They say that history is written by victors, and yet it is often reshaped by subsequent generations. In the contest between Tsarist Russia and the Ottoman Empire, one finds both the roots of contemporary rivalry and the seeds of unexpected collaboration. Accordingly, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s imminent visit to Kyiv demands careful analysis rather than applause or condemnation.
First, consider the strategic rationale. Maxim I: “Alliances serve interests, not affections.” Turkey and Ukraine each face a formidable neighbour in Moscow. Consequently, Ankara’s outreach to Kyiv reflects a calculated bid to diversify its diplomatic portfolio. Moreover, Ukraine gains a partner with tangible military-industrial capacity. In practical terms, Turkish drones and naval vessels present Kyiv with options that neither the European Union nor NATO can deliver as swiftly.
Furthermore, the legacy of Russo-Turkish relations illustrates this point. During the nineteenth century, they alternated between frontal clashes at Sevastopol and covert negotiations in St Petersburg. Rationale I: “Historic enmity does not preclude pragmatic engagement.” Their contemporary dealings in Syria confirm that principle: they back rival factions yet convene frequently to avert direct confrontation in Idlib. Thus, strategic necessity repeatedly trumps ideological purity.
Next, examine the Azerbaijan precedent. In 2020, Baku reclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh largely through Turkish-supplied weaponry. Rationales at play included Ankara’s desire to project influence in the South Caucasus and Moscow’s calculation that overt intervention risked wider escalation. Maxim II: “Power projection can reshape regional equilibriums without firing a single shot.” Indeed, Russia’s restraint in that conflict spoke volumes about Turkey’s enhanced deterrent credibility.
Conversely, one must acknowledge that such partnerships carry inherent risks. Turkey’s strengthened ties with Ukraine could strain its own relationship with Russia. However, Erdogan’s diplomacy is guided by a dual-track approach. He seeks to preserve lines of communication with Moscow even as he deepens Kyiv’s dependence on Ankara. Rationale II: “Maintaining channels to all major actors safeguards strategic autonomy.”
From Ukraine’s perspective, Turkish engagement yields immediate benefits. It gains access to Turkish shipyards, logistical hubs on the Black Sea, and political backing in international fora. Nevertheless, Kyiv must calibrate its expectations; Turkey will pursue its own interests first. In this sense, the relationship exemplifies a broader geopolitical truth: no state offers unconditional support.
Moreover, the economic dimension cannot be overlooked. Turkey imports Ukrainian grain and agricultural products, while exporting machinery and defence equipment. This commercial synergy reinforces the political partnership. It also underlines Maxim III: “Economic interdependence strengthens diplomatic ties.”
Looking ahead, the success of Erdogan’s visit will hinge on deliverables. Will Ankara secure new defence contracts? Will Kyiv obtain guarantees for Black Sea security patrols? And, crucially, how will Moscow react? Each outcome will test the durability of this budding alliance and inform future calculations in Ankara, Kyiv, and beyond.
In sum, President Erdogan’s journey to Ukraine is neither a romantic embrace of shared values nor a reckless gambit against Russia. Rather, it exemplifies Turkey’s modern foreign-policy ethos: a complex balancing act among competing great powers, driven by clear-headed assessment of national interests. Accordingly, observers should neither overstate its novelty nor dismiss its potential impact. Instead, they ought to recognise it as a deliberate manoeuvre on the evolving chessboard of Eurasian geopolitics.
