The Intersection of Grand Strategies in Turkey-Russia Relations: Reflections of Smart Alignment and Flexible Competition in the International Arena.

• Author: Zengin, Alperen Kursad
• Position: ARTICLE

Introduction

The main purpose of this study is to provide a better understanding of Turkey and Russia's bilateral relations by reviewing the history of those relations, especially in light of recent events in Syria, Libya, and the South Caucasus, and evaluating their grand strategies. In this regard, as a juste milieu, instead of focusing solely on their fierce competition and hostile discourse-or on the other extreme-their discourse of 'strategic partnership,' which has emerged through the evaluation of recent events-we focus on the 'gray zone,' where the two extremes come together, in which smart alignment and flexible competition are found.

The methodology of the study consists of two conceptual parts; in the first part, the concept of grand strategy will be explained by examining the literature that addresses Turkey's and Russia's national security and future vision dynamics. Instead of explaining the grand strategies of Turkey and Russia separately (which is beyond the scope of this study), a pattern will be sketched out around two dynamics. The first consists of the geopolitical insecurity that surrounds the concept of national security and, accordingly, the self-help phenomenon. The second dynamic is that of the interplay of opportunities and risks created by the current world order, in which the structural transformation of the international system is affecting both countries.

In the second conceptual part of the study, the grand strategy pattern that is traced in the first section in order to explain Turkey-Russia relations is tested through the concepts of 'smart alignment' and 'flexible competition.' First, these concepts will be defined according to the theoretical propositions of offensive and defensive realism; then an evaluation will be presented, focusing on the regional events pertinent to the two countries. In the conclusion, the future of Turkey-Russia relations will be analyzed through alternative scenarios.

Explaining the Concept of Grand Strategy

Grand strategy is the highest form of state administration and is the architecture that gives structure to foreign policy. It aims to enable states to survive and thrive in the complex and insecure environment of the international system. Therefore, creating a grand strategy is exceedingly difficult, even for the most gifted leaders. In addition to national interests, threats to national security and resources need to be considered within the framework of relational integrity and should be understood as part of the multidimensional nature of power. (1) Meeting this challenge requires states to develop both soft and hard power capabilities, and calls for infrastructure that is secure, up-to-date, and capable of both scaling and evolving.

What makes strategy 'grand' is its ability to mobilize all of the available means of power (diplomatic, informational, military, and economic) in line with a unified set of objectives. (2) In this respect, it is necessary to harmonize unlimited ends with limited means (3) and to determine current and potential power sources as dependent variables. To put it more dramatically, we can say that 'hope is not a strategy;' (4) if a state sets an objective that exceeds its power resources, successful implementation of its grand strategy is unlikely to be achieved. The aim of policymakers who create a grand strategy is to realize the general objectives that the state wants to achieve after realistically determining its role in the international system. In this respect, grand strategy, by its very nature, must change and evolve according to the structural changes in the international system. Without a unifying and overarching grand strategy, a state may have a complex and chaotic foreign and security policy and thus suffer significant problems. (5)

Barry R. Posen defines "grand strategy as the theory of a political-military means-ends chain, a state's theory about how it can best 'cause' security for itself." (6) In this sense, the grand strategy focuses on military threats, because they are the most dangerous threats, and acknowledges that military methods, which are the most costly, are nonetheless necessary to eliminate these threats. (7) However, it is next to impossible to resolve an international conflict by military means alone, and the International Relations (IR) perspective on the gains of using military force to achieve desired ends is doubtful. Both military and non-military security threats often involve multiple-headed orders. Therefore, we can see grand strategy as the highest-level connection or primary interface (link or bridge) between non-military power instruments and the military establishment. (8)

Paul Kennedy's approach to grand strategy broadens the definition by bringing economic capacity to the fore. According to Kennedy, grand strategy is as much about peace as it is about war. Grand strategy is about the evolution and integration of policies that have to work for decades or even centuries. In more concrete terms, it is not enough for statespersons to think about how to win a war; it is important how much it will cost (especially economically). (9)

Grand strategy thus includes a vision for the future as well as references from the past and emerges from an evaluation of the current and potential power elements in play, and the structure of the international system. The vision a state puts forward is related to its role in the international system; it is important to establish a coherent and independent role in relation to the system's current and potential power elements-if a state is not at least trying to set its own objectives, another power will choose objectives for that state. (10)

A state's level of activity in fomenting change is generally related to its dissatisfaction with its position in the current international system (if it is not among the determining forces of the international system). However, a state's willingness to resolve its dissatisfaction must be associated with the appropriateness of the structure of the international system. While ensuring national security is integral to the implementation of grand strategy, threats to national security are the biggest obstacle to this vision. Thus, correctly conceptualized security threat assessment has vital importance for grand strategy.

The First Dynamic: Geopolitical Insecurity and Self-Help

Geography is the very essence of the concept of geopolitics. The topographic structure of a country, the region in which it is located, and the characteristics of its neighbors are the most salient elements of that country's geopolitical imagination; these structural factors directly and persistently affect the state's political decision-making process, especially in regard to its foreign policy. Therefore, it can be said that geopolitics directs political studies with the rules and value judgments it determines by establishing a cause-effect relationship between geography and politics. (11) Since the effects of geopolitics in the political decision-making process can present both opportunities and threats, geopolitical factors are of great importance for the formation of national policy and grand strategy. (12) For example, the fact that a state is surrounded by seas, shares a border with a conflict zone, or lacks natural elevation will directly affect its national security.

Geopolitical insecurity lies at the main axis of the security-oriented approach in Russia and Turkey's grand strategy. In other words, the national security threats of both countries stem from the complex nature of their geopolitics. After the Cold War, both states began to prioritize efforts to provide their own security. This approach is reminiscent of the concept of self-help: Every state is independent; (13) since there is no authority to judge or prevent a state from using force against another state, a state may always do so. As a result, the state that is under attack is posed with a survival problem. (14) In order to overcome this problem, states that are struggling for survival work to address the security threats arising from the anarchic system by taking actions such as increasing their relative strength and military capabilities within the system. (15)

Russia: Breaking the Containment

From a geopolitical point of view, Russia's vast territory and unique geographical features have deeply influenced its perception of security and its relations with other states throughout history. The East European Plain, which completely surrounds the western borders of the country, is monotonous, devoid of natural obstacles, and quite flat; (16) thus, Russia has been open to attacks from the West for centuries, purely due to the physical conditions of its geography. The strategy of containing the Soviet Union, which the U.S. put forward within the framework of its grand strategy during the Cold War, remains the most important reason for Russia's present geopolitical insecurity. (17) In this regard, Russia perceives security as the depth of field. Using the policy of defensive expansionism, it has continued to establish buffer zones between its borders and states-blocs that it regards as a threat. (18) In the first ten years after the Cold War, Soviet Russia developed harmonious relations with the West under the umbrella of the security of the West and the U.S., while experiencing survival problem (19) posed by internal challenges. However, NATO's enlargement policies in 1999 and 2004, (20) stretching into Eastern Europe and the Baltic states, led Russia to fear renewed containment, not without reason. In 2008, when Georgia's entry into NATO became an issue, Russia deployed military force to invade the country. The same situation occurred with the invasion of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea in 2014. In fact, the signals that Russia will use such military means over the region are clearly stated in the 'National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation to 2020'...