The Russia–Ukraine war is a test for everyone

In the face of Russia’s attempt to invade Ukraine, the policies, positions and leaders of all the world’s countries have been confronted with a complete test. The Western countries, which from the very beginning, with their support for Ukraine and the hostile stance they displayed toward Russia, practically provoked Russia into this invasion, give the appearance of having been caught entirely unprepared by such an attack. Whether this unpreparedness stems from failing to foresee Russia’s behavior, or from an excessive self-confidence about what their own behavior might lead to, is still not clear.

After all, there is a Russian expansionism that has been coming, flaunting itself, for years, and there are promises that were made to feel to Ukraine that the West would stand by it in every eventuality. Yet when Russia arrived at the door, there is a Western world that revealed in astonishment that it had not expected even this much, and that, in this astonishment, has got its hands and feet tangled up over what to do. NATO declared, through its most authoritative voices, that it could not be a party to this war and would content itself with watching what was happening. Europe, despite all of Zelensky’s pleading, could not even close Ukrainian airspace to flights.

Europe fears that the likely harms of every step to be taken would hit not only Russia but itself. Indeed, in a world so intertwined, in which everyone has become dependent on everyone, it is very hard both to take a step and to respond to steps taken. If someone has taken a step, the idea at once settles in of where in the harm turning back would be profitable, and the idea of peace becomes more attractive.

Perhaps with its first step Russia appears to be the holder of all the initiative, but for it too, at this moment, there is a point at which turning back from the harm would be more profitable for itself. But for this return it is also seeking a gain with which it can save face, a concession it can present as victory. That is why Foreign Minister Lavrov announced that it could end the war in return for Ukraine declaring that it would remain neutral and changing some of its laws.

In fact, it did not need to wreck so much to obtain this gain. Was it worth all the soldiers, the labor, the money and the prestige it spent to obtain it? Of course it was not worth it, but to repeat, what decides on war is not always a rational accounting of reason and interests.

We can even foresee that with this attack Russia will have further reduced the deterrence of its legendary war capacity. We can already see now that Europe will go in search of an alternative to Russian gas, and that this will, in the medium and long term, drop Russia from its position of having no alternative in gas supply. And that Putin’s charismatic leadership, maintained for years, will take a deep and unclosable scratch.

In the end all countries and leaders are under trial, and the process makes some shine and extinguishes the star of others. Indeed, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has maintained his consistency since the beginning of the process, has come to the fore with his experience, his common sense and the difference he has shown in world politics.

To succeed in remaining neutral in such a war is in itself a great feat, and he not only achieved it; although Turkey is a NATO member, he did not hold back from criticizing the Western countries’ policies against Russia openly and in the harshest manner. On the other hand, he did not neglect to tell Putin himself that he in no way approves of Russia’s occupying policies and that no concession can be made on Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Moreover, neither stance remained in words only. While declaring that embargo-style sanctions against Russia are unnecessary, the Bayraktar SİHAs previously sold to Ukraine have become the symbol of resistance against Russia. The Antalya Diplomacy Forum was the scene of tremendous diplomatic traffic that brought together both the parties directly and all the countries concerned. The dizzying diplomatic traffic Erdoğan displayed in only a few days became the focus of attention of the whole world. Now Turkey has become the address where the communication channels between Ukraine and Russia intersect the most.

While this situation is followed closely and with great admiration in world public opinion, its

WHAT ARE ITS REFLECTIONS ON TURKEY’S PUBLIC OPINION?

In recent days Abdülkadir Selvi published the February research results of the AREDA research organization, coordinated by Prof. Dr. Ömer Çaha. There, even though the war had not yet begun, to the question “Who could best govern the country if Turkey were exposed to an attack like Ukraine’s?” 47 percent of those surveyed pointed to Erdoğan, showing a very clear margin over the nearest candidates.

The March research of the same organization, conducted precisely as the war began and continued in all its heat, has also reached me. We can say that a clear difference has emerged in a one-month interval.

For instance, to the question “How do you assess the performance Turkey has shown in the face of Russia’s attack on Ukraine?”, the proportion of those who answered that they found Turkey successful was 57.8 percent in February, and in the March research this proportion has risen to 69.9 percent. 89.4 percent of respondents expressed the view that “Turkey should not change its policy of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine war.”

To the question of how this war will affect Turkey’s regional and global power, 46.4 percent of those surveyed expressed the view that it “will increase its power,” and 24.8 percent that it “will decrease its power.” 28.8 percent said it would not change its power. As for the recent visits to Ankara by many heads of state or their representatives, 60.1 percent of participants assessed them as “developments showing that Turkey is a determining power in foreign policy.”

The proportion of those who think the Antalya Diplomacy Forum has contributed to Turkey’s image on the international scale was reflected as 66.4 percent, while 44.6 percent of participants stated that only Erdoğan could resolve the Russia-Ukraine problem in the world. The proportion of those who believe Joe Biden, who follows him most closely, can resolve the problem is only 3.1 percent. Of course, the idea that “it can be resolved by the two countries finding a solution among themselves” is shared by 42.5 percent.

These results are the deserved real grades during a crisis experienced as a trial.