Turkey-Russia Relations: Friend or Foe or Just Pragmatism

A Russian military vehicle in the countryside of Qamishli, northeastern Syria (File Photo/AFP)
A Russian military vehicle in the countryside of Qamishli, northeastern Syria (File Photo/AFP)
TT

Turkey-Russia Relations: Friend or Foe or Just Pragmatism

A Russian military vehicle in the countryside of Qamishli, northeastern Syria (File Photo/AFP)
A Russian military vehicle in the countryside of Qamishli, northeastern Syria (File Photo/AFP)

Turkish-Russian relations have historical depth, marked mostly by conflict. Ottoman Empire and Tsarist Russia fought a dozen wars. During the First World War, they were on opposite sides. The two enjoyed fair to good relations during the Turkish War of Independence but even then, things were not as good as they looked. After the Second World War, the Soviets claimed some Turkish territories in eastern Anatolia and questioned Turkish sovereignty over the Turkish Straits. Turkey joined NATO in 1952 serving as the Alliance’s southern flank nation throughout the Cold War. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Turkey and Russia were in competition for what some like to call the new great game over the Caucasus and Central Asia.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, Crimean Tatars, Circassians, Nogais ( Turkish ethnic group who live in the North Caucasus region), and many others of a shrinking Ottoman Empire had to flee their ancestral homes due to Russian advances. These people who found their new homes in Anatolia have also been a factor in Turkey-Russia relations.

Against this background, within the framework of the new strategic environment and developments in the international arena, Turkish-Russian relations gained a new momentum in the 2000s.

Presidents Erdoğan and Putin are regarded by many, as look-alike in their way of doing politics in general. They may not be the best of friends, (friendship defined by common ideals, lifestyles and pleasures) but they have established a kind of working relationship, based on mutual interest and benefit. This relationship plays a major and even central role in the present-day conduct of Turkey-Russia relations.

Bilateral relations between the two countries are quite active.

Trade volume is at an average of 25 billion dollars. At one point it was around 30 billion dollars. Despite a decline in its share, Russia is still Turkey’s main energy supplier, providing 34 per cent of its natural gas and 11 per cent of its oil. On the other side, Turkey’s exports to Russia are mainly agricultural products, machinery, land vehicles and textiles. All in all, around 80 per cent of bilateral trade volume is in favor of Russia.

But Turkey makes up for this deficit in the fields of services and construction. Turkey continues to be the major destination for Russians who adore its moderately priced all-inclusive five star resorts. The record was in 2019 with seven million Russian visitors. As to construction sector, up-to date, Turkey has completed around 1980 projects in Russia with a total value of around 75 billion dollars.

Turkey also serves as the transit carrier of Russian natural gas. The most recent joint project in this area is the TurkStream which has been officially inaugurated in 2020. This project connects Russia and Turkey with two 930 kilometers long offshore pipelines running under the Blacksea, one of which brings natural gas to Turkey. The other one is for gas destined for Europe.

Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant, with a total project cost estimated at 20 billion dollars, is another strategic value cooperation. Its first reactor is planned to be operational in 2023.

On the world stage, Russia and Turkey keep running into each other in different theaters, such as Syria, Ukraine, Libya, south Caucasus, They are mostly on opposing sides and occasionally, they physically hurt each other. But on the whole, the two countries have managed to establish some sort of a dialogue and cooperation module in all these theaters.

Russia is a major actor in Syria and militarily active in the field. Astana Process has paved the way for cooperation between Turkey and Russia. But the potential for a rift is still very much present, especially in Idlib. Despite a 2018 agreement, half of the province has been captured by the regime and Russia. In the opposition-held and frequently targeted by the regime part of Idlib, thousands of armed militants of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other mostly radical groups are present.

At a press conference in Moscow on September 9 with Israeli Foreign Minister Lapid, in response to a question Minister Lavrov said: “Turkish colleagues need to fulfill the agreements reached by Presidents of Russia and Turkey in September 2018. These agreements provide for the separation of the normal, reasonable opposition from the terrorists, primarily from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. This work is underway but, unfortunately, it is far from complete”. In the context of recent developments in Deraa, Lavrov stated that “in Deraa and on a broader plane, in Syria, no territories should be controlled by armed units other than the Syrian army.” What Lavrov said can be taken as a message as to what can be expected in the future.

What happens in Idlib and with its 3.4 million inhabitants in case of an all-out military campaign by the Assad regime and Russians, carries a potential for confrontation. In that regard, the attack on a Turkish patrol in Idlib on Saturday, killing two Turkish soldiers and wounding three, came at a critical time.

The 24 November 2015 incident, when Turkey shot down a Russian SU-24 military aircraft in Syria, was a clear example of how things could turn very sour between the two countries. Russia halted almost everything from Turkish businesses on its territories, to Russians visiting Turkey. Turkish military activities in Syria were also seriously affected. Russia enforced its position in Syria with sophisticated military hardware including air defense systems. It took a lot of effort and almost a year to straighten out relations.

In Libya, Turkey and Russia have faced each other with various fighting elements. Turkish involvement on behalf of the Government of National Accord changed the course of the war. Russia and its side did not end up on top. But neither seems discontent with the turn of events, at least for now.

In 2020, Azerbaijan, supported by Turkey, was able to liberate its territories under Armenian occupation. Turkey carved its mark in the Caucasus demonstrating that it is a force that counts. Turkey also further solidified its alliance with Azerbaijan and won points with its kin in the Caucasus and Central Asia. On part of Russia, not-so-Russia-friendly Prime Minister Pashinyan learned a lesson. Russia managed to engineer a ceasefire and under the terms of the ceasefire agreement, was back on the Azeri soil for the first time since 1990. In any case, both Turkey and Russia played it well in preventing things from taking a different shape and turn into a conflict between themselves.

Turkey and Russia are also on opposite sides on Ukraine. Turkey’s openly declared position is that it does not recognize the annexation of Crimea. Russia does not seem to mind this, as long as political positions are not turned into some sort of action. But the Russians follow with dissatisfaction and some concern, recent defense cooperation between Turkey and Ukraine, in particular, transfer of Turkish killer drones.

Afghanistan may become another file either for cooperation or confrontation between the two countries, depending on how things develop over there. The reasons are not entirely clear for everyone, but Turkey seems keen to assume a role in new Afghanistan. Russia regards Afghanistan basically from a security point of view, with particular reference to Central Asian countries. This region is crucial for Russia in terms of its strategic value, near abroad concept and the Russian-led Collective Security Organization.

One other issue of particular importance and with a strong NATO angle is the Black Sea and the Montreux Convention. Russia does not want NATO vessels in the Black Sea and is adamant about preserving the Convention as it is, which regulates the passage of warships through the Turkish Straits and limits their presence. The Turkish President’s most favored and politically advertised Canal Istanbul Project has raised some questions as to whether the Convention will have to be altered or not. Turkey’s position does not seem to be in contradiction to Russia’s.

The most important development in bilateral relations with far-reaching implications has been Turkey’s acquisition of S-400 air defense systems from Russia. The US and some other NATO Allies reacted strongly. The US went so far as imposing CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) sanctions on Turkey. Many in the West continue to present the S-400 issue as yet another proof of Turkey drifting away from NATO and the West.

Turkey’s side of the story is quite different. For some time now, Turkey has felt very unfairly treated by the EU or the West in general. It felt left out in the cold by its Allies on a number of occasions. Turkey’s EU accession negotiations are in deep freeze. Arms sales from many Allied countries including the USA, Canada, France and Germany are either restricted or in some cases, banned altogether. Turkey has argued that it had attempted to purchase air defense systems from the US and other western nations but was turned down. Russia, on the other hand, was more than ready to sell and Turkey opted for where it was possible to purchase the much-needed system.

Turks of different political convictions which rarely agree on anything, are of the same opinion that Turkey’s moves are not out of love for Russia but a consequence of the negative treatment of its Western Allies and partners.

In any case, Russia is happy. It managed to sell one of its multi-billion dollars weapons system, created a rift within NATO and further troubled the already strained relations between Turkey and the West.

Turkey is a member of an Alliance which identifies Russia as the main threat in a deteriorating security environment. But there is nothing to prevent Turkey, or any other member country for that matter, to engage with Russia in various fields, based on mutual benefit and respect, without contradicting NATO commitments and obligations. In any case, it is equally true that Turkey which enjoys good relations with its western allies and partners will be much better positioned in its dealings with Russia, compared to Turkey which is left alone by its allies and partners.

In conclusion, Turkey and Russia may have diverging positions on a number of issues, some with a potential for direct or indirect confrontation. But, for now, their relations seem to be governed by pragmatism. Even though a lot of patience and some occasional looking the other way may be needed in these relations, both countries seem to realize that dialogue and cooperation are better than confrontation; so long as it is possible.



Mazen Al-Sudairi Brings Financial Expertise as Saudi Market Expands Globally

Mazen bin Turki Al-Sudairi (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Mazen bin Turki Al-Sudairi (Asharq Al-Awsat)
TT

Mazen Al-Sudairi Brings Financial Expertise as Saudi Market Expands Globally

Mazen bin Turki Al-Sudairi (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Mazen bin Turki Al-Sudairi (Asharq Al-Awsat)

Mazen bin Turki Al-Sudairi will lead the board of Saudi Arabia’s Capital Market Authority after a royal order appointed him chairman with the rank of minister, as the kingdom’s capital market rapidly expands, deepens its offerings, strengthens ties with global markets and seeks to attract more foreign investment.

Al-Sudairi brings a career rooted in financial markets and investment before moving into government and policymaking, combining technical expertise in market analysis with institutional experience inside government.

His appointment comes as Saudi Arabia’s capital market enters a new phase of growth focused on greater depth and openness, a broader investor base and a stronger presence in global markets, alongside the economic and investment transformation under Saudi Vision 2030.

The royal order appointed Al-Sudairi chairman of the Capital Market Authority’s board with the rank of minister, succeeding Mohammed El-Kuwaiz. He takes charge of the market regulator as the financial sector assumes an increasingly important role in financing economic growth and attracting domestic and international capital.

Since 2024, Al-Sudairi has served as an adviser at the General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers at an excellent grade, adding a government dimension to his background in finance and investment. The role broadened his experience from analyzing markets and investments to working in an environment closely connected to policymaking and decision-making.

He holds a master’s degree in finance from HEC Paris in France and a bachelor’s degree in industrial engineering from King Saud University, an academic background combining financial knowledge with the analytical and quantitative training associated with engineering.

Al-Sudairi has extensive experience in financial services and capital markets. He served as head of research at Al Rajhi Capital, where he monitored company and sector performance and analyzed economic and financial developments and their impact on investor decisions.

He also headed sell-side research at Al-Istithmar Capital, adding experience in managing investment research and responding to market developments and investor needs during a period of rapid regulatory and investment change in the Saudi market.

Earlier, Al-Sudairi worked as an analyst covering the energy and petrochemicals sectors at Samba Capital, two of the most influential sectors in the Saudi economy and capital market. The role gave him direct experience analyzing companies and industries exposed to energy markets, global developments, commodity prices and economic cycles.

His career also took him outside Saudi Arabia, where he worked in equity research at Bank Degroof in Belgium. The experience added an international dimension to his background and gave him practical exposure to market and company analysis in a European financial environment.

Al-Sudairi is a recognized name in financial research and market analysis, having built experience across Saudi and international financial and investment institutions. His roles have been closely tied to assessing markets, analyzing companies and sectors, and evaluating investment opportunities.

His career spans financial and economic analysis, investment research and government work. After years of leading research functions at Saudi financial institutions and analyzing equities and sectors, his move into government added experience in institutional work and policymaking.

Al-Sudairi takes the helm of the Capital Market Authority’s board as the market becomes increasingly important as a channel for financing companies and projects, supporting private-sector growth, expanding savings and investment options, and connecting the Saudi economy more closely with global capital flows.


From War Amnesty to Prison Amnesty... What Has Changed in Lebanon in 35 Years?

A general view of parliament building in Beirut, Lebanon, March 24, 2026. (Reuters)
A general view of parliament building in Beirut, Lebanon, March 24, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

From War Amnesty to Prison Amnesty... What Has Changed in Lebanon in 35 Years?

A general view of parliament building in Beirut, Lebanon, March 24, 2026. (Reuters)
A general view of parliament building in Beirut, Lebanon, March 24, 2026. (Reuters)

The Lebanese parliament's landmark approval of an amnesty law on Wednesday, 35 years after the 1991 amnesty, has revived debate on the different circumstances that prompted Lebanon to resort to amnesty twice.

While the first was enacted to turn the page on the 1975-90 civil war and kick off a new political chapter in the country, the 2026 law came to address the conditions of detainees and convicts, prolonged detentions, and the prison crisis, amid political considerations that led to parliament to ratify it.

‘Public oblivion’

Former Minister of Social Affairs Rashid Derbas brought the discussion back to the philosophy of amnesty itself, telling Asharq Al-Awsat that "the general amnesty issued in 1991 came following the civil war, in hopes of closing a chapter and entering a new era."

He explained that "the philosophy of general amnesty is fundamentally based on establishing public oblivion, meaning closing a page of the past and opening a new one."

Commenting on the current amnesty law, Derbas wondered: "Is it reasonable for a person to remain all this long time without a trial? Is it reasonable for certain accusations and cases to drag on to this extent? It was necessary to address this issue,” but unfortunately, it fell victim to political wrangling for years.

Former Justice Minister Ibrahim Najjar drew a legal and political distinction between the two experiences, telling Asharq Al-Awsat that "there is a very big difference between the law of August 26, 1991, and the law of August 12, 2026."

He explained that "from a political standpoint, the 1991 general amnesty law aimed to turn the page on the war and conclude all prosecutions associated with it. This is evidenced by the fact that it broadly covered crimes committed before March 28, 1991, specifically war-related crimes of a political nature, with some specific exceptions."

Najjar added that "the 1991 law therefore had a political, reconciliatory character, meaning it aimed to restore the smooth functioning of coexistence, which was its primary political goal."

As for the new legislation, he placed it in a different framework, stating that "the 2026 law has specific political dimensions in Lebanon and Syria, in addition to being related to prison conditions and the high number of detainees and convicts."

Najjar stressed that "the law issued on Wednesday is not a general amnesty for crimes committed before a specific date, because it targets specific categories and cases. It is closer to a socio-penal law concerned with addressing the conditions of detainees and convicts through an exceptional reduction of certain sentences."

He pointed out that "the 2026 law excluded many crimes and felonies, including the killing of military personnel, crimes referred to the Judicial Council, premeditated murder, money laundering, financial crimes, and drug felonies."

"This Lebanese law has clear Syrian dimensions, and it has also benefited some Lebanese who had sought refuge in Israel," he added.

Lebanese lawmakers attend a parliamentary session to discuss a proposed general amnesty law, the abolition of the death penalty and the salaries of retired members of Lebanon's security forces in Beirut, Lebanon, 11 August 2026. (EPA)

Political settlement

Former MP and Minister Butros Harb interpreted the current law from an angle that combines politics and humanitarian considerations.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, Harb stated: "In part, the current amnesty is a political settlement more than a purely judicial move, even though it includes a humanitarian aspect that cannot be ignored."

At the same time, he stressed that addressing the conditions of prisoners should not lead to "overlooking the rights of the Lebanese Army and its victims, particularly in cases related to those who engaged in clashes with it."

He explained that "there is a humanitarian aspect that must be taken into account, because the Lebanese judiciary was influenced at certain stages and did not exercise its powers with the required speed, whether in terms of settling cases or issuing verdicts."

He noted that "there are individuals who spent long periods in prison that, in some cases, exceeded the sentence that could have been issued against them had they been tried within normal timeframes."

This "demands a humanitarian and legal solution to the problem," he remarked.

However, he noted that the amnesty file "has also unfortunately turned into a subject of sectarian debates, especially regarding the cases of Islamists who fought the army."

Harb criticized the double standards related to the army in the ongoing debate. "Some of those who today declare their concern for the army were, unfortunately, among the forces that helped inflict major losses on it, whether during the Lebanese civil war or in the clashes the country witnessed in later years."

The issue must not turn into fodder for political debates at the expense of the army or the rights of its victims, he urged.

‘Fundamentally different’

He said the 1991 and current amnesty are "fundamentally different."

He explained that the 1991 amnesty happened during "exceptional political circumstances that followed the Taif Agreement" and the end of the civil war.

"At that time, Lebanon was emerging from a long war, and it was necessary to turn the page on that chapter and enter a new era allowing the rebuilding of the state. Therefore, the amnesty was part of a broader national political settlement."

"Today, however, the problem is different even if it has a political aspect because it is primarily linked to a judicial and humanitarian failure that must be addressed," Harb stressed.

"The issue required a solution because it is unacceptable for individuals to remain in prison for years due to delayed trials or the failure to settle their cases," he said.


Gaza Cancer Patients Face Rising Death Rate Amid Israeli Curbs, Doctors Say

Palestinian cancer patient Elham Al-Sakafi, 38, speaks to a doctor after receiving nutritional intravenous fluids at Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, August 6, 2026, according to medics. (Reuters)
Palestinian cancer patient Elham Al-Sakafi, 38, speaks to a doctor after receiving nutritional intravenous fluids at Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, August 6, 2026, according to medics. (Reuters)
TT

Gaza Cancer Patients Face Rising Death Rate Amid Israeli Curbs, Doctors Say

Palestinian cancer patient Elham Al-Sakafi, 38, speaks to a doctor after receiving nutritional intravenous fluids at Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, August 6, 2026, according to medics. (Reuters)
Palestinian cancer patient Elham Al-Sakafi, 38, speaks to a doctor after receiving nutritional intravenous fluids at Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, August 6, 2026, according to medics. (Reuters)

Gaza cancer patients are dying at two to three times the pace they did before the start of the war in the territory, as Israel blocks many from travelling for treatment after destroying the only local specialized facility, Gaza doctors said.

Israel blew up Gaza's specialized cancer hospital last year after saying troops found a tunnel used by Hamas running beneath it. That means that an estimated 17,000 Gazans with cancer have no local option for chemotherapy or other advanced therapy.

Few Palestinians can afford to travel for treatment, and those who can face Israeli restrictions. The military imposes strict caps on daily crossings to Egypt, despite a 2025 Israel-Hamas ceasefire deal that requires free movement in and out.

Asked for comment, COGAT, the Israeli military agency that controls access to Gaza, said it coordinates medical evacuations with the World Health Organization. To depart, Gazans must have a ‌valid request from a ‌receiving country and pass "required security screening," COGAT said.

The WHO did not immediately respond to a ‌request ⁠for comment.

RACE AGAINST TIME

For ⁠Khuloud Abu Sahmoud, a Palestinian mother-of-two with advanced ovarian cancer, the wait for treatment abroad has become a race against time as her cancer spreads.

"Every day my disease progresses, and my condition is tragic. My fingernails have all fallen out – I have none left. I am just waiting to die."

Abu Sahmoud, 33, said she has been waiting to exit Gaza for treatment in Egypt or further afield since the ceasefire was struck last October. In that time, the cancer has spread to her lungs and bones, she says.

COGAT said around 5,800 Gazans needing medical treatment have exited to Egypt since Israel agreed in February to a limited reopening of the Rafah border crossing, largely shut during the ⁠war that began in 2023.

"Medical evacuations are in no sense restricted by the State of Israel ‌but are wholly dependent on the receiving country's request; without the official request, ‌COGAT cannot coordinate a patient's leave," COGAT said.

Palestinian health officials said 11,000 people, including patients, had gone through Rafah since it reopened, fewer than half ‌the number that had been expected under the ceasefire deal.

A further 20,000 patients, including 5,000 with cancer, are registered for treatment ‌abroad but not yet permitted to leave, the officials said.

TOXIC CHEMICAL EXPOSURE

The ceasefire ended major fighting but left Israeli forces in control of more than half of Gaza, since expanded to around two-thirds. Nearly all of Gaza's more than 2 million people live in a Hamas-controlled strip along the coast, mostly in makeshift tents or shelters in damaged buildings.

Before the war, local health services had made advances thanks to investment from abroad and persistence ‌from local doctors, a Reuters investigation found.

But most Gaza hospitals were destroyed or damaged in the war, and those that remain operational have been stripped of up to 70% of essential ⁠medical supplies, including those needed ⁠for cancer treatment and diagnostic services, doctors said.

Among those killed by Israel during the war were dozens of highly qualified specialists, including cancer experts operating in the Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital, demolished in an Israeli controlled demolition in March 2025.

"We have been recording a significant number of deaths, ranging from three to five daily, because patients are not receiving the chemotherapy needed to save their lives," said Mohamed Abu Selmia, head of Gaza's biggest hospital, Al-Shifa.

Sobhi Skaik, a Palestinian surgeon who was head of the Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital, said the death rate before the war was about one to two per day. Some pre-war statistics put the figure at around 1.7 per day, he said.

He said the rising deaths were due mostly to an absence of local treatment and to border restrictions. But he also said that cancer itself may be spreading at a faster rate due to the presence of toxic materials from Israeli explosives dropped on Gaza.

There were some 11,000 registered cancer patients in Gaza before the war started following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on southern Israel, after which registrations largely stopped, Skaik said.

He estimated that another 6,000 Gazans had likely developed cancer since.

"Some people can be treated if diagnosed in early stages, but they are wandering around the tents sick, unaware, and with no help," Skaik said.