The Effects of the Extended Black Sea Region Concept on Turkey's Geopolitics

Introduction

The term geopolitics is defined in three different meanings in the TDK dictionary; the first of these is ‘The influence of geography, economy, population, etc. on the policy of a state’, the second is ‘The relationship between the policy implemented in a region in a state and the geography of that region’, and the third is ‘The political doctrine aimed at justifying the aggressive expansion of a state in terms of economic and political geography’. However, the term geopolitics is defined by Yves Lacoste: ‘It describes everything related to the competition for influence and power over territories and the people living on those territories: The struggles between all kinds of political forces - not only between states, but also between political movements and more or less illegal armed groups - for control and domination over any territory, large or small’.

Whatever the definitions, actors who want to dominate a certain region have to take into account the elements of power and determine their strategies accordingly. Although it may seem like a non-variable element among power factors, geographical power factors are a force multiplier that should be scrutinised meticulously. Looking at geography only as land, sea or air space can often be misleading. All factors such as economy, demography, military capacity, strategic mindset, political preferences, technology, religion, culture, climate changes, natural disasters, international trade, alternative energy sources or transfer of raw materials for production have direct or indirect effects on geography. Actors at the level of Global, Continental, Regional or National power want to be effective on a geographical region in relation to the interests they have determined in proportion to their own capacities.

For this reason, how geography is named by these actors is a sign of a political preference that should not be overlooked. If directions such as North-South, East-West are pronounced, it is conceivable that the region may be subjected to at least a political division after a while. Similarly, reducing a nation to an ethnic level with names such as Kyrgyz, Kazakh, Tatar, Azeri, instead of generalising Turk as the name of a nation, distorts the demographic structure and leads to the change of political borders on the geography. Similarly, defining a geography called Northern Iraq when there is already a unitary Iraqi state may be a harbinger of support for an autonomous structure or a formation that may declare its independence in the future. The term North-South Mesopotamia is similar to this. The Balkans, the Middle East and the Caucasus are geographies that have witnessed a struggle for division or unification throughout history. The Black Sea, on the other hand, is not only a basin that is the common cluster of these three slippery grounds, but also a volcano that is constantly accumulating energy and is ready to erupt after a large-scale earthquake that could lead to a terrible disaster.

The enlarged Black Sea approach should be viewed in this context. It is important to seek answers to the questions of which of the approaches, such as which is suitable for the strategic interests of which actors, what does it mean to expand geography, expanding or contracting a geographical region, pursuing a policy of balance or taking sides by dividing into poles, can provide peace, tranquility and prosperity to the Black Sea and finally, what kind of a course of action would be beneficial for Turkey in the face of strategic moves imposed in the direction of the Greater Black Sea Region.

2. Fragile Touchpoints on Strategic Fault Lines 7K, Anatolia and the Black Sea

When the Black Sea is considered geographically only as a maritime basin, it is seen that it is a region consisting of the littoral countries of the Black Sea. However, when the region is viewed as a land basin, a hinterland including the Balkans, the Middle East, the Caucasus and North Africa emerges. These strategic key points have been the centre of attention of the dominant actors holding global or continental power in the historical process and they have wanted to keep the region under control by transferring power to these regions. However, there are many fragile fault lines in the described hinterland, and there are also areas of conflict where strategic interests overlap on the periphery of these fault lines.

Although the history of world warfare has witnessed many different tactical battles, all successes at the strategic level have resulted in the capture of the centre of gravity. Today, modern states endeavouring to preserve their survival create a peace belt around the areas they dominate and/or establish buffer zones where they can postpone the threat. However, the concept of state and nation building, which is a product of the 1900s, has entered a process of changing its shell with high technology following concepts such as globalisation and individualism, and the immune systems of states have weakened considerably in the face of cyber threats that easily cross physical borders.

In this context, it is important to reconsider the political peace belt established around the fragile touchpoints (7K - Kosovo, Crimea, Karabakh, Kirkuk, Cyprus, Jerusalem, Cairo) located on the fault lines of the Balkans, the Middle East, the Caucasus and North Africa, and the land and sea basins of the Black Sea Region, and to analyse whether the countries in the region can maintain the status quo any longer.

3. Frozen Conflicts :

Considering the littoral countries of the Black Sea, there are many frozen conflicts whose resolution has been postponed and frozen in the historical process. The most important of these conflict areas are Crimea, Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh. In Crimea in particular, human rights problems are relatively stable, but ongoing problems are deteriorating rapidly. In other regions with frozen problems, human rights problems are escalating.

Although the resolution of the problems in Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the unrecognised state-like entities in the Nagorno-Karabakh region may be frozen for a while and postponed to the future, based on the principle that the only constant is change, a sudden attempt to trigger a conflict may ignite a fire that may be very difficult to extinguish. The most important feature of frozen conflicts is that they can be manipulated remotely and remain far from the ultimate goals that the parties want to achieve. This situation causes the region to be under constant tension, war preparedness levels to be kept high and serious investments for the future to be postponed. Although the solution of frozen problems can be achieved step by step in the long term, there is a fragile situation in which other solutions will be null and void unless all parties agree on all problems.

Although there is a common denominator of dissatisfaction with the current situation among the actors in the region, there is a weakness in the culture of negotiation and compromise. Because compromise requires mutual concessions and all parties give what they can give and rely on the red line, all steps other than the preservation of the status quo will require the parties to take a step back from their current position. At this point, the following question gains meaning: Will the Black Sea littoral states maintain the status quo for a certain period of time by pursuing a policy of balance and then, in the long term, ensure permanent peace by resolving the frozen problems step by step to the satisfaction of all parties, or will the permanent resolution of frozen problems through mechanisms that will facilitate the intervention of global, continental and regional actors in the region by adding neighbouring regions to the Black Sea littoral countries provide stability and confidence?

Although it is not possible to answer these questions in a single item, it would be healthy to seek answers through some ‘de facto’ situations. One of these is the small-scale regional conflict carried out by the RF in 2008 against South Ossetia. With this sudden intervention, one of the frozen problems rapidly melted and a hot conflict occurred.

In the face of this military intervention of the Russian Federation, international law, mechanisms of international organisations (UN, NATO, EU, OSCE, etc.) and agreements within the scope of regional and bilateral cooperation were insufficient, and mechanisms such as the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, Operation Black Sea Harmony (OBSH), Black Sea Littoral States Border/Coast Guard Cooperation Forum (BSCF), Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform were weak and dysfunctional. The US efforts to provide deterrence and establish an effective maritime control by showing a flag and presence in all the world's seas have not found their counterpart in the Black Sea.

Despite all kinds of concerns and criticisms, the Montreux Convention, which was established in 1936, currently makes a significant contribution to the maintenance of regional peace and balance policy and partially prevents foreign interventions in the region. Despite the fact that the Montreux Convention is one of the easiest treaties to terminate, no signatory country has ever intended to do so.

The Montreux Convention establishes a special transit regime in the Turkish Straits, the Sea of Marmara and the Black Sea. Although this regime does not recognise transit passage as freely as transit passage, Turkey's acceptance of a special passage regime instead of an inland waters regime in a sovereignty area whose mutual coasts belong to Turkey, contributing to the establishment and maintenance of regional peace with partial sacrifice of sovereignty rights, has led to the satisfaction of all parties to the Montreux Convention.

In this respect, the Montreux Convention plays a key role in the establishment of a balance policy in the Black Sea. However, even the Montreux Convention, which is the most effective instrument, is not enough to solve the problems by itself.

The inability to make moves that will ensure regional stability and the fact that the problems are ultimately put on hold make it necessary to answer some questions:

 What is the factor that creates, leaves unresolved, does not solve, prevents solution and freezes the problems?

 Does not postponing the solution of the problems by constantly accumulating energy in the fault line cause a much bigger rupture in the future?

 Does the imposition of the terminological concept of frozen problems create a virtual threat perception?

 What is the worst-case scenario if frozen problems melt?

 What are the benefits and drawbacks of a passive, active or proactive approach?

The above questions will raise awareness in predicting why problems are frozen and when global actors will escalate them. However, focusing only on the Black Sea region geographically may yield misleading results. There are also frozen or hot conflict areas in neighbouring regions to the Black Sea. These include Palestine, Western Sahara, Syria, the island of Cyprus and almost the entire Balkans. Therefore, when one of these conflict zones is triggered, all other areas will be directly or indirectly affected, and there will be an interaction similar to a Mikado game where the wrong stick is drawn and all the remaining sticks fall over. Above all, all modern warfare techniques are suitable to be applied in these regions. By using Soft Power, cross-border access can be provided through instruments such as human rights, democracy, energy, environment, technology, education, grants, foreign military aid, culture and art, archaeology, individual freedoms, religion, sports, music, media, tourism, etc. and the operational environment of the conflict zone can be shaped and made ready to explode.

After the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the peoples living in conflict zones with frozen problems tried to declare their independence, but endeavoured to maintain their existence as unrecognised states.

A new argument was developed by the US to penetrate the region by imposing the concept of the ‘Greater Black Sea Region’. In this way, it was aimed to provide support to new states or state-like formations that emerged from under the umbrella of the USSR and were forced to stand alone, to prevent the formation of a strong USSR again and to keep the RF under control on the one hand and to prevent the RF from re-controlling the EU-aligned states on the other.

In order to achieve this goal, a series of shuttle diplomacy, negotiations and politico-military initiatives, which were difficult to achieve results for a long time, were carried out in the regions where the frozen conflicts took place.

Depending on the attitude of the global powers towards the exercise of the right to self-defence (self-determination), the frozen conflicts have created de facto situations with their own unique problems in the regions seeking to declare independence or autonomy. These problem areas are discussed in the context of the Greater Black Sea Region as follows.

3.1 Transnistria:

After Moldova declared its independence, the eastern bank of the Dniester River (Transnistria-TD) unilaterally declared its independence. Negotiations are underway under the OSCE umbrella in the ‘5+2’ format (Moldova, TD, Ukraine, RF, OSCE + EU and USA) to resolve the Transnistrian conflict.

Moldova has no coast to the Black Sea. However, it is connected to the Black Sea via the Danube River. A free economic zone has been established deep inside the country in the lower Danube region around the Giurgiulesti harbour. This situation has created a unique geographical formation as it connects Moldova to Europe on the one hand and to the Black Sea on the other.

In this respect, will Moldova have the status of a littoral state of the Black Sea? Will it be included in the security mechanisms established in the Black Sea? In time, the status of Transnistria will also be shaped depending on the preferences between the options of maintaining a balance policy with a security mechanism consisting only of the Black Sea littoral countries or abandoning the balance policy and being in a new competitive environment polarised under the umbrella of the USA, the EU or the RF within the framework of the Extended Black Sea Region concept.

3.2 Crimea:

Crimea was subjected to Mongol attacks between 1237 and 1240, after which Turkic tribes penetrated the region for the first time. However, after the end of the Golden Army state by Timur in 1399, this region was handed over to the Tatar Turks led by Haji Giray Khan, one of the descendants of Genghis Khan, in 1441 and the Crimean Khanate was established. However, in 1475 the Crimean Khanate came under the rule of the Ottoman Empire on condition that it maintained its autonomy.

In 1774, when the Ottoman Empire was defeated in the war with Russia, Crimea gained its independence. However, its connection to the Ottoman Caliphate continued. Although the Caliphate was abolished on 03 March 1924 after the establishment of the Republic of Turkey, the powers of the Caliphate were transferred to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, that is, it was taken from a real person and transferred to a legal entity. Since the 1774 Small Kaynarca Treaty brought changes in terms of the Status of the Turkish Straits, the Black Sea was no longer a Turkish Lake and gained a new status. In the following period, in addition to the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, on 10 March 1779, the Russian side wanted to impose the provision ‘In the event of an extraordinary situation in Crimea, both sides (Ottoman-Russian) shall first agree among themselves and then settle the Crimean issue’ with the Arbitration of Aynalıkavak, but both the Crimean Khanate and the Ottoman Empire did not sign this arbitration. Therefore, peace could not be established and this new de facto situation confirmed the continuation of the declaration of war.

With the Russian invasion of Crimea in 1783, the status of Crimea and the Treaty of Kucuk Kaynarca of 1774 also lost its validity. All these developments support Crimea's right to independence. However, since the Ottoman Empire, and later the Republic of Turkey, lacked the political and military power to reclaim its authentic rights over Crimea, it was not possible for Crimea to declare its independence by exercising its right of self-defence on its own.

Even after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, Crimea was unable to exercise its right to self-determination and had to act like a yo-yo in favour of Russia and Ukraine.

In 1954, the USSR transferred Crimea from Soviet Russia to Soviet Ukraine. This means the following: On 25 December 1991, with the dissolution of the USSR, although the powers of the central authority were transferred to the Russian Federation, despite Crimea's right to independence, Crimea at least remained on the Ukrainian side, not on the RF side. However, as a result of the immigration policy implemented during the Stalin era, a significant percentage of the Crimean population was formed from citizens of Russian origin. The exiled Tatar Turks of Crimean origin live scattered throughout the USSR and some of them are in Turkey. Therefore, the population ratios shown today are in favour of the Russian Federation.

Similar migration policies and even genocidal disasters have been implemented in fragile regions such as Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Chechnya, etc.

In this context, Turkey has as much legal right to intervene in Crimea as the Russian Federation has. Turkey has the status of a legal party in the Crimea issue. It is assessed that with the Extended Black Sea Region approach, the hand of Ukraine, which has a favourable attitude towards the US and the EU, will be strengthened, Ukraine will feel itself under guarantee against the RF, while the RF will increase its aggressive attitude and create pressure in a way that it will not give up Crimea.

It is inevitable that in the face of an RF that considers NATO's presence in the Black Sea as a cause of war, additional global actors who want to penetrate the Black Sea with an expanded Black Sea Region approach will escalate tensions and create a more risky conflict area than the Middle East.

RF's military operation against Georgia in 2008 demonstrated that despite NATO, the US and the EU, RF has the capability to operate in the region without encountering any resistance. For this reason, US efforts to obtain advanced bases in the Black Sea basin continue. In this regard, the attitude of Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia in favour of the US and the EU supports the realisation of the Extended Black Sea Region concept.

3.3 Nagorno (Upper) Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia:

After the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, migration policies led to some changes in the population base in the South Caucasus. In particular, there was an intensive migration of Armenians to the Nagorno (Upper) Karabakh region. Karabakh, which is among the regions where Turkic tribes have settled throughout history, has an area of 5 per cent of Azerbaijan's territory. With the Turkmenchay Treaty in 1828, Karabakh, which included Azerbaijani khanates such as Revan, Nakhchivan and Ganja, was captured by the Russians. After this date, the Russians brought Iranian and Anatolian Armenians to the Caucasus region and settled them in Karabakh. There are not only religious and ethnic reasons for the policy of migration to this region other than the Turkish people.

There are Turkic or Turkicised peoples in a wide land basin between China and Russia from Central Asia to Anatolia. They use Turkish or languages or dialects from the same language family and are related in terms of customs and traditions. Although the idea of Turanism or Pan-Turkism is far from reality today, strategic migration decisions were implemented and buffer zones were created to prevent this possibility, especially during the Stalin period. The most important of these is the strategically important Nagorno-Karabakh region of Armenia and Azerbaijan, which is a gateway to Asia through the Caucasus. This key region acts almost as a plug.

The main reason behind the efforts to realise the vision of Greater Armenia and Greater Israel envisaged by global or regional actors in the future is the presence of the Turkish gene, which is scattered in a very large geography and is very difficult to dominate when it comes together. The reason behind giving different names to geographies and mosaicising the Turks by bringing ethnic origins to the forefront stems from the understanding of keeping the Turks under control by separating and dividing them into small parts, and destroying the Turks' ability to become a regional, continental and global power before they can flourish. Today's answer to the question of whether the Turks could unite if they were allowed to do so would be an unthinking no.

Atatürk's realist point of view was not to unite the Turks under a single roof, but to create a table of maximum Turkish States in the United Nations and to ensure that more fingers were raised in favour of the Turks in the votes. Therefore, the founding philosophy of the Republic of Turkey was to create a belt of peace around Turkey and to push the threat beyond this belt. On the contrary, implementing a policy such as expanding the territory of the country, taking an active stance, and incorporating other peoples would cause the dominoes to move so much that they cannot be easily put in place.

At the level of national power, no country is capable of stopping or controlling such rapid movements on its own. For this reason, the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan is very important, Armenia is located between Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan autonomous region, Armenia is under the influence of the Armenian Diaspora on the one hand and Russian hegemony on the other, and therefore cannot independently establish friendly relations with Turkey. Today, Armenia is not allowed to enter the country unless it recognises the so-called Armenian Genocide at the customs gate. While there were Turkish atrocities in the Balkans, the Caucasus and in the depths of Russia, the Turks remained oppressed and silent, while the Turks and Armenians, who lived together in Anatolia for centuries as more than brothers, somehow tried to destroy their brothers by collaborating with the Russians and later with other nations when the Turkish authority was at its weakest.

One of the bitter consequences of the war period was that when the Anatolian Armenians committed massacres in eastern Anatolia with foreign support, the Ottoman Empire systematically pursued a policy of deportation only for the rebels in eastern Anatolia and not for the entire Ottoman territory, but some Armenian citizens perished during these deportations. This is a catastrophic situation. It cannot be denied. However, Genocide, Holocaust, Massacre, Meds Yeghern, etc., whatever the name, does not mean the systematic destruction of an ethnicity. Although the use of the name Meds Yeghern, which means great disaster in Turkish and genocide in Armenian, by the US seems to satisfy both countries diplomatically, the mistreatment of Armenians in Anatolia is incomparable to the Turkish atrocities in the Balkans.

According to Turkish customs, if a person has been harmed even with the tip of a needle, he should be asked for forgiveness. These sufferings should be compensated. However, since the genocide allegations are the preliminary diplomatic and legal lever of the demand for compensation and land, and since a very serious crime against humanity is labelled against a nation and its Seven Elders, responding positively to the demand for compensation and land is a legal situation that can never and absolutely not be accepted. Such an unscrupulous act has never been committed in Turkish history and will never be committed.

Another interesting situation in the Caucasus is the systematic migration of European Jews to the Caucasus. During World War II, the new homeland of Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Turkmens, Karakalpaks, Balkars, Karachays, Azerbaijanis, Dagestanis, Ingush and Chechens belonging to the eastern legions fighting on the side of Nazi Germany was Turkey. However, in support of the Caspian hypothesis, ‘The ancestors of the Greater Caucasus are united with the ancestors of Southern Europe, the Middle East and Eastern Europe. The genome of European Jews is a composite of ancient Jewish-Caspian, Greco-Roman, Mesopotamian and Israeli Jews. And their population structure was shaped in the Caucasus, and their roots, which extend to Canaan and Jordan, are embroidered on the banks of the Volga.’ According to this claim, there is a considerable Jewish presence in the Caucasus.

In the recent tensions between Germany, which backs Ukraine, and the RF, the perception that the Jews in the region can be mobilised in support of Germany is created behind Germany's veiled threat. The reason for creating a historical link is to create an argument against the strategic interests of the USA and the RF in the region. With such a historical link, it is aimed to create Greater Armenia and Greater Israel.

The"Clash of Civilisations ’ thesis pursues the same goal. It is a natural expectation and desire of the hegemonic power to divide the peoples in the region into ethnic states and then to make the desired parts subservient to regional and global powers. The establishment of unity and solidarity and the protection of the unitary structure are the main problems of states at the level of national power. The concept of the Greater Black Sea Region is directly related to this issue. The power struggle between the global power USA, the continental power EU and RF in the sea and land basins of the Black Sea and the problematic of retaining the sovereignty of the states at the national power level in the region lead to the Black Sea being defined as a wide geographical region from time to time and a narrow geographical region from time to time.

Similar situations exist in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The division of geography into North Ossetia and South Ossetia has today divided the Ossetian region into two. When expressions such as North-South, East-West, Up-Down start to be used, it should be understood that a power wants to divide these regions. In such a case, one must look at the power that can prevent this. Is such a thing possible, is there a power capable of this, if there is, does this power have such a will, can this course of action be implemented, can it be implemented or can it be accepted? It is necessary to make a situation judgement by seeking answers to these questions. Every detail should be analysed in terms of time-space factors, risk-taking capacity and the ability to implement this course of action.

When the Russian Federation struck South Ossetia against Georgia in 2008, since no power that could stop the Russian Federation could assume the risk of conflict, the military operation in South Ossetia and other parts of Georgia was only passed over with low-profile diplomatic approaches such as condemnation. With this military intervention, RF took revenge for the Republic of Kosovo. However, the problems in Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been put on hold without a solution. Ossetia is inhabited by Ossetians, Russians, Georgians, Armenians and Jews. In 1768, after the Ottoman-Russian wars, the Ossetians sided with the Russians.

In 1843, Ossetia became part of the Tbilisi province. However, when Georgia declared its independence after the 1917 October revolution, Ossetia was divided into two and South Ossetia remained on the Georgian side. However, as a result of the Red Army's re-entry into Georgia in 1921, an autonomous region was established under the name of South Ossetia Autonomous Region. Historically, Georgia has made a special effort to Georgianise and annex this autonomous region to itself. Until 2008, the Ossetians were unable to maintain their unity and solidarity among themselves, and South Ossetia preferred to remain as an autonomous region independent from Georgia's sovereignty or as an autonomous region allied to the RF.

In 2008, as a result of the RF military intervention in Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia declared their independence. Abkhazia likewise opposed the Georgianisation policy. The fact that the Ossetians speak a Persian-origin language has caused the RF to pursue a policy of balance against Iran and Turkey. However, despite everything, Abkhazia and Ossetia have never changed their favourable attitude towards Russia.

Since the Putin Doctrine dictates that the peoples who want to re-affiliate to the Russian Federation or declare their independence despite having broken away from the USSR should be brought under the control of the RF, the RF increases its efforts to prevent those who want to align with the USA or the EU and to win those who want to align with the RF, and makes moves as if proving that it has the power in the region again.

With its recent military operations in Syria, the RF is also making manoeuvres that confirm its influence and power in the region. Although there seems to be a mutual power struggle, the US and Russia pursue a sensitive policy of not stepping on each other's feet in the grey areas where their strategic interests overlap.

Seeing the gaps created by the noticeable loss of power of the RF after the Cold War, the US even provided financial aid to the RF in order for it to stand on its feet again after the Cold War. The collapse and disintegration of the RF did not suit the interests of the USA. Because there is a rising threat of China and India adjacent to this geography. From time to time, the emergence of Chinese and Indian naval forces in the eastern Mediterranean reveals the signs of new global powers and a multipolar world order. The formation of an enlarged Black Sea Region will increase the interest and attention of more powerful actors to the region. Therefore, the emergence of local powers in the Black Sea region as a regional power without fully consolidating their institutional infrastructures may lead to the emergence of additional problems.

4. The European Union and the Greater Black Sea Region

The EU's approach to the concept of the Greater Black Sea Region is shaped by the Black Sea Synergy, the European Neighbourhood Policy, the Eastern Partnership, the Danube Strategy and the Cross-Border Cooperation Programme in the Black Sea Basin (ENPI). The NATO and EU membership of Romania and Bulgaria, which were part of the Eastern Bloc and Warsaw Pact before the Cold War, after their liberation from the hegemony of the USSR and their integration into the Western Bloc, has been an important development for the EU to penetrate the Black Sea basin. Although the above-mentioned co-operation activities were carried out under the name of establishing stability, security and prosperity, they turned into mechanisms that reinforced the EU presence in the Black Sea. With the definition of a large Black Sea region including the Baltic, the Balkans and the Caucasus, the EU wanted to encircle this region with an indirect behaviour strategy. It has also increased its strategic partnership activities and diplomatic contacts with the Russian Federation. The actors in the region have different approaches to the frozen problems.

Countries that have left the umbrella of the Russian Federation and are looking for a new harbour have wanted to gather under the umbrella of the EU in order to protect their survival and increase their welfare levels. As a result of Turkey's membership in NATO and its pro-Western attitude demonstrated by its performance in the EU accession process, Turkey has developed relatively more in terms of democracy, prosperity and stability in the region and has been able to become one of the G-20 countries. Turkey is rapidly progressing towards becoming a G-10 country. A pro-Western Turkey, which managed to defend itself against the USSR and stay away from Russian hegemony, has attracted attention as a country that the countries of the Balkans, the Middle East, the Caucasus and North Africa look to as a role model. For this reason, Bulgaria and Romania have been successful in EU and NATO membership, while Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia have failed to integrate despite this pro-Western attitude.

RF's influence on these countries continues. However, the recent change in Turkey's relations with the West has brought it closer to the Russian Federation, and the actors in this dynamic geography are in the process of repositioning. Stability and security in the Black Sea region due to frozen problems, organised crime groups and weak governments make it difficult to maintain peace and balance. Risk regions are also opportunity regions. Benefits can be gained in proportion to the share of risk taken. For this reason, powerful organisations such as the EU want to control risky areas and benefit from the underground and aboveground riches of the region. The Black Sea basin is intended to be economically, politically and militarily integrated into the Baltic, the Balkans and the Caucasus.

In this sense, the issue of Black Sea expansion is in favour of both the EU and the US. However, it should not be forgotten that it is not possible to smoothly realise any formation that Turkey and Russia, two important countries in terms of the length of the Black Sea coast, do not want. In this sense, it is rational for Turkey and the Russian Federation to cooperate. However, the historical process has shown that the RF has preferred strategic guidance rather than strategic partnership unless there is a country equal to itself. Although there were periods when Turkey attempted to establish a strategic partnership with the Russian Federation, these relations were not reciprocated. It is possible to see traces of this even in a simple tomato export.

EU policy in the Black Sea region with the aim of securing energy supplies in the region in favour of the EU;

 Sustaining conflict management,

 Combating organised crime and terrorism, including migration and border controls,

 Ensuring security and stability in the long term, establishing peace and tranquility,

 The establishment of democracy and the rule of law.

Similar situation is also valid for the USA. Without using the word ‘energy’, any actor is making intensive efforts in the Black Sea region for its own strategic interests through environment, human rights, peace, aid, etc. The downstream countries resist this approach. The EU is expanding its area of interest eastwards by implementing a neighbourhood policy that includes Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Belarus. However, it is confronted by the RF at every step it takes for this purpose. Therefore, the EU reviews its policies with Russia on a case by case basis. Because reliable energy transfer remains under the initiative of the RF. Extra-regional actors such as the EU believe that the countries in the Black Sea region cannot provide a stable and reliable environment on their own, and that organisations such as the EU and NATO and global actors such as the US should be involved in the region in solving the problems.

In this context, these global and continental actors encourage the countries in the region for some cooperation mechanisms. The countries in the region want to expand the Black Sea region on the Baltic-Black Sea axis through bilateral or multiple cooperation agreements.

Georgia's New Friendship Group consists of Lithuania, Romania, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Canada, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Poland, the USA and Sweden (not represented in Berlin at the group meeting). These friendship groups are mechanisms established to ensure security and stability.

In the event of a military intervention similar to the RF's military intervention in Georgia in 2008, it is valued that these mechanisms will not be functional, however, cooperation that will create mutual dependence will support the preservation of peace. Similarly, there is also a Turkey-Georgia Friendship Group.

Looking at the region in general perspective, it is seen that many bilateral and multiple cooperation mechanisms have been tried. In addition to these mechanisms, the members of the GUUAM-ODED (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova) Organisation for Democracy and Economic Development, which came together in the aftermath of the Rose and Orange revolutions, are attempting to get Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Lithuania and Hungary to join this mechanism in order to revive the groupings in the region. It was later renamed GUAM when Uzbekistan left membership. The main objective of all these efforts is to create an enlarged Black Sea region by adding the Baltic, Balkans and Caucasus regions to the Black Sea beyond the Black Sea littoral states, and to expand the EU's sphere of interest and influence by ensuring stability, security and prosperity through economic, military and political cooperation mechanisms. An important reason for this expansion is the oil and natural gas reserves in the Caspian Sea and its neighbouring countries (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan).

Therefore, the safe transfer of energy resources from downstream countries where fossil fuels are found to Europe via pipelines, sea transport or other logistics capabilities makes the cooperation efforts meaningful for Europe. EU-based programmes such as TRACECA (Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia) and TACIS (Technical Aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States) or institutions such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) have the same objective.

Since every frozen issue that hinders secure energy transfer creates a situation to the detriment of Europe, it requires intensive shuttle diplomacy to isolate the RF and turn the initiative in favour of the EU by involving a large number of countries in cooperation mechanisms in a geography spanning from the Baltic to the Caucasus.

Since one of the most important factors to ensure stability is the economy, economic cooperation organisations become an important tool. The most important of these mechanisms is the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC). The Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organisation ‘BSEC aims to diversify and further develop bilateral and multilateral economic, technological and social relations among its member countries by taking advantage of their potential, geographical proximity and the complementary characteristics of their economies, thereby making the Black Sea basin a region of peace, stability and prosperity.’

Operating since 1992, the organisation has expanded with the accession of the BSEC Observers and Sectoral Dialogue Partners and has reached a dimension of cooperation very different from its original objectives. In the final declaration of the summit meeting of the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation held in Istanbul on 22 May 2017 under the Turkish presidency, it was declared that the regional and global function of the organisation has expanded considerably. This is in line with the enlarged Black Sea Region approach.

5. The United States, the Russian Federation and the Greater Black Sea Region

The architect of the concept of the Greater Black Sea Region is the USA. The reason behind such approaches of the USA stems from its reflex, as a global power, to transfer some of its power elements to any point in the world at any time and place it wants, and to prevent a formation outside its control before it has a chance to flourish. The USA has been creating rules of law since the day it appeared on the world stage. Most recently, it created a new rule of law with a proactive approach under the name of preventive self-defence in the concept of the Gulf Operation it carried out in the 1990s. Although this new rule of law has been debated, it has created a right of intervention that goes much further than the exercise of the right of self-defence. When the US brought this new rule of law to the agenda, it did not even recognise the UN in a sense, and even forced the UN to persuade the UN in this direction by using its global power. Although the USA may seem justified in this attitude from one aspect, from the point of view of universal legal principles, it has confronted countries at the level of national power with a great threat. In military literature, there is a type of operation called strategic raid.

Although the global power clearly states its intentions, countries at the level of national power cannot provide adequate preparation and are subjected to a raid. As a matter of fact, this is what happened in the Gulf Operation; the US declared that it would intervene militarily in Iraq and prepared an army of 200.000 people within 6 months, but during this period, Iraq was not prepared enough to resist such a force. Moreover, there was no counter-force to prevent such an operation. In Syria, on the other hand, a very different state of war has been tested. An environment has been created in which subcontractor states have been used, just like a construction tender, which is conducted under the control of global powers and in which international terrorism is also involved.

Global powers do not hold the fire with their hands as in the past, but carry out operations through their subcontractors. It is highly probable that the new world order will have similar approaches. At the end of the regional wars in which there will be subcontractor states and terrorist organisations by the global powers, which will be more than two poles, the global powers will reach their strategic interests. However, unlike here, where the strategic interests of the global powers overlap, there will be a strategic co-operation, not a conflict. In this context, the Black Sea region differs from other regions in the world. RF does not want to bring the countries under the umbrella of the USSR into the sphere of influence of global and continental actors. On the contrary, global and continental actors are trying political-military ways to penetrate into this umbrella. The concept of the Greater Black Sea Region emerged from this understanding. RF's conservatism conflicts with the efforts of the US and the EU to penetrate the region.

The total Gross National Product (GDP-Global Domestic Product) in the world in 2015 was approximately 74.152 trillion dollars. Under normal conditions, 90% of these goods are transported by sea trade. In times of crisis, the contraction of production and the large number of carrier ships cause freight prices to fall and maritime trade decreases up to 75 per cent of the shrinking world production.

There is a commercial loss of approximately 20 trillion dollars. The US has also opened the door to a new era with Trump. Trump's deputy Mike Pence's statement that ‘the era of strategic patience is over’ clarifies the issue. It is not known how long Trump will be able to continue as the US President. In open publications, it is said that only 6 senators still have faith in Trump.

Nevertheless, Trump's initiatives, such as almost extorting Qatar, finding NATO unnecessary and dysfunctional, and announcing that he will carry out a very harsh and painful punitive action against North Korea give the impression that the US will become aggressive in the medium and long term and will increase military measures rather than diplomatic measures for the sake of its strategic interests. The China-US cold war continues. The turnover rate of money circulating in the world cannot be increased with high technology and lending methods. As a result, there is a need for regional wars with a policy of demolish and rebuild. The economic crises that occurred in the early 1900s and eventually led to the outbreak of two world wars led to the collapse of empires and the establishment of states. Nowadays, states are being destroyed and replaced by ethnic states, and the institutional infrastructures of these ethnic states are being transformed into a structure in which global capital can circulate easily. This need has become a threat to unitary state structures and has created a survival problem.

It is well known that in all states with a unitary structure, the national elements are somehow worn out and rendered inoperable. The Greater Black Sea Region has become a great laboratory for the USA. It is possible to create many ethnic states and integrate them into the West. In this respect, since the Black Sea region has much more dangerous and fragile fault lines than the Middle East, the inability to keep the fire under control and the uncertainty of its consequences dictate a cautious approach to the concept of the Greater Black Sea Region. There is a dense Turkish presence in the Black Sea region in terms of ethnicity.

No matter how much you fragment and divide the Turks and make them enemies of each other, when there is a problem of survival, even the most bloody-blooded groups can suddenly unite and resist the enemy. Throughout history, the Russians were aware of this and tried to assimilate the Turks through cultural imperialism and oppression, but after realising that the Turks could not be assimilated, they made practices that prevented these elements from coming into contact with each other through strategic migration policies.

The USA, on the other hand, has been making efforts to make Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia subservient to itself through soft power, to have a military presence in these regions, and to bind them to itself through economic relations, military aid and grants. In order to penetrate this region, the US continues its indirect behaviour strategy and carries out its activities in the countries surrounding the RF in the same way and thus tries to keep China under control. However, the main problem area for the US is in the Black Sea maritime basin.

The US calls the Black Sea a strategic gap. The Montreux Convention restricts the military activities of both the US and non-Black Sea littoral states in the Black Sea basin. Although it does not have its own exclusive economic zone, the US occasionally sends ocean-type coast guard boats to Bulgaria or Romania and carries out patrol missions in the Black Sea. Apart from entering the Black Sea through the Turkish Straits, it is also possible to enter the Black Sea through rivers. The most favourable river for this purpose is the Danube. The Danube has a connection all the way to the Netherlands. The question of whether the transfer of warships to the Black Sea via the Danube would breach the restrictions of the Montreux Convention has often been discussed.

The most important question asked is whether the 21-day time limit can be overcome by sailing in and out of the Danube. After all these thought exercises, the point reached is always the same. It is easier to terminate the Montreux Convention than to break a cotton thread. So why has none of the state parties resorted to termination? The answer lies in the fact that there is still a need for the Montreux Convention, which has kept all parties at a balance point and contributed significantly to the peace and stability of the east-west blocs for nearly 81 years. Today, the blocs have disappeared. Countries that left the eastern bloc, mainly for economic reasons, are trying to adapt to the west as soon as possible and even want to become EU and NATO members and feel safe and secure. This desire creates a favourable environment for the US to penetrate the region.

Strategic partnership agreements have been concluded between the US and Russia on various occasions. One of them was signed on 24 May 2002. In the aforementioned declaration of partnership, it was stated that a new strategic relationship was established. Thus, the United States and Russia announced to the world community that the era of seeing each other as enemies or strategic threats was over and that they would address global challenges together by advancing stability, security and economic integration, and cooperate to help resolve regional conflicts. This is a paradigm shift. The United States and Russia on the Black Sea;

 will co-operate to resolve the regional conflicts in Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh

 that they will resolve the Transnistrian issue in Moldova,

 The Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia should show flexibility and a constructive approach to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,

They have expressed their support for the settlement of the frozen conflicts. At the same time, the United States and Russia, as Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, pledged to support the resolution of the frozen conflicts.

To further the above goals, the United States and Russia have strongly emphasized that they will continue an intensive dialogue to engage in international and regional issues in both bilateral and international forums, including the UN Security Council, the G8, and the OSCE, and that when they have disagreements, they will seek to resolve them in a spirit of mutual respect. However, this meaningful flirtation was shaken by the creation of the Republic of Kosovo and came to a crisis with the western assertion of the RF in the South Caucasus and subsequently in Crimea. As far as possible, the US and the Russian Federation act in such a way that they do not step on each other's toes in the region.

The US, on the other hand, has been covertly pursuing its unspoken energy needs and its goal of ensuring the safe and uninterrupted transfer of natural gas and oil-derived energy resources in the region to the West through soft power instruments.

With arguments such as democracy, human rights, environment, fight against smuggling, illegal migration, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, it endeavours to keep the energy need in the Black Sea basin under control. RF, as a downstream country or by keeping the downstream countries under its control, takes political-military measures to show that it will not allow any development against its will.

Although the declarations of intentions are based on peace, stability and trust, when there are conflicts of interest, a covert struggle is also going on in the background. The closer the US gets to the sovereign territories of the RF, the more the RF is threatened for its survival. Especially the Caucasus is a very sensitive region. In the event of a contrary development, RF is aware that this line will be torn as far as Moscow. Therefore, its reactions are sometimes very harsh. The example of Georgia is a concrete proof of this. It also considers NATO presence in the Black Sea as a threat and openly declares that it will strike all NATO elements when necessary. RF's desire to descend to the Mediterranean and its feeling of being stuck in the Black Sea through the Turkish Straits fuels its goals of access to the warm seas.

Finally, as a result of NATO's military intervention in Libya and the embargo operation in the Mediterranean, Russia lost a very important forward base. In order to avoid the same situation in Syria, it is taking very harsh military measures. Therefore, although it seems to be favourable to the approach of an expanded Black Sea region with economic, cultural, etc. activities, it is obvious that RF will not allow a permanent US or EU military presence in this region.

After the establishment of Kosovo, the RF realised that it was a model. Despite the awakening of the desire for self-determination of peoples from the Balkans to the Caspian and the support of the EU and the US to the struggle for independence of these peoples, RF did not stop the regional cooperation mechanisms and wanted to transform these mechanisms in its favour, as in the OSCE Minsk Group, but on the other hand, it created a new focus of power by establishing the Eurasian Economic Union in 2014. This new union will ensure the control of energy resources. In fact, the region called Eurasia covers the Baltic and Black Sea coasts.

RF wants to integrate Ukraine into the Eurasian Economic Union, especially Ukraine, which is one of the countries that the EU and the US are interested in the region described as the Greater Black Sea Region.

Turkey, too, has recently distanced itself from the US and the EU and has been searching for a new direction. For this reason, it is not in favour of solving the frozen problems. It thinks that a declaration of independence may arise after the resolution of these problems.

It is not possible for the RF to re-establish the USSR in the short and medium term. However, it wants the states in the USSR geography, which are independent or on the way to become independent, to act in favour of the RF.

This alliance, even if it is based on economic, political or military ties, will not be in line with the interests of the EU and the US in the region. Therefore, the Atlantic-Eurasian rivalry will continue for many years. Since the weaker countries in the region will be the most affected by this rivalry, they will protect their survival by placing themselves under an appropriate security umbrella.

6. Impact of the Extended Black Sea Region Approach on Turkey

Turkey has the longest coastline in terms of coastal length among the Black Sea littoral countries. Geostrategically, it is located at the very centre of Eurasia, in a very important position where the West opens to the East and the East to the West. In this context, the importance of the naming of geography should be emphasised once again.

Turkey is often referred to as a bridge between Asia and Europe. This definition is quite wrong and unacceptable in terms of Turkey's interests. A bridge is a place that is travelled over. It is not a final localisation to be reached. With a concrete example, it means that it plays the role of a carrier through which pipelines pass in terms of energy transfer.

Logistically, those carrying out commercial activities may see Turkey as a transit point, but for Turkey this transit has to come at a price. It is not acceptable for Turkey to play the role of a watchman who cannot compensate for the diesel fuel it burns in return for assuming a role that ensures the security of pipelines or ensures the safety and security of the surrounding seas and ensures the safe and secure passage of merchant ships.

Emphasising that Turkey is a bridge with a polite discourse should be persistently opposed. Turkey is geographically a strategic key point that both the west and the east cannot give up. It is a balancing actor in keeping the Black Sea in peace and stability. Turkey plays a leading role in the establishment of many mechanisms related to the Black Sea.

Turkey has deep historical ties with the Black Sea littoral states as well as strong transatlantic ties as a NATO member. However, there has been a paradigm shift in the world, the strategic centre of gravity has shifted back to Asia, and in a multipolar world order, Turkey has to make a new decision and become part of a formation that will further strengthen itself in the new world order.

It is impossible to continue with the strategies of the Cold War period and before. Turkey generally prefers an approach that favours the status quo. However, it will no longer be possible to maintain the status quo at the level of national power.

Turkey is in a geographical position that is highly affected by the Atlantic-Eurasian rivalry. It is subjected to a pressure that pushes it left and right, as if a parent who loves his child very much but is in the process of divorce wants to take his child by the arm and pull him to his side with all his might. Today, a decision process as simple as the simplicity of the bipolar world order will not provide a solution. Just as there are hybrid wars, there will be hybrid pacts. Turkey has to be involved in both security mechanisms and economic co-operation mechanisms with the east on the one hand and the west on the other. As in the bipolar world order, the parties are not clear.

Enemies cannot be defined. Within a country, there are elements that can establish friendship as well as structures that can be hostile. The enemy is now everywhere. Today, even states cannot be completely sure of themselves. International terrorist organisations such as the Fethullahist Terrorist Organisation (FETÖ) or the PKK are the most professional examples of hybrid wars. Within the state, within the private sector, from the janitor to the grocer, from the yufka maker to the coffee house owner, they conduct covert wars independent of the hierarchical structure and cooperate with structures like theirs in other countries. Like a virus that has settled inside states, it takes on all kinds of roles in order to collapse the immune system. The superpowers, which use these terrorist organisations as pawns, carry out impact-oriented operations against foreign countries under the direction of their own intelligence organisations.

Looking at the Baltic, Balkans, Black Sea and Caucasus countries, it is seen that there is a dense FETÖ structure. After the 15 July attempt, it is seen that many members of the terrorist organisation fled to these geographies, where they found a living space especially in Germany, Sweden and Norway. The concept of an expanded Black Sea Region is a macro concept. However, by looking at the issue on a micro scale, it will be possible to see the big picture by combining each piece of the puzzle one by one.

Today, the US or the EU entering the Black Sea with large-scale military operations and shaping this geography will only lead to the outbreak of World War III and at the end of this war, there will be great destruction that no one wins. No one will be able to embark on such a violent, painful and uncertain adventure in this century. Therefore, instead of creating virtual threat perceptions, shaping operational environments through terrorist organisations and wasting unnecessary effort such as territorial occupation, it is preferred to use mechanisms that can use the underground and surface resources of downstream countries for their own interests. Therefore, when Turkey looks at the Black Sea issue, efforts should be made to resolve the problems only by the littoral states, to formulate policies towards the establishment of security or economic co-operation mechanisms among the littoral states and to maintain the Black Sea Balance established by the Montreux Convention.

While Turkey's official views on the Black Sea Policy are in this context, it has been observed that FETÖ members who have penetrated into the state favoured the concept of an Extended Black Sea Region in the relevant government departments and changed the policy papers and developed policies contrary to the Black Sea Policy attitudes of the Republic of Turkey and created de facto situations that put Turkey in a difficult situation in international environments.

On 15 July, the treachery of these illegal formations came to light. For this reason, the political-military situation assessments written after 2007 and the policy papers of the foreign contacts made on the subject should be analysed one by one and the FETÖ-influenced inputs should be weeded out one by one.

The fact that those who wrote policy papers opposing the concept of an expanded Black Sea Region are being tried in conspiracy cases is the most concrete example of this danger. Turkey should answer the following questions with common sense:

 Can survival be protected with the existing security mechanisms?

 Do I have to take refuge in or become a party to any pact?

 Is there a risk of disintegration? If so, should I grow?

 What are the real threat elements that are free from virtual threat perceptions?

 Can I create a peace belt around me?

 What is the future of the EU and NATO for Turkey?

 Am I at risk of war?

 Will I be able to protect the unitary state structure? Should I protect it?

 How national should I be?

It is possible to multiply these questions. However, what Turkey has learnt through bitter experience every time is that if even one of the security mechanisms established by Atatürk is tampered with, Turkey will not be spared any disaster. Atatürk's modern state model must first be perceived correctly, the parts that have been deliberately and deliberately contaminated must be removed, and it must be developed by rethinking it with today's parameters.

The model put forward by Atatürk is a model that can ensure the survival, peace and prosperity of countries at the national power level against continental, global and regional powers. It is of course possible to make Turkey a regional power today. However, growing beyond the borders of Misak-i Milli (our current borders are smaller than the borders of Misak-i Milli) is risky enough to cause Turkey to shrink into several pieces in the second phase. Therefore, pursuing dreams such as Ummahism or Turanism instead of nationalism would be a course of action that could result in the disintegration of Turkey. With the end of the bipolar order, the US has been searching for a new enemy. The most important formula for the retention of power is the creation of enemies through the perception of a virtual threat.

Power cannot be acquired without creating enemies. In 2001, the perception of radical Islam as a threat with the collapse of the twin towers, Samuel Huntington's ‘Clash of Civilisations’ thesis and all derivative publications are based on the principle that the global power can exist in all parts of the world and implement strategies to ensure its own interests. Therefore, Turkey, which is caught between the RF, which does not want global and continental powers to penetrate a geography dominated by the RF, and the US and the EU, which want to have a presence in this region, should take strategic steps to expand its areas of interest without being harmed by this conflict.

In a classic British politics, whichever of the two options you choose, the British will be the winner. This is because, before entering into a political relationship, the British either take steps to destroy other options or create illusions to prevent the realisation of other options. This ingenuity has led to a genetic characteristic of the British throughout history. They apply the same method every time without any creativity and manage to be the winning side every time. The same codes are hidden in Iran. Turkey, too, needs to become a country that creates and determines options, rather than a country that has the freedom to choose one of the two options offered to it.

Turkey has become such an important actor that it has almost become one of the G-10 countries. However, instead of being a giant with its eyes closed and walking in the direction it is called, it needs to become a structure that knows where it is going, has awareness, can follow a proactive attitude, can identify its interests and has the strategic foresight to achieve them. The first way to do this is to purge the traitors within and activate the filters that will prevent new chameleons from settling in their place.

To date, Turkey has pioneered the establishment of very important mechanisms in the Black Sea region. In addition to its activities in the EU, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Convention on Conventional Forces in Europe (CICA), the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NAC), the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), the Partnership for Peace Initiative (PfP) and NATO; It plays an active role in cooperation mechanisms such as the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), Black Sea Maritime Cooperation Task Group (BLACKSEAFOR), Operation Black Sea Harmony (Black Sea Harmony), Black Sea Coastal States Border/Coastal Security Cooperation Forum (BSCF), Turkey-Russia High Level Cooperation Council (UDIK), Bilateral High Level Strategic Cooperation Councils.

In addition, Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Oil Pipeline (BTC), Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum Natural Gas Pipeline (BTE), Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP), Trans Adriatic Natural Gas Pipeline (TAP), Turkey-Austria Natural Gas Pipeline Project (NABUCCO) Project, Russia - Turkey Natural Gas Pipeline (West Line), Blue Stream Gas Pipeline, The Turkish Stream Gas Pipeline Project contributes to regional peace and stability by creating interdependence through projects such as Turkey-Greece Natural Gas Interconnection, Baku-Tbilisi-Kars Railway Line (BTK), European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) within the scope of NATO Missile Shield Project.

Considering all the above-mentioned political, military, economic, social and cultural activities, Turkey should make hybrid choices in line with its national interests, not one of the two options. Turkey is not yet a member of any of the political and economic organisations such as the EU, the African Union and the Eurasian Union. It is a member of NATO within international security mechanisms. It has not been able to participate in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation even as an observer.

It has been able to establish bilateral military-training co-operation mechanisms with countries in the region, and has managed to conclude memoranda of understanding (MoUs) with some, framework agreements with others, and very rarely strategic partnership agreements. Turkey is a member or observer in many organisations. However, although a large number of bilateral and multilateral cooperation mechanisms have been developed in the Black Sea Region and the number of members continues to increase day by day, these organisations have remained dysfunctional most of the time.

In terms of security mechanisms, Turkey should only cooperate with the Black Sea littoral states and should not allow the expansion of these security mechanisms. The most important shortcoming of these security mechanisms is the lack of an umbrella organisation. The institutional infrastructures of the former eastern bloc countries and the western bloc countries still differ. For this reason, the approval processes of the eastern bloc countries are very delayed in the entry into force of the decisions taken.

Since it is difficult for the riparian states other than Russia and Turkey to provide financial support and play an active role in the cooperation mechanisms due to their economic problems, the functionality of the established mechanisms is questionable. There is clearly a mechanism pollution.

What needs to be done in the field of security is to unify the existing mechanisms under the umbrella of the Ministries of National Defence or the Ministries of Foreign Affairs. Turkey has made intensive efforts for the unification of security mechanisms such as BLACKSEAFOR, Black Sea Harmony, Cooperation Forum of Border/Coastal Security Organisations of the Black Sea Coastal States (BSCF) under the Summit of the Ministries of National Defence and convinced the RF in particular, but the Ministers of National Defence could not come together, citing various excuses, although Bulgaria and Romania participated in high-level consultation meetings.

After the 15 July FETO attempt, changes were made in the organisational structure of the Turkish Armed Forces and the Force Commands were transferred to the Ministry of National Defence, while the Gendarmerie General Command and the Coast Guard Command were completely transferred to the Ministry of Interior. The General Directorate of Security is under the Ministry of Interior as before. The General Staff, on the other hand, transferred its planning and logistic duties, excluding its operational powers, to the Ministry of National Defence. The National Intelligence Organisation was also taken from the Prime Ministry and attached to the Presidency. Currently, there is a two-headed security organisation. However, with the transition to the Presidential Administration System, the two-headed situation will be united under one roof as the Ministry of National Defence and the Ministry of Interior will be attached to the President in the capacity of commander-in-chief with the transfer of government duties to the Presidency.

However, in international relations, it is important who will participate in security-related meetings at the highest level in terms of reciprocity. If a security summit mechanism consisting of the Presidents or Heads of State of the Black Sea littoral countries is established, the decision-making processes will be accelerated and if all political, economic and military mechanisms are established as sub-working groups of the Summits of the Presidents, the decisions taken by the Black Sea littoral countries in NATO, OSCE and UN missions will be implemented more effectively. At present, all initiatives other than the economic mechanisms are almost equivalent to beating water out of a mortar.

All organisations with a weak financial infrastructure fail in time. Institutions and organisations with a strong financial infrastructure, on the other hand, are able to exert pressure on the countries in the Black Sea region in order to achieve their own global and continental interests, and they turn a blind eye to the achievement of some of the national interests of those countries, provided that they attract them to their side. If it is established, the decisions taken at the Summit of the Presidents of the Black Sea Riparian Countries will be expressed more strongly in other international organisations and will be taken into account more.

Instead of being a subordinate country that does not go beyond submitting a progress report by applying the prescriptions given to them, the countries of the region will have a structure that dominates its own geography and can establish relations with countries outside the geography that want to intervene in the Black Sea region in a mutually beneficial manner.

With the creation of a Black Sea Union in a narrow Black Sea Region, the Black Sea littoral countries will be able to provide a stronger unity in EU, African Union, Eurasian Union and Transatlantic relations. In conclusion, Turkey should be closer to a narrow Black Sea Region in security issues and to a broad Black Sea Region in economic issues. However, intelligence co-operation activities, which are an important element of security, should always be considered in a broad sense. Because the activities of criminal organisations start on land and continue at sea, cooperation activities for situational awareness are important. In this sense, it is of vital importance for the National Intelligence Organisation, Border and Coast Guard Commands, Gendarmerie General Command and General Directorate of Security to expand their cooperation areas with INTERPOL or other mechanisms in order to take preventive measures. An important security mechanism that can serve as an example in this sense is the European and Mediterranean Association of Gendarmes and Military Status Law Enforcement Forces (FIEP).

It is important to expand this mechanism to include the Black Sea or to establish a similar structure. However, the most important problem with these mechanisms is the risk of duplication and wastage of effort. The fact that no security unit should have policies independent from each other and that they should be complementary to each other will bring functionality.

7. Conclusion and Solution Suggestions:

It is of vital importance for the Black Sea littoral countries to be able to determine their own destiny, to offer regional solutions to their problems, to maintain stability, and to maintain peace and tranquility permanently.

This region is a geostrategic region between Asia and Europe with sustainable energy resources that cannot be ignored by global and continental powers. The 21st century and the centuries to come will be a period in which the need for energy will increase dramatically and countries with difficulties in accessing energy will lose power.

The US Gulf Operation against Iraq disrupted almost 30 per cent of China's energy needs and constituted an obstacle that the US will not be able to overcome in the power struggle until the end of the 21st century. However, China has tried to compensate for this loss by expanding into Africa and has attempted to establish energy transfer lines with the RF through the Caspian Sea littoral states.

The US has to penetrate the Black Sea and Caspian region in order to maintain its global power. Similarly, the EU countries, which have very limited energy resources, want to somehow gain access to the areas where energy resources are available. RF, on the other hand, continues its efforts to become a continental and global power again and avoids relations that could turn its advantage into a disadvantage.

If the Black Sea Region is considered in a broad sense, this region will be the area of struggle of the global powers and the stand-by problems in the region will flare up and conflict areas will emerge. Every military measure and armament to be taken will increase the risk of war, while the share of countries allocated to the Armed Forces will increase and investments in other sectors will decrease.

There are two important actors in the Black Sea maritime basin. One of them is the Russian Federation and the other is Turkey. Since the behaviour of Turkey and RF by ignoring the other littoral states or valuing them in proportion to their weight will cause these countries to shift towards other connections, all littoral states should sit at the table in an equal manner in all established mechanisms.

Problems in the Black Sea should be solved primarily among the littoral states, and regional co-operation should be established with neighbouring regions for those that cannot be solved. In Turkey, anti-Americanism has recently been on the rise and elements favourable to the Russian Federation have emerged. In this context, the experiences of Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, which seceded from the USSR and do not want to come under the umbrella of the RF and intend to secure themselves by integrating with the West, should be utilised.

In the past, the RF did not seek strategic partnership with countries at the level of national power, but used these countries as its satellites. Turkey should be involved in projects or mechanisms that will create a belt of peace around it and create interdependence, and should establish multi-polar, multi-directional hybrid cooperation, not a single bloc.

Turkey should never allow itself to be used as a bridge. Turkey is already a country of national power. Although its historical background and empire-building reflex lead Turkey to greater goals, it should be rational and not act rashly in pursuing these goals.

Turkey is under the risk of war due to the events taking place around it and the global peace index is gradually declining. According to the June 2017 report of the Global Peace Index, Turkey ranked 146th among 163 countries.

Developments in the world, the presence of multinational companies, the decline in world production, the transition to a multipolar world order, the shift of the centre of gravity (the heartland) back to Asia, the inevitable rise of China, the BREXIT concept put forward by the UK after it realised that it could not get anywhere with the existing mechanisms require Turkey to move away from classical approaches and establish multifaceted relations in political, economic, technological, social, cultural and military fields. The UK's BREXIT approach should be carefully analysed and the alliances it will establish should be closely monitored.

The illegal separatist FETÖ organisation is a typical Masonic organisation and carries out illegal activities in all countries of the world as an important actor of global terrorism. Although stopping the activities of this terrorist organisation only in Turkey and purging those who have been deciphered from official institutions will reduce the danger to some extent, the fact that they still exist outside Turkey and have huge financial resources may cause them to use other terrorist elements such as the PKK as subcontractors.

High technology and information systems have extended Turkey's sphere of interest and influence to an area wider than 1000 nautical miles. It is necessary to recognise all kinds of threats long in advance and from far away and to take preventive measures. Opening its eyes to a new era without even realising the age of enlightenment and the information age, Turkey has been caught unprepared.

An approach such as belonging to one of the opposite concepts such as Friend-Enemy, Right-Left, Communist-Fascist, West-East, Woman-Male is no longer among the requirements of this age.

While Turkey, where the smallest core unit in terms of character is the family, has not yet got used to the concept of individualism and world citizenship, it has woken up to a new world where spiritual values such as religion, nationalism, flag, customs and traditions have been destroyed and replaced by individuals of a thousand and one colours and a thousand and one beliefs.

Turkey is experiencing a problem of survival due to the events unfolding around it.

At the foundation of the Republic of Turkey, which consists of eighty peoples, a homogenous structure was established by Atatürk. If this structure is tried to be mosaicised, no glue will be able to hold this mosaicisation together.

In 1923, social consensus and balance were achieved. It is a fact that if the value system of each mosaic is attempted to be reflected in the public space created by Atatürk, an environment of anarchy will arise that cannot be prevented. The same situation exists in the countries bordering the Black Sea. If the balance of the Black Sea changes, it may be possible for the Black Sea to find stability again after very bloody wars. Therefore, one should be very cautious in allowing third elements to penetrate the Black Sea.

There is no objection to the formation of an Extended Black Sea Region in all areas other than security mechanisms. However, since there is always a possibility that the RF may create a de facto situation, such a disproportionate power can only be curbed by the International Security Mechanisms.

Turkey's experience in this context should be utilised. During and before the Cold War, NATO's role against the RF provided important support for Turkey's survival. However, the US coming to the region to establish military bases, arming the region, organising military exercises that will anger the RF and establishing the Missile Shield System will escalate tensions.

FETÖ's infiltration into official institutions and its activities in support of the Greater Black Sea Region should be carefully monitored and all attempts made in this period should be scrutinised.

As stated above, instead of black-and-white approaches, activities related to the Greater Black Sea Region should not be automatically rejected, each activity should first be discussed with the littoral states of the Black Sea, and contact should be established with other countries in the Greater Black Sea Region on agreed upon issues. The Black Sea littoral states should always be decisive.

The Black Sea littoral states should not be allowed to come together with other littoral states after Turkey and the RF have reached an agreement prior to the decision-making processes.

All decisions should be negotiated with all members at the table and the environment should not be created for other countries to feel subordinate and to adopt attitudes that would justify them to turn to other pursuits.

There is always a risk that the cooperation mechanisms established and to be established in the Black Sea will be diluted and rendered dysfunctional as a result of expansion and enlargement. Factors such as the slowing down of decision-making processes even in the EU after its enlargement, the slowing down of the EU's economic growth by members that cannot keep up, the EU's energy needs, and the aging of its manpower require the European Union to take a series of measures to prevent its disintegration. It should not be forgotten that the USSR was once a political union. The establishment of unions creates synergies, but their disintegration is a very painful process.

Therefore, it is quite risky to expand the Black Sea Region when the Black Sea littoral states have not yet fully established their feet on the ground and full co-operation among the Black Sea littoral states has not been achieved. Regional co-operation mechanisms should be established in the Baltic Region, the Balkans Region, the Black Sea Region and the Caspian Region, and a strong link should be established between these regional co-operation mechanisms.

Turkey should individually engage in bilateral and multilateral co-operation with each region and take part in Continental Unions such as the European Union, the African Union and the Eurasian Union, even as an observer. Above all, Turkey should not ignore its Transatlantic and Transpacific ties. In the recent past, Turkey has conducted its foreign policy based on basic principles such as Centre Country, Multidimensional and Multilateral Relations, Freedom-Security Balance, Zero Problems with Neighbours and Rhythmic Diplomacy. However, the approach of zero problems with neighbours has not been achieved. Therefore, the approach of zero problems with neighbours should be abandoned and a zero-sum game approach should be tried. In international relations, even if the theories are correct, failure may occur due to implementation mistakes. While determining Turkish Foreign Policy, new approaches that have not been tried before should be put through a certain test phase.

In conclusion, the countries at the level of national power in the narrow Black Sea Region should first establish regional power through a strong cooperation among themselves, create mutual and balanced ties between this regional power and other regional powers, and establish relations as a strong regional power while sitting at the table with global and continental powers. The initiative for an enlarged Black Sea Region is therefore immature and carries risks for countries with national power. Enlargement should not be envisaged without establishing a strong mechanism with the Black Sea littoral states.

Endnotes

http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_gts&arama=gts&guid=TDK.GTS.5985f58a063485.22006987 (Erişim 11.08.2017).

Lacoste Yves, Understanding the Great Game, NTV Publications, 2008, Syf.8

Turkish Straits Marine Map (by AFCAN)

http://www.mfa.gov.tr/moldova-siyasi-gorunumu.tr.mfa

https://www.21yyte.org/tr/merkezler/bolgesel-arastirma-merkezleri/rusya-slav-arastirmalari-merkezi/1774-kucuk-kaynarca-antlasmasi-ve-kirim-meselesi

Tebrizli, M.N.(1946). Azerbaijan Case, Istanbul: Türk Kültür Ocağı Yay. p. 8; Kurat, A.N.(1999). History of Russia, Ankara: TTK Yay., p.323; Yalçın,A.(1995). ‘Türk Halklarında Milli Uyanış’, Avrasya Etüdleri, C. 1, S. 4, Ankara, p.8; Gömeç.S.(1999). History of Turkish Republics and Communities, Ankara: Akçağ Yay., p.21; M. Saray.M.(1984). ‘Azeri Turks’, Turkish World Research, S.29, p.28-29.

Taşkıran, C.(1997). ‘Karabakh'da Son Durum’, Yeni Türkiye, C. 3, S. 16, Ankara, p. 1192.

http://www.goc.gov.tr/icerik3/kitlesel-akinlar_409_558_559 (Accessed 17.04.2017).

Elhaik,E.(2012) The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses, (trans. Furkan Demirpehlivan) yaklasansaat.com. http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/12/14/gbe.evs119.short?rss=1

Aurescu,B.(2011). ‘The role of the European Union in the Wider Black Sea Region’, Turkish Policy Quarterly, Vol. 10, No: 1, pp. 35-45: https://www.esiweb.org/pdf/esi_turkey_tpq_vol10_no1_Bogdan%20Aurescu.pdf

http://cbc.ab.gov.tr/siteimages/documents/karadenizbrosur.pdf

Aurescu,B.(2011). ‘The role of the European Union in the Wider Black Sea Region’, Turkish Policy Quarterly, Vol. 10, No: 1, pp. 35-45.

https://www.mfa.gov.tr/eu-and-black-sea-regional-cooperation_-cureent-prospects-of-bsec-.tr.mfa

http://www.mfa.gov.tr/guam-info.tr.mfa

https://enerji.gov.tr/neupgm-boru-hatlari-ve-projeleri

https://www.mfa.gov.tr/karadeniz-ekonomik-isbirligi-orgutu-_kei_.tr.mfa

BSEC Participants with Observer Status : Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Germany, Belarus, Israel, Italy, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Tunisia, USA, EU Commission, Black Sea Commission, International Black Sea Club and Energy Charter Secretariat. BSEC Participants with Sectoral Dialogue Partner Status: Hungary, the UK, Iran, Montenegro, Jordan, Japan, Korea and Slovenia.

https://www.mfa.gov.tr/karadeniz-ekonomik-isbirligi-orgutu-_kei_.tr.mfahttps://www.insightturkey.com/articles/turkeys-relations-and-energy-cooperation-with-the-bsec The World Bank (2015). GDP (USD per capita). World Bank national accounts data, and OECD NationalAccounts data files: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD (Accessed 03.08.2017).

UNCTADSTAT(2017). Data Centre. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development: http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx (Accessed 18.08.2017).

Koray, M.(2017). ‘Evaluation of the Effect of Freight Rates in Ship Valuation’, International Symposium of Vocational Schools (UMYOS) Proceedings, Volume-3, p. 227, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

http://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-39716887

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/24/usa.russia Hamilton, D. (2008), ‘A Transatlantic Strategy for the Wider Black Sea?’, (Eds. Hamilton, Daniel and Gerhard Mangott), The Wider Black Sea Region in the 21st Century: Strategic, Economic and Energy Perspectives Washington: Centre for Transatlantic Relations pp. 319-336.

http://www.ntv.com.tr/dunya/putin-avrasya-ekonomik-birligini-kurdu,INZMEBxmA0eidMeCnlZ_mg

Samokhvalov, V.(2017). Russian-European Relations in the Balkans and Black Sea Region : Great Power Identity and the Idea of Europe, VII: ‘Black Swan’: New Greatness, False Europe and the Ukraine Crisis (2002-2014),p.212. Springer Nature eBook.

Greene,R. and Elffers,J.(2000). ‘The 48 Law of Power’, p.7, Penguine Books.

Huntington,S.(1996). The Clush of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York: Simon and Schuster.

http://www.enerji.gov.tr/tr-TR/Sayfalar/Dogal-Gaz-Boru-Hatlari-ve-Projeleri http://www.jandarma.gov.tr/dis/fiep.htm

https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-turkiye-40122356 https://www.aljazeera.com.tr/portre/portre-ahmet-davutoglu