The Russo-Turkish Labyrinth and the Cyprus-Egypt-Israel-Greece Rapprochement

  • Costas Melakopides


This chapter will attempt to identify tendencies and proclivities by a number of actors who are protagonistic, or aspire to be such, in the convoluted geopolitical developments of the Eastern Mediterranean and the adjacent region. Questions to be raised include whether Moscow and Ankara can go beyond their material embrace to some kind of more complex interdependence; what could be the — potentially damaging — role of Turkey’s idiosyncratic political culture in Russia-Turkey relations; how far might these developing relations affect negatively Russia’s pragmatic-idealist bonds with Cyprus; what are, after all, Turkey’s overambitious geopolitical designs and how could Cyprus react to Ankara’s gunboat diplomacy and other provocations; how promising is the tripartite association of Cyprus and Greece first with Egypt and then with Israel; what, in the final analysis, can be surmised about American and British geopolitical aspirations and designs vis-à-vis Cyprus, Israel, Egypt, Greece and Turkey; and how does the Russian Federation appear to fit in this grand regional chessboard. The final chapter will explore the immediate implications of all the above for Russia-Cyprus relations.


Foreign Policy Political Culture Energy Security Exclusive Economic Zone Strategic Partnership 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Costas Melakopides, “Political Culture”, Dictionary of International Relations and Foreign Policy: History, Theory, Terminology (Athens: I. Sideris, 1998), pp. 391–393 (in Greek).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 6.
    See Selim Deringil, “Turkish Foreign Policy since Ataturk”, in Clement H. Dodd (ed.), Turkish Foreign Policy: New Prospects (Huntingdon: The Eothen Press, 1992), pp. 2–6.Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    Hercule Millas, Images of Greeks and Turks: School Books, Historiography, Literature and National Stereotypes (Athens: Alexandria, 2001) (in Greek), pp. 39–40.Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    Bahri Yilmaz, “Turkey’s New Role in International Politics,” Aussenpolitik, Vol. 45, No. 1, 1994, p. 90.Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    Deringil, op. cit., p. 6.Google Scholar
  7. 12.
    Niazi Kizilyurek, “Mumtaz Soysal: From Kemalism to Neoturkism,” in Theodore Couloumbis and Thanos Dokos (eds.), Review of Defense and Foreign Policy 2001: Greece and the World, 2000–2001 (Athens: ELIAMEP-Parateretes, 2001), p. 62 (in Greek).Google Scholar
  8. 14.
    Donald M. Payne, “Security in the Eastern Mediterranean: Bargaining with Law Breakers,” Mediterranean Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003, p. 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 15.
    Deringil, op. cit., p. 2 (emphasis added).Google Scholar
  10. 18.
    Kemal Kirisci, “Turkey and the United States: Ambivalent Allies”, in Barry Rubin and Thomas Keaney (eds.), US Allies in a Changing World, BESA studies in international security (London: Frank Cass, 2001), p. 126.Google Scholar
  11. 21.
    Costas Melakopides, “Turkey’s Political Culture as a Necessary Condition for Decoding its Policies Towards Cyprus, Greece and the European Union”, Journal of Political and Military Sociology, Vol. 34, No. 2 Winter 2006, pp. 301–17.Google Scholar
  12. 22.
    For a perceptive introduction to Davutoglu’s thinking, see Ioannis N. Grigoriadis, “The Davutoglu Doctrine and Turkish Foreign Policy”, Working Paper No 8/2010, ELIAMEP, Athens, April 2010. On p. 4, Grigoriadis wrote: “In Davutoglu’s view, Turkey is a Middle Eastern, Balkan, Caucasian, Central Asian, Mediterranean, Gulf and Black Sea country, can simultaneously exercise influence in all these regions and thus claim a global strategic role”.Google Scholar
  13. 24.
    Ahmet Davutoglu, Strategic Depth: Turkey’s International Position (Athens: Piotita, 2010) (in Greek), p. 200 (my translation).Google Scholar
  14. 25.
    Ibid., p. 279, emphasis added.Google Scholar
  15. 48.
    Zvi Magen and Gallia Lindenstrauss, “Russian-Turkish Relations: Contemporary Dilemmas of Past Empires”, INSS, Strategic Assessment, Vol. 16, No. 2, July 2013.Google Scholar
  16. 49.
    Ibid., p. 69.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Costas Melakopides 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Costas Melakopides
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CyprusCyprus

Personalised recommendations