Turkish soldiers on their way again

After speaking with an important politician, I interviewed former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Yaşar Yakış, one of the cold-blooded and pragmatic representatives of the Turkish school of diplomacy and politics: "Just as Russia will not bring Turkey closer to its sphere of influence for its own interests, it will not want to see the other co-chairs of the Minsk Group in the region again," said dear Yakış.

Following this, it was reported that President Erdoğan had sent a draft resolution to the Turkish Grand National Assembly to send troops to Azerbaijan.

One of the indispensable aspects of the Turkish state tradition is obtaining the consent of the Assembly when sending a military contingent to a foreign country. This rule, which was followed even after the transition to presidential rule, was followed when sending a military contingent to Syria again in January 2019 and to Libya in December 2019; in other words, although the system of governance has changed and the importance given to the Assembly has diminished, the consent of the deputies is obtained when troops are sent abroad, regardless of their number.

Rules were not violated for Azerbaijan too. Positions are becoming clearer: Russia, which has long used the services of Dmitry Peskov and Maria Zakharova in political and diplomatic relations with Turkey, was quick to comment on Mr Erdoğan's letter to parliament via Peskov: "Soldiers are sent to the observation post and the procedure is followed" - that is, there is not the slightest change in the general position.

In fact, Mr. Yaşar Yakış said two hours before the press secretary of the Kremlin that Russia would agree to Turkey's limited presence in Azerbaijan to maintain its position in the Caucasus, would not allow the Minsk Group to return there; therefore, the Minsk Group co-chairs would sigh for the region.

The United States seems to have felt this, and the fact that Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has not been received in Turkey by either the President or the Minister of Foreign Affairs offended the feelings of Washington has shown that Paris, like Washington, is also concerned about "Russian-Turkish cooperation" in the region.

Russia is now being asked to "explain" this. How to interpret this? If the issue of concern to Washington and Paris is the liberation of Azerbaijani lands and the sending of a Turkish military contingent to Azerbaijan by the decision of the Assembly, do they believe in "cooperation between Ankara and Moscow" in these processes?

If there was such cooperation, why will the Turkish military contingent not fulfill its role in Nagorno-Karabakh, so to speak, which has been fixed in the jargon of Russian officials from top to bottom since November 10?

If Russia does not want the Turkish military contingent to be in the region under its close control, establishes an "Observation Point", which is riveted in the daily jargon of the authorities and aims to separate "Nagorno-Karabakh" from Azerbaijan, in the "Azerbaijani lands", why do the co-chairs of the Minsk Group demand an explanation from Russia?

Or are Washington's and Paris's concerns due to the fact that they fear that Moscow will nail in the coffin of a mediation mission called the Minsk Group "spreading flour on the rope"?

Do those centers think that Ankara and Moscow are really likely to enter into long-term deep cooperation in Azerbaijan?

Of course, in every cooperation, countries think of their own interests, and the conditions of a superior country in terms of both strength, prestige, and capabilities in the region predominate.

We have seen concrete examples of this in the cooperation between Turkey and Russia in the Syrian arena within the framework of the "Astana process".

Now, if there is behind-the-scenes cooperation in the Caucasus and both Washington and Paris are aware of this, we are not wrong in assuming that we are on the eve (perhaps inside) of very important diplomatic wars. Therefore, in the current situation, the presence of the Turkish military contingent in Azerbaijan is vital, regardless of its status.

Mayis Alizade