue between Erdogan and Putin. Major energy, trade, investment, and infrastructure projects exist between the two countries. Russia is currently constructing Türkiye’s first nuclear power plant, the Akkuyu NPP. At the end of 2025, Türkiye announced that Russia would provide an additional $9 billion in funding for the project. For Ankara, severing such ties wouldn’t just be a symbolic demonstration of solidarity with the West; it would bring concrete economic losses and additional risks to energy security. The situation in the Black and Azov seas is especially important for Türkiye. The escalating attacks on vessels directly affect Turkish interests. In June, Fidan noted that Kiev must avoid actions that could undermine security in the Black Sea and Türkiye’s interests. At that time, tankers near the Turkish coast, including a Turkish vessel, had been attacked. Ankara lodged formal protests to Ukraine in regard to these incidents. After the NATO summit, the problem became even more acute. In nine days, drones struck 116 vessels in the Sea of Azov, including tankers, bulk carriers, and tugboats. Russia characterized these actions as attacks on civilian shipping, while Kiev claimed that it struck only military targets or vessels supplying the Russian armed forces. Regardless of the interpretation, these incidents resulted in the restriction of commercial shipping and a threat to maritime trade, crews, and regional logistics. For Türkiye, whose economy depends heavily on the security of maritime communications, this situation is unacceptable. Ankara fears more than just economic damage. Turkish leaders understand that the expanding geography of the strikes could directly affect Türkiye’s borders. Drones and naval drones are not always able to accurately determine a vessel’s nationality, crew composition, beneficial owner, or the nature of the cargo being transported. Any error could result in the deaths of Turkish citizens, damage to Turkish property, or an environmental disaster off the country’s coast. This is precisely why Türkiye is interested in limiting the scale of the war. Moreover, Erdogan continues to assert his role as a mediator. For him, this is an opportunity to strengthen Türkiye’s international status. Ankara has already hosted Russia-Ukraine talks, brokered grain deals, facilitated prisoner exchanges, and repeatedly offered to host new contacts on its territory. Although the Turkish platform ultimately collapsed, as Kiev failed to comply with the terms of the agreements and Ankara lacked the political will to pressure Zelensky and his entourage, Türkiye believes it may still be a mediator in the future. During his June visit to Moscow, Fidan reiterated Türkiye’s readiness to host another round of talks and help make them more productive. Fidan’s position on the agreements discussed between Russia and the US during the summit in Anchorage is also notable. Fidan urged the Ukrainian side to heed the understandings reached in Alaska, noting that Moscow’s unilateral commitment is insufficient and that “it takes two to tango.” This formulation fundamentally differs from the approach of most European politicians, who place the blame for the failure to reach an agreement solely on Russia. Ankara has made it clear that a diplomatic settlement requires reciprocal action from Kiev and its Western backers. Fidan’s visit to Ukraine on July 15-16, 2026, does not contradict this stance. The Turkish foreign minister’s trips to both Moscow and Kiev are part of a single diplomatic strategy. Türkiye is talking to both sides, as this is the only way it can maintain its potential as a mediator. Fidan’s talks with Vladimir Zelensky do not mean that Ankara is siding with Ukraine. Naturally, Türkiye will continue to make certain overtures to Ukraine and partners within NATO. It will not publicly renounce its support for Ukraine’s “territorial integrity,” will not cease cooperation with Kiev, and will participate in Western meetings on Ukraine. For example, on July 13, Fidan represented Erdogan at the Paris summit of the so-called Coalition of the Willing. However, Türkiye’s participation in such formats does not necessarily mean that it is ready to break ties with Russia. Turkish diplomacy traditionally strives to maintain ties with various players, preventing any single power center from gaining a monopoly on relations with it. The West could offer Türkiye several concessions such as the lifting of sanctions, a return to the F-35 program, access to European defense funds, investments, and political concessions. But even these incentives are unlikely to force Erdogan to completely reconsider relations with Moscow. The Turkish leader understands that without Russia’s involvement, it is impossible to resolve issues concerning Syria, the Middle East, the South Caucasus, the Black Sea region, as well as energy and Eurasian policy issues. Furthermore, demonstratively joining the anti-Russia front would deprive Türkiye of its mediator status and transform it from an independent player in international relations into just another tool used by the West to implement its strategy. Therefore, Western attempts to draw Türkiye into an open confrontation with Russia are not likely to yield the desired result. Ankara may make certain concessions, bargain with Washington, expand cooperation with NATO, and strengthen ties with Ukraine; but it will probably avoid crossing the line that would directly damage relations with Russia. Türkiye will not choose between Russia and the West: its goal is to force Moscow, Washington, and Brussels to consider Turkish interests. This is the essence of Erdogan’s policy. It’s neither neutrality in the classical sense, nor equidistance. Rather, it is strategic autonomy based on pragmatism, balance, and the desire to extract political and economic advantages from the competition among major powers. The West would like to see Türkiye as part of a united anti-Russia front. However, Türkiye prefers to see itself as a separate center of power. And as long as Erdogan retains control over the country’s foreign policy, the likelihood that Ankara will fully submit to the West’s anti-Russia strategy remains low.

Actors involved

USUNEURussiaUkraine

Sources

  • Farhad IbragimovBy Farhad Ibragimov

    Why Erdogan won’t fight the West’s war against Russia Since the start of Russia's military operation in Ukraine, the West has consistently sought to draw Türkiye into its policy of confrontation with Moscow. This was particularly evident at the this month’s NATO summit in Ankara

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIranRussia
1 source

President Donald Trump has downplayed his war on Iran as “small potatoes,” but those potatoes are getting bigger as both sides are escalating beyond their stalemate in the Strait of Hormuz. For months, Iran’s military has failed to completely close off the narrow waterway, as U.

S. forces shepherd more oil tankers through, eroding Tehran’s geopolitical leverage. Similarly, the U.S. military has failed to completely reopen the strait, as Iranian attacks on commercial vessels prevent a return to prewar traffic flows, keeping oil prices high.

But with the U.S. naval blockade also strangling Iran’s economy, Tehran was widely expected to try changing the equation with a fresh cycle of attacks—and it did. Iran launched missiles at U.S. bases around the Persian Gulf earlier this week, then on Saturday it launched missiles at a Navy aircraft carrier and destroyer.

That prompted the U.S. military to strike three Iranian oil tankers that were deemed to be operating in the “shadow network” that funnels money to the regime’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. “Let the message to the IRGC be clear: If you shoot at two of our ships, we will impose an even higher economic cost — taking out three of yours,” U.

S. Central Command chief Adm. Brad Cooper said in a statement. “We will not hesitate to defend American forces, and if necessary, destroy Iran’s limited and exposed oil fleet.” For Hamidreza Azizi, senior Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group, the fighting appears to represent a new phase of escalation.

Until now, Iran’s military had focused on tankers and commercial shipping around the Strait of Hormuz, he pointed out in a post on X. Meanwhile, its direct attacks on U.S. forces had been limited to bases around the Gulf. “Attempting to strike U.S. warships enforcing the blockade therefore crosses a different threshold,” Azizi added.

“The attempt failed, but there is no reason to assume the next one will. A successful strike — especially one causing significant U.S. casualties — could rapidly transform the conflict.” Iran’s attack on U.S. warships also follows a report in the Financial Times this week that said Russia is secretly helping Iran develop supersonic cruise missiles.

A ramjet propulsion system, which would enable a missile to travel at several times the speed of sound, would likely power anti-ship and land-attack cruise missiles. Such a weapon would force U.S. Navy ships and aircraft to move much farther away from Iran, breaking the chokehold on its economy.

For now, the naval blockade has proved to be a potent economic weapon, and Iranian officials have admitted that conditions are dire and suggested time is running out. The Treasury Department has also vowed to inflict an “economic D-Day” on Iran with wider sanctions aimed at countries that facilitate its illicit oil trade and other financial transactions.

But Azizi warned that adding economic pressure will not necessarily make Iran more cautious, especially if Tehran sees it as unsustainable. That means the U.S. attacks on Iranian oil tankers will likely spark even more escalation. “The greater the squeeze on Iran, the greater the incentive to act,” he wrote.

“And the more Tehran comes to see that pressure as existential, the more likely it is to conclude that it has less to lose — and that increasingly risky actions are worth attempting.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSRussiaUkraine
1 source

U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump's son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, are visiting Moscow and Kyiv over the weekend in an effort to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. "We have an idea for peace," Trump told reporters on Friday.

"I sent Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, two great negotiators. They've done a great job, and we sent them over to see whether or not we can get something done. And there may be a good chance that we'll do it," he said. Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy confirmed the news in a post on X.

"Today, it has been clearly established that U.S. envoys will be in Ukraine and Russia in the coming days. We have the details from the U.S. President’s team. We discussed today that Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner will visit Moscow and then Kyiv on Sunday.

We are preparing for the visit," Zelenskyy wrote. TRUMP ANNOUNCES SURPRISE THREE-DAY CEASEFIRE IN RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR The pair will visit Russia first on Saturday and, according to Russian state-affiliated media outlet Tass, have already landed in Moscow.

Photos showed Kushner and Witkoff greeted by Russian presidential envoy Kirill Dmitriev shortly after landing in Moscow. Kushner and Witkoff are expected to later travel to Kyiv on Sunday, Zelenskyy confirmed. Zelenskyy also said that Ukraine will work to keep Russian airspace safe during the Americans’ visit.

CIA DIRECTOR JOHN RATCLIFFE MET WITH RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS IN VISIT TO MOSCOW, KREMLIN SAYS "Just as we did during previous diplomatic visits by the American side, we will ensure the normal functioning of Russian airspace so that the negotiators can arrive safely.

We are looking out for them, not for Russia. There will be no air strikes from our side, and Russia must do the same, ensuring there are no air strikes from its side for the time needed to hold these talks and handle the logistical matters related to this American visit," he wrote on X.

ZELENSKYY CONGRATULATES TRUMP ON TURNING 80 IN BIRTHDAY CALL, VOWS MORE UKRAINE PEACE TALKS AT G7 ON TUESDAY "Our goal is to make the visit and the talks with the U.S. side as constructive and substantive as possible. We need to look for real options for how to move this war toward an end.

We will see what proposals Steve and Jared bring and what they are told in Moscow in response," the Ukrainian president concluded. Zelenskyy, in a subsequent Saturday morning post on X, said he had already communicated with Witkoff and Kushner ahead of their planned Sunday meeting.

"I have just spoken with the U.S. President’s envoys. They have already begun working with the Russian side today. From the moment of this conversation, we are ready to observe a ceasefire in airstrikes against the cities involved in the negotiation process.

From now through the end of Saturday, as well as on Sunday and Monday, Ukraine is ready to refrain from strikes on Moscow, and we expect the Russians to do the same regarding Kyiv," he wrote. "Today, I also received reports from Defense Minister Yevhenii Khmara and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Mykhailo Drapatyi on the situation at the front, the dynamics of threats in Ukraine’s airspace, our steps, and active defensive operations.

I am grateful to every one of our warriors for effectively defending Ukraine’s positions," Zelenskyy's post continued. "On the diplomatic track, our actions must be, and will be, just as strong and effective – one hundred percent. The plan for tomorrow’s diplomatic engagements in Kyiv, involving the U.

S. team, has been approved. We are waiting for Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and are ready for a substantive conversation. Thank you to everyone who stands with Ukraine!" Zelenskyy concluded. Zelenskyy’s Friday message came the same day that a Russian drone strike targeted the Security Service of Ukraine’s headquarters in Ukraine, Zelenskyy wrote in a public message on the app Telegram.

RUSSIA LAUNCHES BALLISTIC MISSILE ATTACK ON KYIV HOURS AFTER ZELENSKYY WARNS OF MAJOR STRIKE Zelenskyy alleged the strike directly targeted the head of the Security Service's office. He also wrote that he was directing the head, Oleksandr Poklad, to prepare a retaliatory strike.

"I gave Poklad the task of adequately, noticeably and, if possible, mirroring the Russians' response to this attack, when everything is prepared. Our military will support this response. Glory to Ukraine!" he wrote. PUTIN UNLEASHES NEW FURY ON UKRAINE AS REPORT EXPOSES FEAR HANGING OVER WAR’S END At least nine people were injured in the explosion, Kyiv mayor Vitali Klitschko also wrote on Telegram.

The visit also comes just one day after German officials formally accused Russia of attempting an explosive drone attack on a major airport in Germany. RUSSIA’S STRIKES NEAR MOLDOVA RAISE ALARM OVER PUTIN’S PLANS FOR EUROPE’S EASTERN FLANK "The attack on the aircraft in Leipzig was concrete; it could have triggered a catastrophe had it succeeded.

The attacker was, at most, covert, but even here there is now certainty: The German government has named Russia as the mastermind. Patterns of attack, police investigations, and intelligence findings prove Russian responsibility for the drone attack," Stefan Kornelius, a spokesperson for the German federal government, wrote Friday.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP Fox News Digital contacted the White House and the foreign ministries for Russia, Ukraine and Germany for further comment.

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

US, allies push IAEA board to report Iran to UN Security Council The United States, Britain, France and Germany are seeking a resolution by the UN nuclear watchdog's board next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, according to diplomats and the proposed text seen by Reuters.

If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites. Israel started bombing Iran's nuclear facilities the next day, soon joined by the US Iran's uranium-enrichment plants were destroyed or badly damaged.

Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60 percent purity, a short step from weapons grade.

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIran
1 source

‘Small potatoes’: US President Trump downplays war on Iran The president’s remarks could signal a new strategy towards the conflict, focused on minimising its impact. As the United States and Israel’s war on Iran enters its seventh month with no clear end in sight, President Donald Trump has become the latest US official to downplay the conflict.

On Friday, Trump said the conflict, which has resulted in the deaths of 18 US service members and a spike in global energy prices, is “small potatoes”. Recommended Storieslist of 3 items - list 1 of 3How much oil is going through Hormuz? Why data doesn’t match US claims - list 2 of 3Iran war: Why US midterms could be a pivotal moment - list 3 of 3‘Things happen’: How Vance’s comment on Iran wedding strike fits US pattern “It’s not a big thing,” Trump said, comparing strikes on Iran with other US military campaigns, including the January 3 operation to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

“We did Venezuela, and we did this. In Venezuela, we lost nobody. In this, we lost 18 people.” His remarks came at an Oval Office signing event, where reporters asked him to weigh in on remarks from Vice President JD Vance. A day earlier, at a White House news briefing, Vance appeared to suggest the conflict had cooled, despite a recent exchange of intense fire between US and Iranian forces.

“I wouldn’t call it a war. Right now, there is no active shooting,” Vance said, arguing that major combat operations only lasted six weeks. He then added, “I recognise there have been places where this has flared up.” Trump on Friday told reporters there was “a lot of truth” to what Vance said.

He opted to brand the fighting as a “military conflict”. “We do intermittent strikes,” Trump said, adding: “We’re not fighting right now. There’s no fighting. We’re taking out a lot of oil. We control the Hormuz Strait. We control it very strongly.” Since the war began on February 28, Trump has used various phrases to avoid calling the conflict a war.

In the past, he has called the fighting with Iran a “little skirmish”, a “little detour” and a “little excursion, a couple of weeks, few weeks of excursion”. “It’s an excursion that will keep us out of a war,” Trump said in March. Experts say such terminology is likely strategic.

The Trump administration has faced pushback for not seeking congressional approval before launching its strikes on Iran. The US Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war, though successive presidencies have taken unilateral military actions without the legislature’s approval.

Legal scholars have repeatedly questioned the legality of those manoeuvres. In June, both chambers of Congress passed a war powers resolution, calling on Trump to either stop his military campaign against Iran or seek congressional authorisation for it.

The resolution was largely symbolic, though it did signal growing bipartisan opposition to Trump’s war on Iran. As the conflict enters its seventh month, it remains widely unpopular in the US. A poll released on Monday by the Reuters news agency and the research firm Ipsos found that nearly six in 10 US adults disapproved of the military strikes on Iran.

As the midterm elections approach in November, and peace talks remain deadlocked, the president’s remarks appear designed to minimise the conflict’s impact across the world. The war has led to attacks across the Middle East, and fuel prices remain high.

In the US, the American Automobile Association (AAA) says the average fuel price is $4.15 per gallon (3.8 litres), up nearly a dollar from last year. The Trump administration, however, has long argued the war and its effects would be short-term. It has also signalled that it intends to double down on its economic pressure campaign against Iran, which has long faced US sanctions.

In August, Trump pledged on Truth Social to pursue the “MOST CRUSHING ECONOMIC OPERATION EVER TAKEN AGAINST ANY COUNTRY”. This week, his administration announced new sanctions aimed at cutting off the country’s access to the international financial system.

On Friday, Trump also did not rule out further attacks, suggesting the US may “very soon” strike Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain, a military site near the Natanz uranium enrichment facility. Natanz was bombed in June 2025 and again during the current war. A recent exchange of strikes this month resulted in Iran firing on US military bases across the Middle East.

The US, meanwhile, was accused by the Iranian government of bombing a wedding celebration in the coastal city of Sirik, killing at least four people. While the future of the conflict is uncertain, Trump said he was pleased with its progress. “I don’t think it matters what you call it,” Trump said.

“What matters is you’ve had tremendous success.